What's in a country name?

universeness

This is just a perception that danced around my head after I had an exchange with @javi2541997 on the thread about the outcome of the recent Brazilian election and the defeat of Bolsonaro.

A thought experiment:
What if all countries were named very simply by a measurement of their level of global power and influence and their wealth/economic growth/stability?

The top country would be called country 1, so maybe America would be country 1 and maybe China would be country 2 etc.

So how would this affect human civilisation as it currently exists on Earth today?
You might consider this a trivial, silly question but if you indulge it for a moment or two you may find it quite interesting.

Would those who lived in country 1 have the highest societal status and see themselves as the most superior people on the planet?
Would everyone what to emigrate to country 1, 2 etc.
Country names could change based on the ability of their nationals to improve themselves using the capitalist model/
Would you hear people ask 'what's your nationality?' and get a response such as I am a 1 or I am a 197 (based on google reporting to me that there are currently 197 countries in the world). Would the 197's be hanging their head in shame as they revealed their nationality?
Would 'happiness and contentment,' exist mainly in the top 10 or top 20 countries?
Would such a naming system for countries reveal a great deal about what really drives human beings?
Do you think that such a naming system for countries might also clearly reveal why we need to change or else we will remain the species that has not yet (and perhaps never will) escaped its jungle rules heritage?

Perhaps Aldus Huxley's Brave New World has some parallels in that it numbered people types in terms of their significance rather than countries.

javi2541997

↪universeness

Interesting thoughts.

I don't see a possibility to name the countries with just numbers neither the fact to classify them in terms of power or wealth. It is an opened debate which country is the number "one". According to GDP is between USA and China. But if we look into Gini index it is Norway the top country.

In the other hand, it is not only about heritage but history. Every country's name represents all of our ancestors and explains where we come from.
A good example: European Union. This name comes from Greek. In classical Greek mythology, Europa was a Phoenician princess. One view is that her name derives from the Ancient Greek elements εὐρύς (eurús) 'wide, broad', and ὤψ (ōps, gen. ὠπός, ōpós) 'eye, face, countenance', hence their composite Eurṓpē would mean 'wide-gazing' or 'broad of aspect.
As you see typing each nation or group with a name has a big importance. Doing the opposite would be worthless.

What I mean to say is that one country's name is not arbitrary. It represents a lot of culture and history on the citizens.

universeness

↪javi2541997

Thanks for contributing Javi! My question is not about how we came to choose the names chosen for our current 197 countries. Its about what affects do you think it would have on our society IF we named countries based on a numerical rating, based on their success in employing the capitalist system.
I have always found the capitalist system to be akin to primeval human behaviours, related to our 'laws of the jungle' heritage. I am interested in your opinions of 'what YOU think would happen to our 'human society,' if we named countries based on this 'competitive' imperative, which is so pushed in the capitalist doctrine.

javi2541997

↪universeness

I imagine a world more competitive than we used to know. Named the countries as competitive imperative needs some standards or basic notions of why one country is called "number one" but other country is called "number one hundred ninety seven"
It would affect us. Humanity will not be the same as we know it nowadays because everything would depend on digits instead other values which doesn't have measure. For example: how can we measure the standards of living in a country? Because all of this is so much relative. We can be agree here that Nordics have the highest standards in the world but they are not in the top in terms of economics. Then, who is lying here? The measure of the GDP or Gini index?

In the other hand, numerical ratings tend to have variations. Imagine our country is called "number three" but for some reasons it gets better and changes to "number one". I see this a nonsense because the culture and customs of one country tend to be static so numerical ratings would mean a world based on countries without culture. I imagine a homogeneous world instead of the diversity as we know nowadays.

universeness

Interesting, if we based the rating purely on the main measurements used to rate the success of free market capitalism. Do you think most humans would want to live in country 1 or 2?
Do you think the 'happiest people,' people who were simply asked a question such as 'how personally content are you, based on living in this country number?' Would be always in the top 10?
Do you think people who lived in country 100 would be considered way inferior to people who lived in country 1 by most people in the world?
How much do you think people would rebel against naming countries based on such criteria?
Do you think we would have more rebellious, politically aware people than we do today?

universeness

Imagine our country is called "number three" but for some reasons it gets better and changes to "number one". I see this a nonsense because the culture and customs of one country tend to be static so numerical ratings would mean a world based on countries without culture. — javi2541997

But there could be national celebration and enormous national pride and many new opportunities for the people of country 3 who have progressed (based on the measures of capitalism) more than those who's have earned nationality 1. Their country in now named country 1 BECAUSE they obviously must have the best culture and custom foundations, as such has inspired their people to become the best at surviving according to the jungle rules and the tenets of capitalism. So many people admire the rich and want to become rich themselves, so should they not have the right to become citizens of country 1?
Why should they have to stay amongst the less entrepreneurial peoples of a country whose nationality is not even in the top 10?
Perhaps we could even use such a system of naming countries to silence all those people who think their country is the best country in the world!

javi2541997

Perhaps we could even use such a system of naming countries to silence all those people who think their country is the best country in the world! — universeness

Yes, it could be a rational solution.

But I still don't see appropriate to classify countries in just numbers. If you think it deeply this technique would let people live in more inequality than we consider it nowadays. Because a citizen who lives in a number one will always be more prosperous than a citizen from number one hundred. This is biased and relative. This is why it is impossible to put numerical standards. For example: China holds the highest GDP, so it would be named as "number one" meanwhile GDP of Spain is in the 14th position so my country would be called "number fourteen". Nevertheless, these digits are so relative because despite Spain (or "number fourteen") is poorer than China ("number one") the latter is sh*t at human rights and it is completely a dictatorship.
Paradoxically, you would live better in country fourteen rather than number one

universeness

Yes, it could be a rational solution. — javi2541997

I don't know about rational, but it's certainly a racist, elitist solution.

Nevertheless, these digits are so relative because despite Spain (or "number fourteen") is poorer than China ("number one") the latter is sh*t at human rights and it is completely a dictatorship. — javi2541997

But those in charge of country 1 would just call you a deluded 14 who peddles fake news about country 1 because you claim to live better as a 14 national than those who experience human life as a 1 national. The authorities in country 1 would simply suggest that the authorities in country 14 needs to re-educate nationals such as you or else they will never be named any better than country 14, in fact they might soon become country 15 or less based on the attitude of their citizens such as you.
I find it interesting that if we apply the main tenets of 'jungle rules' and free market capitalism logically then such a method of naming countries could become accepted and could create an even more horrible society than we have at present. Or do you disagree? Can you envisage any massive advantages of naming countries in this way, am I being way too negative about the idea?

universeness

:lol: Moved to the lounge! Obviously, a mod/administrator thought this line of questioning threatened the very fabric of their capitalistic preferences!

javi2541997

↪universeness

I don't think you are being negative about this thread. We have big problems in the wrold as we know today but at least there are aspects which are not based on numbering. That's the point I want to reach. I mean, it is not necessary to be so competitive in everything. Scotland has the best whisky in the world and I think this is due to Scottish land. If Scotland would be named "number ten" instead, we would never know the taste of Scottish whisky.

universeness

That's the point I want to reach. I mean, it is not necessary to be so competitive in everything. — javi2541997

I couldn't agree more Javi. I love it when you type such words, they offer some hope as you are part of the younger generation compared to me. BUT, I would go much further. It's competition for resources and fear that you won't get what you and your loved ones need, unless you become a gangster, or a ruthless capitalist, that is helping to destroy all that is good and benevolent about the human being.

We have to stop competing as if we still have to live under jungle rules.
We have to stop competing at all levels, family level, local community level, city level, national level, international level, cultural level, emotional level, historical level etc etc.
We need to COOPERATE NOT COMPETE! Capitalism must be reduced very very significantly.

javi2541997

We have to stop competing as if we still have to live under jungle rules.
We have to stop competing at all levels, family level, local community level, city level, national level, international level, cultural level, emotional level, historical level etc etc.
We need to COOPERATE NOT COMPETE! Capitalism must be reduced very very significantly. — universeness

Agreed :sparkle: :sparkle:

But with countries like China and USA it would be impossible.

universeness

↪javi2541997

An angry discontented global youth has the ability to end the civilisation models currently established in China and the USA. People make countries and people can remould them in whatever way they wish if they become really determined to do so and they become large enough and organised enough.
Both those systems are only a couple of hundred years old. They are really just infant manifestations of the way humans can choose to live.

javi2541997

↪universeness

That's why the European Union was established. One of the main objectives was avoid both USA and Soviet block. It was not easy because Americans tend to have a lot of power inside economics. But the creation of common treaties and common monetary policies were key to fight against dollar. It is true that European Union is not perfect but we can be agree here in the fact that they did their best to develop a system where fits different languages, cultures, governments, policies, etc...
I wish Scotland will be a member in the future.

universeness

That's why the European Union was established. One of the main objectives was avoid both USA and Soviet block. — javi2541997

And China, I think. An independent Scotland would try to re-join the European union.
I would go further, I love the idea of a continent called the UPE, The United Peoples of Europe!

javi2541997

An independent Scotland would try to re-join the European union.
I would go further, I love the idea of a continent called the UPE, The United Peoples of Europe! — universeness

Sounds formidable! :100:

Cuthbert

The People's Republic of Europe. How happy we might be with a Government of by and for the people. And the enemies of the people might be shown the error of their ways. Already I might feel like setting up a re-education centre. But something comes up and crushes that feeling. Is it capitalist brain-washing?

Cuthbert

never know the taste of Scottish whisky — javi2541997

Number Ten the Brave. Bonnie Number Ten. Flower of Number Ten. Would the Hebrides get their own number? Not sure they'd be happy with Number Ten Point One.

javi2541997

↪Cuthbert

Numbering makes me mentally exhausted. It even limits the powerful of vocabulary. Where all the words would go if we only use numbers?

Cuthbert

:ok: Eighty three and three quarters! One, thirty eight, minus twenty six? Zero.

universeness

↪Cuthbert

Why do you think a merging of all the peoples of Europe into one nation would be akin to something like Orwell's 1984? Why do you suggest it would employ the downing street number 10 or the Scottish imagery you posted?

Agent Smith

Knoema

What's in a country name?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions