One question: "Could humanity be united under one government?" Another question: "Should humanity be united under one government?"

I vote NO in both case. Can't be done; shouldn't be done.

I think the UN Declaration of Human Rights serves individual liberty better than the legal codes of many - ?most - sovereign nations.
A federation doesn't necessarily mean homogeneous centralization. In North America, states and provinces have considerable powers of internal governance; even counties and townships, not to mention incorporated cities, exercise a recognized degree of self-regulation. World government doesn't have to mean that all tribes are abolished; it can mean that all tribes have equal status; the Chinese don't get to terrorize the Nepalese and bully the Uyghur; the Fulani and and Igbo would not be stuck inside the same national borders. Grudge-wars have never been a very efficient road to self-determination.

Why do you say that? — 180 Proof

Have you ever had a problem with your user name for the internet and wished you could just call someone and explain the problem? You know, like in the not-so-distant past when we could actually talk face to face with someone when we had a problem and get it resolved. Since the day of the internet, that was the end of reasoning with another human being to resolve problems. Don't get me wrong, I love the internet but I have no desire to be under the control of AI! I think our faith in technology and failed faith in each other is a tragedy unfolding. I think increasing our reliance on AI is a terrible mistake.

↪Marigold23 One question: "Could humanity be united under one government?" Another question: "Should humanity be united under one government?"

I vote NO in both case. Can't be done; shouldn't be done. — BC

So is war a better way to resolve differences?

War is just diplomacy, negotiation, value clarification, psychotherapy, and so forth carried out by more aggressive means.

Joking, of course.

The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult.

Then try small-region government, 2 or 3 nations.

Then try for slightly larger blocks, all democratic, effective, humane, sophisticated.

That should take us out to around 2500, A.D.

The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here. — BC

Cannot be the same be said of nations, democracy and civilization? Nothing humans do will ever work as we hope and plan. But we keep trying things anyway.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC

How long, do you figure, before that's all perfected enough to give up standing armies?

How long, do you figure, before that's all perfected enough to give up standing armies? — Vera Mont

"Effective, democratic, humane government" does not guarantee peace, even if it is the best government possible. However, if countries agree to not develop the means to attack one another by any means, then THEORETICALLY no means of defense -- standing armies or other measure -- would be needed. Trust but verify, as Reagan said.

War between nations may occurs when one country decides that its interests are no longer compatible with the other country's interests, and that the level of incompatibility is unacceptable. This could happen between effective, democratic, humane governments, even if it isn't all that likely.

An example: A severe shortage of a vital resource might lead to war between otherwise good neighbors. Let's say a river supplied two nations with plenty of water. Fine and dandy, until severe drought reduced the river so much that it could not supply both countries with enough water. Country A might take all of the reduced flow of water for its own people, placing the other nation's survival at risk.

Country B might go to war to get more water.

There are some places on earth where exactly this scenario might develop. If the states depending on the Colorado River were nations, there might be a war over reduced supplies if the Colorado dried up. Several nation-states might decide that California was taking way too much of what there was. Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada might cut off the supply to California, and war would begin. That, despite all four countries being the very models of peaceful democracy.

I think our faith in technology and failed faith in each other is a tragedy unfolding. — Athena

At least ten millennia of grinding out of our lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest as civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy".

Anything that destroys the lie of ‘patriotism’ suits me fine. The utter stupidity of ‘loving your country’ is plain silly. We are Earth peoples not peoples defined by imaginary borders with made up rules/laws to live by.

:up:

One question: "Could humanity be united under one government?" Another question: "Should humanity be united under one government?"

I vote NO in both case. Can't be done; shouldn't be done. — BC

If "humanity under one government" run by humans, then I completely agree with you in both cases, BC. The inmates are congenitally too defective to run the entire asylum.

"Effective, democratic, humane government" does not guarantee peace, even if it is the best government possible. — BC

Right. So, business, conflict, persecution, economic exploitation as usual, until the climate puts an end to us - or our super weapons do. Fair enough.

At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof

A religious person could not have made a better argument for ending our liberty. However, the reasoning for democracy is based on the human potential and the Enlightenment built on literacy in Greek and Roman classics has greatly improved our lives and this was made possible by free public education for that purpose. Then we replaced liberal education with education for technology, and we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?

Also, life is better and if we think things are getting worse we should ask why instead of giving up on humans.

9 charts that prove there's never been a better time to be alivehttps://nypost.com › 2018/03/03 › 9-charts-that-prove-t...
Mar 3, 2018 — Since the mid-18th century, global life expectancy rose from 29 years (where it had hovered for 225 years) to around 71.4 in 2015.
Missing: gotten ‎| Must include: gotten — Susannah Cahalan

I want to add a thought, which among us would choose to live with our parents and be free of all responsibility except to do as we are told?

Right. So, business, conflict, persecution, economic exploitation as usual, until the climate puts an end to us - or our super weapons do. Fair enough. — Vera Mont

Maybe so. But in a way, you are more pessimistic than I am,

I think our best bet is to put together effective, democratic, humane governments. Well governed societies have (I believe) a better chance of maintaining peace with other well governed societies than societies which are badly governed.

Achieving effective, democratic, humane government is Very Difficult, never mind the impossibility of establishing world peace among governments and societies which range from crazy to just plain bad. The USA, for instance, has not achieved our good goals in full -- we've done it in small bits and pieces here and there, That goes for the other G20 countries, like UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Japan, etc.

We are a difficult species, loaded with brains and strong irrational emotions. We have proven ourselves incapable of the highest and best on a mass scale.

Capitalism is a massive problem and we should get rid of it; but doing so--by itself--won't usher in the Peaceable Kingdom.

I think you are conflating two things.

We currently have many governments with conflict, persecution, economic exploitation. You want a global government with no conflict, persecution, economic exploitation. Fair enough.

But break that down, and there are two thing in there:

1) Reform government to stop conflict, persecution, economic exploitation
2) Somehow combine current countries to make a global government

The first is the one I'm interested in. And I see no reason a global government is more likely to provide 1) than multiple governments. In fact, for the reasons I previously stated I think the a global government is likely to have as much if not more of 1).

War is just diplomacy, negotiation, value clarification, psychotherapy, and so forth carried out by more aggressive means.

Joking, of course.

The "idea" of one-world-government sounds great, at first glance. in a perfect world, with perfect people, and perfect systems, it could work. Alas, there is no perfection here.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult.

Then try small-region government, 2 or 3 nations.

Then try for slightly larger blocks, all democratic, effective, humane, sophisticated.

That should take us out to around 2500, A.D. — BC

Can we focus on gathering information so we can defend democracy with reason? What are the different forms of government? What are the benefits of each form of government? What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere? Maybe these questions that need to be answered before we consider one world government.

Here is one of my favorite quotes that justifies democracy and it may be essential to one world government.

“God's law is 'right reason.' When perfectly understood it is called 'wisdom.' When applied by government in regulating human relations it is called 'justice.” Cicero

I think our best bet is to put together effective, democratic, humane governments. — BC

How? Is that happening right now? If so, where? And how successfully? IOW - how long do you think it will take?

) Reform government to stop conflict, persecution, economic exploitation — PhilosophyRunner

Not reform - abolish.

2) Somehow combine current countries to make a global government — PhilosophyRunner

Not combine; break 'em down. The US should be at least eight separate countries, maybe more. Canada should be at least five. Australia, maybe only two, but I'm not sure. China, probably seven. States, provinces, principalities, regions, tribes, whatever social units were viable before federations and empires subsumed them, each one to become a self-designated, self-governing nation. Make all the little, workable nations independent, except for two things: international conflict, which must come under arbitration, and human rights, which are to be enforced by interpol.

What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere? — Athena

'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...

An alternative that might minimize constraints on optimal 'liberty, equality and security' would be a post-scarcity economy which probably can only be developed and maintained by AGI automation of global supply chains, manufacturing and information services.

... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses? — Athena

:100:
I agree we are in very grave trouble!

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

The US should be at least eight separate countries, maybe more — Vera Mont

If you haven't read it, you might like The Nine Nations of North America. That's one; other devolutions have been proposed, and they have some merit.

I can understand the idea of doing away with nation states intellectually, but I definitely don't feel it. I prefer a certain level of territorial exclusiveness. "We are over here; you are over there; let's keep it that way."

I can understand the idea of doing away with nation states intellectually, but I definitely don't feel it. I prefer a certain level of territorial exclusiveness. "We are over here; you are over there; let's keep it that way." — BC

Smaller territories, with homogeneous - at least in basic world-view - populations would make more sense, inspire deeper loyalty and be more coherently represented in a world court when there are resource or border disputes between territories. Also, if the self-governing power of such territorial/tribal districts is directed to the organization and welfare of the population instead of self-defense and preservation of the power structure, the people would be better off.
The United States was always a fiction - a pipedream imposed by force of arms, and at enormous cost. Just like the USSR and the People's republic of China.

Plus, it would be nice if, when the aliens land and ask to be conducted to our leader, we had one we could agree on. This is all futuristic speculation, of course; it can never happen.

What is essential to democracy and can it be implemented everywhere?
— Athena
'Political democracy' without effective economic democracy is democracy-in-name-only (DINO). In the last few centuries, however, "the Enlightenment" hasn't been radical enough for that much 'democracy' ...

An alternative that might minimize constraints on optimal 'liberty, equality and security' would be a post-scarcity economy which probably can only be developed and maintained by AGI automation of global supply chains, manufacturing and information services.

... we are in big trouble with no better way forward than to rely on a god or AI to save our sorry asses?
— Athena
:100:
I agree we are in very grave trouble!
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
— Albert Einstein — 180 Proof

At least ten millennia of grinding out of lives together in a spectrum of dominance hierarchies of our own contrivance is "faith in each other" manifest in civilization (which is still only a vaneer, mostly a banal pretense). We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. A 'tech singularity' (not to be confused with "the internet" which we use as a tool) is a plausible off-ramp from an increasingly probable 'extinction-event' (e.g. accelerating climate change and/or global pandemics and/or nuclear war) self-inflicted by corporate-state corruption / negligence and reactionary populisms (i.e. top-down vs bottom-up modes of "liberty"). 'Intelligent machines' might be the only agency which can saves us as a species from our worse selves in the long run, and I'm convinced that "merely having faith in each other" won't – IMO, that's, as you say, Athena, "the tragedy". — 180 Proof

What good talking points you presented. Have you heard about the democratic model for industry? Years ago I had the privilege of attending a seminar for the democratic model and I am sure that is our way out of the mess we are in, along with education for democracy.

I am confident that up to this point, Christianity has been the worst hindrance to democracy. A healthy democracy requires literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Only the elite could afford that education, so our thinking did not change as much as it needs to change if we are to have democracy. Perhaps Einstein did not have the necessary education if he stopped with the quote you used. He was educated in Germany, right, the nation that became the enemy of our democracy. Public education in the US did attempt to prepare us for responsible citizenship, but in the effort, it Americanized the past lessons and in so doing separated US from the past wisdom, and our Christian history made this a very serious problem of consciousness. We have the mindset that leads to your belief we must depend on a god or AI because we can not figure things out for ourselves.

The US adopted Britain's autocratic model for industry and Christianity supports that. It is what Einstien said is the wrong mindset for democracy. During the great depression Deming developed the autocratic model of industry. The autocratic model lead to not only terrible exploitation of humans and a terrible economic problem, especially when our industry was sent overseas, but it also manifested White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, male privilege that held females in slavery until just recently. The slave-master relationship of marriage is as bad as slavery is bad.

Hopefully, we are having meaningful discussions here that will recorrect the problems, including the problem of miserable families. For darn sure the correction will not be a god nor AI ruling over us.

I think the type of governments that people have known since time immemorial will probably all become antiquated relatively soon; the big difference now being the digital information revolution. I imagine the ideal future world government will be a worldwide cybernetic system responsible for equitable and balanced resource distribution in an environmentally sustainable way. Most or all work will be performed by robotics and AI producing anything we or it might need. Money will not exist since it will be a resource based economy. Laws will be as simple and as general as possible; no killing, no stealing, etc..

Governments should mimic nature as much as possible in my opinion, and should resemble how organisms are organized and function. Biological systems are cybernetic systems, and in the same way our governing systems should be cybernetic. The only goal or job a government needs to perform is the healthy maintenance of the population; to protect, to provide resources, and as much freedom as reasonably possible for every citizen (homeostasis).

All governments up until now have all become corrupt in some way or other, and i believe the reason for this consistent tendency towards eventual corruption is mainly due to human control. Remove people from political positions of power by replacing them with objective systems such as AI. An unbiased AI with perfect knowledge or information about the social system, that can not be bribed or threatened would be the ideal governing system (as long as it's done correctly).

cybernetic:
the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things.
from Greek kubernētēs ‘steersman’, from kubernan ‘to steer’.

Yessss! (We should live so long!)

We have the mindset that leads to your belief we must depend on a god or AI because we can not figure things out for ourselves. — Athena

I don't claim "we cannot figure things out for ourselves" but rather

We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global goverance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. — 180 Proof

The classical humanism of "The Enlightenment" you're espousing, Athena, reminds me of Ptolemy's epicycles. :eyes:

From my reading of history, it seems to me, human beings are too susceptible to corruption by power dynamics for us to globally govern ourselves without moral hazards further exacerbating intractible social injustices and the geoeconomic inequalities which fuel global conflicts as well as accelerate climate change. Yeah, clearly we are smart enough for liberty, but we are driven by – our value systems are derived from – scarcity; thus, macro inequality and corruption have always been and continue to be intractable constraints on exercising liberty, and so scarcity drives us to reproduce scarcity (e.g. 'the business cycle', 'man-made famines', 'hot / cold wars', etc) undermining liberty for the vast majority of human beings in most places. "Figuring things out" has always been easy: consistent, win-win execution of our best solutions has always been made much more difficult, however, by the greater ease of playing win-lose (& lose-lose) games. Aristotle's concept of akrasia is encapsulated in Jesus' admonishment to Peter in Gesthemane: "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." :fire:

Gods don't exist and AGI might never be achieved by us. The OP concerns "one world government" and my argument is that the political economics of scarcity makes that highly improbable, even impossible, for humanity. If AGI emerges, it will at least be as intelligent as its makers but will also be free of its makers' evolutionary defects (e.g. scarcity-drives); the rational solution to this historically intractable 'global governance problem' – which only AGI (or ASI) can produce – IMO, can be formulated as:

Fully realized, optimal, human liberty requires post-scarcity conditions to be sustainable.

Do you really believe, Athena, that 'the global governance problem' (e.g. climate change) is going to be solved, or even effectivey managed, by "Enlightenment" / classical democracy under material & axiological conditions of scarcity? :chin:

Judgment Day

:clap: :rofl: :100:

I just had a bucket of cold water poured over me. I watched and episode of The Nature of Things, called The Machine that Feels, about AI

As AI moves closer to replicating humans, it has the potential to reshape every aspect of our world – but most of us are unaware of what looms on the horizon.

Seems we're busily and very cleverly making them as crazy as we are.

Let's try for effective, democratic, humane government starting with existing countries, and try to get good government at every level, from township councils up to parliament. That will prove plenty difficult. — BC

A second thought on what you said here, is what family has to do with democracy and a humane government.

In a way, I feel like what I think is important is drowning in this thread. What if our lives were organized around what is best for the children? Not just what is best for my own children, but for all children and their future in this country. Can males think like that?

What happens when both parents put their careers first? What values are the children learning? How do they experience themselves?

"By feeding data about Beethoven, his music, his style and the original scribbles on the 10th symphony into an algorithm, AI has created an entirely new piece of art."

Music is mathematical. Having feelings for a child and figuring out how this child is special and the best way to help the child actualize him or herself is not mathematical.

We're at "the peak" of our civilization now – just look around! 'Global governance for global welfare' is demonstrably beyond the hyper-glandular mindset of our primate species. — 180 Proof

We are far beyond the mindset of primates. However, we have not experienced our full potential because never before did we have the resources nor the knowledge that we have today. Only recently has the world had large populations of older people and that is a very exciting change in human reality.
The mindset of a 34-year-old is very different from the mindset of 68 year old. Not that long ago 45 years old would be old and the end of our life expectancy. Today 68 is not that old. Not that long ago it was common for young people to drop out of school by 8th grade and get a job. They did not have the high-tech media we have today. Unless they lived in cities they did not have great sources of the information nor have any reason to learn about the world and evolution and technology.

The world we live in today is very different from the world we have before WWII and expecting us to adjust to this change in before having enough experience with the change, is unrealistic.

An unbiased AI with perfect knowledge or information about the social system, that can not be bribed or threatened would be the ideal governing system (as long as it's done correctly). — punos

And what of liberty?

This is from Tocqueville's 1840 Democracy in America............

"I seek to trace the novel features under which despotism may appear in the world. The first thing that strikes the observation is an innumerable multitude of men all equal and alike, incessantly endeavoring to procure the petty and paltry pleasures with which they glut their lives. Each of them, living apart, is as a stranger to the fate of all the rest – his children and his private friends constitute to him the whole of mankind; as for the rest of his fellow-citizens, he is close to them, but he sees them not – he touches them, but he feels them not; he exists but in himself and for himself alone; and if his kindred still remain to him, he may be said at any rate to have lost his country. Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness: it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances – what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range, and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things: it has predisposed men to endure them, and oftentimes to look on them as benefits."

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/de-tocqueville/democracy-america/ch43.htm