As we enter a truly global society (yes, the poor masses remain, but they will sooner or later be assimilated into higher classes), is the idea of the nation-state an anachronism?
Although my position is that we are all human beings, therefore there should be one world, one people, and one language, the shift away from the nation-state could also be the rise of meta-governments (e.g. European Union). We’ll leave anarchism out of this discussion, please. However, can anyone come up with convincing arguments why people should be segregated in ~120 mostly-arbitrarily/geographically divided entities?
Ah lucie, there will always be a them, if we get a one world goverment it will just shift. You can see it happening already. Take korea for example, when they first got onto the internet with battle.net they were extremely racist to anyone who spoke english. Partially due to the fact that they had bad internet connections and were generally bad because they entered a year later made it seem like they disconnected to avoid giving Americans wins.
Now however there is probably no way they would want to enter a war with the US even if they were the stronger. Their culture is becoming intertwined with ours, so destroying us would make them less.
The same thing happened with the japanese and anime only reversed. We get a large amount of products and culture from japan. It can’t be a us vs them when the line between us and them blurs.
Sure an actual one nation society might not even be thought possible within 100 or 50 years, but the values of the world at least will become alot more similar.
I’m certain many said that the formation of the European Union could never happen, especially considering major rivalries such as France against Germany. Nonetheless, the entire continent is moving towards federalism. How can this not happen on a world scale?
Generally speaking the countries in Europe have a lot more in common than the world does as a whole. The EU is formed of first world industrial democracies with a (more or less) shared economic and cultural background. The EU states see a common interest in working together (again, more or less) to prevent old rivalries from re-appearing, and to take advantage of economies of scale.
Because each country has different beliefs, history, religeons, and social customs. It has nothing to do with bigotry or “us vs them” either. I like my American system. The Chinese like their system. And so on. What’s wrong with having different systems? It’s like saying there should only be one type of person.
I think you should give us some reasons for creating one big world state.
Uh oh. According to this Cecil Adams article, one of the reasons Europeans ended up taking over the world as we know it today was that they were always competing with one another. If that’s the case, then when all the European nations “work together,” they’ll just turn into one big 3rd-world mush pit.
With the end of the nation-state, at what level would the democratic will of the people be expressed?
How will problems that are local in scope be addressed? Canada has problems that do not exist in Guinea-Bissau and vice-versa. How will local representation be assured?
I continually experience the problem of various thinkers conflating political globalization of the sort we are describing with the economic neoliberal globalization of the Seattle/Quebec City variety, as if the destruction of democratic control over trade and the economy were somehow comparable to the consolidation of democratic governments, and as if people opposed to (for example) the FTAA were the latest emanation of the Italia farà per sè protectionists.
Isn’t this comparing apples and oranges? The competition between European nations spurred them on to conquer large amounts of territory, not to enhance the quality of life of their peoples or secure democratic freedoms. All “progress” is not the same.
With one world, one people, one language there would be the ultimate in even individualism, because one would have the ability to be noticed by the whole world instead of just one’s geographic neighbors. Mankind would be able to share ideas without barriers, which would enable greater progress in the arts and sciences.
Again, what language would you foist upon this one nation? What economic model? Capitalism? That would put Africa hopelessly behind from the get-go. Communism? That would surely screw you and I. Fascism? Ha. I’d rather have anarchy.
Anyway, as far as your example goes, the European Union won’t last very long, IMO. There’s just way too much petty bickering going on over there. It won’t take much to collapse that coalition.
But that’s neither here nor there. Someone will be discriminated against no matter what if we follow your plan.
I don’t know that the nations of Europe have NEARLY as much in common as their leaders think they do. And I can see the E.U. collapsing much more easily than I can envision similar multi-national communities forming.
Right now, the E.U. is all but ordering Ireland to raise taxes and put a stop to their currently unbridled economic growth. How well you think THAT will go over in Ireland?
And when inevitable economic slumps take place in member nations, how long will it take for the people of those nations to scream, “OUR economy should be run by US- not by some foreigner sitting in an office in Brussels.”
Despite the possibly wishful scepticism of those who foretell the doom of the EU I’d doubt that it will fall too easily.
One thing that binds the EU is globalisation of world markets, there is concern that there is an unseemly haste to divide the world into three trading blocs, certainly no single nation can leave it to chance.
Irelands situation is tied up with the Common Agricultural Policy(CAP) which has been costing the more industrialised nations of Europe a fortune in subsidising unwanted and high priced farm produce.
Dismantling or replacing CAP is a daunting political task, even Ms Thatcher could only get refunds rather than reform, and Ireland is just one player in this, Italy, Greece, have also major stakes in it but the factor that has brought most pressure to bear is the prospect of largely agrarian economies of the former Eatern Europe joining the EU and thus qualifying for CAP subsidy.
As a Briton all I can say about closer EU ties is that we have made more progress toward basic human rights through the European courts than woud have been possble through our own political system.
The European courts of human rights have regularly found the UK in breach of what are considered civilised standards throughout much of the EU.
You may be surprised to learn that the government most regularly found contravening citizens rights is that fine upstanding supporter of individuality, the Conservative government led first by Ms Thatcher and later by John Major.
Really? So how come many of the greatest scientific advances of the 20th century happened during WWII? Nuclear power, rocketry, jet propulsion, radio, radar all were discovered or advanced mnore rapidly during that time period. The Cold War continued to drive these advances as well as leading to space flight.
Seems to me competion helps to drive science more that global cooperation.
As for the arts: How is having one homogenius culture going to advance the arts? I suggest you go to a museum. Art and architecture from Africa, Asia, America, and Europe consists of a variety of styles based on local culture and influence.
The secret is to learn to get along with a variety of nations and cultures, not to turn them all into the same nation and culture.