Where do you think human civilization should head?

Post Reply New Topic

Where do you think civilization should go? Do you think we should head toward more national sovereignty, and a higher amount of smaller nations (toward tribalism)? Or do you think we should continue down the current path toward globalism where there is no national sovereignty and one world government?

Personally I would rather head toward tribalism. Recently, I've come to realize that more law and order only leads to more tyranny. All this globalist movement is going to do is put everyone at the mercy of big banks and big corporations.

what about another option? take over the banks and big corporations, put the former owners to work with the rest of us or in jail. Globalisaton is a bad thing, until you turn it into a democracy

Globalism while trying to avoid monocultures and giving too much power to the robber barons.


Democratic socialism with more globalism would be nice but that'd require actually wanting to educate everyone and wanting people to be functional citizens rather than merely overrated, underpaid slaves who all climb over each other to get a couple dollars more for another overpriced piece of crap (what up Apple computers?).

Tribalism and social regression will also mean technological regression and more war and eff that noise.

I know that's what I want, wouldn't want to speak for the other members though

I suppose it depends on the definitions, however, here's my view on things:
1) Not all people will want the same rules and hold to the same norms, so a universal world government seems problematic for that reason. Either it would have to have some solid federal elements, or it would be somewhat totalitarian.
2) Some sort of common rules are needed for trade, which is a good thing for improving economic conditions and maintaining peace between groups of people.
3) The ability to move with one's feet and for that to make substantive differences is a good thing.

So, I would guess that I am broadly tribal, but have no specific hatred of larger organizations, only a recognition that local and group rules and norms do exist.

Yeah, educating everyone seems like a rather difficult task, especially since we are speaking of educating in order to make good voting decisions. Not only that, but a society made of all people being functional seems sort of weird as it would seem to require a large brainwashing program or something.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 30 Aug 2009, 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Education can start by helping those that are illiterate...

I'd need to go a little outside the box on this one.

Globalism vs. nation states or even tribalism, I think it might be superfluous. When you have the general populace disconnected and distracted from the political process whether its globalism, nationalism, or tribalism, it would still just be elites carving the same thing up in different ways.

What I think we should reemphasize is the common man/woman being reintegrated into the political process at the local level, the local heads meeting to advise the states, the states meeting at the federal level, really let the power trickle upward rather than downward and reassert the merits of common law. What this offers - when the people are integrated in the process it leaves less room for nihilism, people become vested in their society rather than just being along for the ride. I think the societal problems that increasing home ownership was supposed to solve - this would go farther. Reality in the sense of government and national barings also has to stop being controlled by arbitrary forces, and that's exactly what happens with top down rule by elites - the elites, even if they had the best and brightest ideas (purely hypothetical though) are in a position mostly of impotence, they can't do much effectively since they have the majority on the outside with no sense of what their doing, what their aiming for, thus little hope of meaningful cooperation from the populace - which makes the "they're too dumb to understand the complexities of this matter" ideology of the elites little more than self-fulfilling prophecy.

Local level is fine, but you'd still have to deal with rules from other zones when travelling. Would subject A from zone X be subjected to rules from zone Y if he does something forbidden there? =/

Don't get me wrong, I believe in things like the commerce clause, the uniform commercial code, at least in the U.S. Constitution inter-state issues are resolved at the federal level by the Supreme Court much like I think it would be wise to have inter-county issues resolved at the state level of mediation. Certain things should in fact be kept uniform.

My biggest problem with what's going on at the top, aside from poor mobility or trying to bite off more than it can chew - the issues seem like they've been delineated in some rather useless ways; ie. communism as the extreme right and fascism as the extreme left? Conservative and Liberal? The dichotomies that we've created seem to rig the arguments, keep them in a nonproductive zone as detached from reality and have each side hunkered down in their own forms of group think. I would like to think that authentic dialog over real issues without those delineations could more easily flow from creative thought at the local level and work their way upward. As for fighting the tyranny of populism, it would mean that people would need to just create more effective and eloquent arguments from all sides and, especially with people more involved, you'd have far fewer people who are voting for or against an idea just because a friend or relative told them they should - the disconnect is what really seems to promote classic ignorance.

And tribalism leads to repression and war. Globalism is just another word for far flung networks of production and trade. It is trade and production that makes us prosperous.

ruveyn

I'll go with ruveyn on this one. Trade and production require skills of pragmatic dealing with the realities of the world in both he mechanics of materials and the interaction of social forces. I sincerely doubt that rigid social dogmas can withstand basic necessities of sustaining manipulation of people and the environment. Trying to control the movement of civilization is like trying to control the output of a volcano with a bucket and a spade. Most people have a good basic working intelligence and if it is not plugged and distorted by obsolete nonsense like absolute futile idealism or religion it is a good tool for sensible applications.

I'd say in between because what if a corrupt government arose to preside over mankinnd? Also, a coup de'tat would affect everyone. But Tribalism is the harbinger of suffering and war so we shouldn't be reserved to sovereignety.

What do you mean -"what if"?

Hmm... a sort of globalized structure trying to deal with international issues like global warming, overpopulation and so on, but nations are still sovereign, meaning the nations dictate their own policies and so on. Something like the United Nations, except it actually is relevant this time.

As for the political change that is needed, I'd strongly support Democratic Socialism.

Hmm... perhaps more like Pol Pot than Derek Hatton...

Take a look at the situation over here. Britain was once a sovereign nation. If a law was enacted, it was a British citizen who spoke my language, who used the same roads, shops and services I do, who was responsible. Now it's some bloody foreigner in Brussels who tells me what i can and can't do. They even tell you how many hours a week you can work. This can, I think, be associated with globalisation within the context referred to in the original post. It leads directly to repression. Reducing the possibility of war is not something to be savoured if it is to live fettered by the warped ideaology of some authoritarian quasi-socialist superpower. Destroying such forces was the reason why our nations fought two world wars. One hopes peaceful means can be used to destroy them this time around.