|
> Similarly, our conception of our own social group (the "us") has grown dramatically, to the point that we today may identify ourselves as parts of multiple, independent social groups. Unlike not long ago, these groups need not be local, they can span countries or continents. > Because technological development leads to globalization of the species, our social groups start covering the whole planet. I think you overestimate the effects of technology and globalization. I too used to believe this, but I have found it to be an illusion created by the intersection of modern media and the Internet. If you get out of your neighborhood, your city, your state, your country, and really engage with people, you'll find that most of them are more different from you than you can imagine. People have wildly different values, interests, and beliefs about even the most basic things. It is a wonder that we function as societies at all, and a testament to the resilience and inherent flexibility of the social structures we've constructed -- at least in the 50% of the planet where stable, large-scale societies exist. > If this development continues, is it not inevitable that we will at some point get de facto global entity which governs us i.e. world government? It would be the natural next step. No, mainly due to the inevitable competition for resources and status that would splinter any such centralized authority. Groups of humans will not agree to give an outsize share of their resources to perceived competition, even if it is a fair exchange. Look at the present urban/rural divide, racial and religious divides, and hatred between many nations. And this may be the best it has ever been! There has never been a time in history when strategic competitors could agree to put aside their differences for mutual advantage, except for brief moments when facing a greater threat. One could argue that climate change and resource depletion are indeed greater threats, but I would contend that such alliances suffer from fatigue and eventual defection if the "war" lasts too long. (Which it will! These issues are not going away.) > We can not, as species, decentralize our decision making to independent self-interested groups i.e. nations much longer. Our consumption of resources is neither sustainable nor responsible. What wisdom is it to leave a barren earth for our children to inherit? You're right, we can not -- but we will, unless technology allows a small group to put a boot on the face of humanity's abundant diversity of culture and thought. Either option is terrible; we dive back into the pit of global resource conflict, or we become enslaved. The only thing that can break us out of this awful set of choices is a benevolent "strong" AI, and I personally have doubts that this can be achieved in time to save us from the next, potentially final, global war. If I were a global power, I would be secretly putting my resources into surviving this coming war. (There are no "winners" in the next global war, only survivors.) Unfortunately, if nations are doing this -- and they surely are -- it only adds to the probability of conflict. |