[mikem170]

Actually it might be better if we split the world into smaller countries, like 10 million people each. Small countries don't fight big wars.

Leopold Khor wrote a book about this, best info link I could quickly find is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dv9eJ8miMgA

[samus]

Small countries can still fight lots of small wars among themselves. It's just a question of time until they snowball into larger ones.

Also, there is nothing stopping countries conquering or otherwise merging with each other, in which case we'd quickly be back at square one.

[mikem170]

This is a fascinating topic. If you're interested you should read Khor's book on it, "The Breakdown of Nations". Lots of surprises and food-for-thought. The youtube I linked to is a fair introduction.

I guess I threw my above reply out there because I think globalism was meant to extend the power and wealth the elites already have, and that is its one benefit, not preventing wars. A lot of wars have been fought to construct and preserve this global order.

Khor makes a great case that the problems of staying small are less than the problems of bigness. There will still be wars, but small wars are better than big wars. Small countries can still gang up on large threats. He talks a lot how bigness always eventually leads to tyranny and aggression, just look at the history of every large country.

Khor speaks highly of federations, and what works and what doesn't. For example, he says it's great that the U.S. is made up of many states without being dominated by any one state. But I think he would be concerned if he saw a federal government grow so powerful that it can dominate all the states, not to mention the rest of the planet!

I share your scepticism about how to get from here to there. I think Khor does, also.