[energy123]

Nukes come from security competition between nation states. It's the anarchic nature of this security competition that necessitates nukes.

The only way to avoid this is a one world government.

The analogy is: the existence of police is the only reason you don't need to own a gun. Without police, it's anarchy, and therefore you need a gun to survive in that incentive structure.

[BurningFrog]

A single world government that you can't possibly escape from is vastly worse than nuclear weapons.

I expect it would evolve to something like current day China.

[crossroadsguy]

That would be worse than nukes. We already see what UN and UNSC has become. Even hearing the “one world” government gave strong star wars vibes even though I didn’t need to go that far.

We are designed (or destined, if you want to say so) to be fucked and fuck up everything on this earth faster than we thought maybe even just 20-30 years ago.

[hoppp]

The earth will survive humans and we will be nothing but an archeological record. Fucking things up is subjective. The great oxigenation event also really fucked up the planet, subjectively, wiping out millions of species

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>The only way to avoid this is a one world government.

Plainly false. But even if that were true, then the cure's worse than the sickness.

Let's have a planet with 100,000 sovereign governments. Tiny city-states that neither have the mineral resources to build those nor the wealth to attempt it.

[energy123]

> Let's have a planet with 100,000 sovereign governments.

This is an impossible scenario because there is no authority that can enforce this. We had what you wanted in our tribal past, but it was not competitive. Nation states naturally emerged as the technology that allowed nation states (printing press, railroads, etc) emerged. You can't reverse this just by wishing it to be so. A one world government is at least a feasible possible future instead of an impossible one.

[pdonis]

> Nation states naturally emerged as the technology that allowed nation states (printing press, railroads, etc) emerged.

Nation states were around long before railroads or the printing press; they were around before the pyramids were built. Arguably the original technology that made them viable as an alternative to hunter-gatherer tribes was agriculture.

Modern technology has made modern nation states harder to dislodge in some ways, but that doesn't mean they're a good idea.

> A one world government is at least a feasible possible future

Yes, but I disagree that it's the only feasible option. For one thing, technology can also make it harder for nation states to lie to their people about what they're up to (the technology that is allowing us to have this conversation being the prime example). And once mation states lose the ability to do that, their viability becomes much more problematic, since without being able to tell and sustain such lies, the extent to which they make things worse instead of better becomes more and more widely known, and people are less and less willing to put up with that. A single government that was supposed to rule the entire world would have even worse problems in that regard.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>This is an impossible scenario because there is no authority that can enforce this.

No, it's not impossible, it's just not extant. It may be true that there is no path from where we are now to that world, and it is certainly true that if there is a path it's not trivially predictable. But this can be said of the "one world government" thing as well. Knowing that people like myself exist and would sabotage attempts at one world government, how do you propose to make that possible?

>We had what you wanted in our tribal past,

No, we had something even better. We had a zero-world-government. That truly is impossible, at least considering that I'm not a fan of human extinction.

[energy123]

It's impossible in the sense of "this goes against an informed understand of history and human nature", which admittedly is a soft analysis not rooted in verifiable fact, but is one that I nevertheless hold to. The last 10,000 years have been a gradual, unceasing trend of increasing centralization, from isolated hunter gatherer tribes, to EU and UN type bodies today. The unceasing nature of this trend isn't an accident. There are underlying causal factors that generate it. Positing that those causal factors will continue in the future, leading to an increase in the size of EU-like entities, to the point of de facto hemispheric/world government type bodies, isn't so radical, even if it is uncertain.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

>It's impossible in the sense of "this goes against an informed understand of history and human nature",

No, that's just your narrative. You even acknowledge that there was a point in history where it was the prevailing condition, so clearly it wasn't against human nature.

> The last 10,000 years have been a gradual, unceasing trend of increasing centralization,

Hardly gradual. Incredibly punctuated. In some places in the world the stateless/tribal paradigm survived until modern times. The progressive's version of "the market only ever goes up!"...

>Positing that those causal factors will continue in the future,

So you're bad at prediction too. No, humanity becomes extinct in the next 2 or 3 centuries, because you've all become sterile worker drones and can't even maintain a stable population. Sometimes I hope that part's just an accident, but then I read words written by people like yourself, and you seem all too enthusiastic about it as if you've discovered some divine secret. Oh well.