Semi-OT: Planetary governments

[Alneyan]

In SEIV, and in quite a few sci-fi universes I have heard of, Earth has become a global government in the future, under various names, and the same could be said of many Empires I have seen at PBW. My question is, would such a development be likely in our future? (Assuming we build an Empire beyond our planet, which isn't a given; but that's another topic I guess)

In the past, while a few Empires were built (such as the Roman Empire, Byzance, the Mongol Empire, and others), none of them managed to retain their full size for more than one or two centuries at best, and they only encompassed a part of the world. The same goes true for the colonial Empires. In fact, there has been an increase of states in the past few decades, and not the other way around, and I cannot think of a successful political union between a few countries (the European Union can hardly be called a success in this regard, although it is one of its ambitions).

So I do not truly see why a global government (holding any kind of actual power) would be our future. A crisis would likely be a way of creating such a government, assuming it is important enough. Or would Earth be represented by a sort of institution for matters related to space? Even if most of the world adopts a fairly similar culture (and that is yet another debate), I do not think many countries would willingly give up their sovereignty, even if they do not hold much actual power, and so the creation of a planetary government as a "fait accompli" does not seem all too likely to me.

So, am I missing something here? Or did I get the wrong idea about how Earth is represented in most sci-fi universes? Should I stop asking questions? What is this huge yellow ship in the sky?

[Renegade 13]

I think you're right, that humanity is too fragmented to ever be united in a common purpose. For the most part, people are too greedy, and can be a little bit TOO patriotic, when it is actually harming you and your country to have this attitude. But I know of very few people who would want to give up their country, to have it absorbed into a greater whole, even if it is for the greater good. Everyone is afraid of not having a voice, of being ignored and unable to affect their life in any significant way.

[Fyron]

A unified world government is _never_ for the greater good. It is for the greater _evil_. The bigger an area a government controls, the more tyrannical it becomes. The fewer external enemies a government has, the more it turns upon it's own people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, afterall.

Some sci-fi universes have more of a UN type world government than an actual unified one. Babylon 5, prior to Clark creating his dictatorship, had Earth like this. The "UN" body had actual power, but it was still essentially a confederation of semi-autonomous nations.

[Aiken]

Agree with Fyron. World state = zero diversity = greatly reduced freedom. Today you can immigrate (in theory, at least) to another country if you don't like laws, customs or government at home. United world has same laws, government and equated customs everywhere.

World state is a tale of 60s, based upon opinion that brotherhood and love are main human stimulus. By 2000s this point of view is disconsidered once and for all. Nations don't want to unite, they want to fight. All multinational states were created by force and this won't change in future. State Earth will be a worst dictatorship in the history of mankind.

As a cyberpunk fan I prefer anarchist world of zaibatsu and independent anclaves. And it seems to me that this scenario is more realistic than "Empire Earth" future.

[FLX]

In the future, if colonizing another planets, it will be like in the Last few centuries, the old continent nations and their colonies will be replaced by the homeworld nations and those nation's colonies. So, if China colonizes the moon, the moon will be a chinese colony :S

[Gandalf Parker]

Imperator Fyron said:
A unified world government is _never_ for the greater good. It is for the greater _evil_. The bigger an area a government controls, the more tyrannical it becomes. The fewer external enemies a government has, the more it turns upon it's own people. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, afterall.

Some sci-fi universes have more of a UN type world government than an actual unified one. Babylon 5, prior to Clark creating his dictatorship, had Earth like this. The "UN" body had actual power, but it was still essentially a confederation of semi-autonomous nations.

If that is true of X then it is true of X/2. Sorry. I cant find a unified world government to be a completely bad idea or a completely good idea without finding the same faults in the concept of a government for a country.

In other words if a unified world government has its pros and cons, then a unified continent has the same. And a large nation which tries to encompass many smaller satellite nations. And probably the same pros and cons for a government over many states or provinces, state/province of counties, counties over cities, cities over neighborhoods, neighborhoods of clans (households).

The biggest hangup on the subject of world government is the mine is best syndrome. The same one I find in many discussions. What is the "best" xxxxxx. No matter what the question, a knowledgeable person will come back with questions trying to define what kind of "best" the person wants. That is a person with a wide enough background to know the pros and cons of various choices. Then there are the people who spit out an instant answer, which to me means they have experience in pretty much just that one answer (and happen to like it). When someone answers immeadiately with a best, I treat it as a vote rather than a real answer.

It doesnt matter if the question is about the best dog, car, sport, food, drink, programming language, operating system, political party, religion, government, country, or game (well ok, maybe not game)

[Fyron]

If that is true of X then it is true of X/2.

Sure, if you have a world that is half the size of Earth in one unified government, it is the same as if Earth had one unified government. Otherwise, this sort of division doesn't really apply... If Earth had 2 different nation states, each encompassing half of the world, it would not be _as bad_ as one single nation-state, but it would still be terrible. Divide it by 2 several more times, and it works out better. 200+ nations is much better than 6 (unified continents)... See Aiken's post below. No need to repeat what he said already.

[Captain Kwok]

In most sci-fi universes, we've got lots of colonies on many different worlds and/or occupy space with other alien species etc. So even though Earth is "unified" - we'd still be divided - but on a larger scale. i.e. Earth is a single nation with many states (i.e. our nations today) but itself is just a single state vs. Mars vs. Alpha Centauri etc.

[Aiken]

Let's divide this futures: Earth Hegemony (ala N.Spinrad's "Agent of Chaos") or State Earth (opposed to Mars Empire, Asteroid Confederacy, etc). It's very different social phenomenas.

First one is absolutely closed system with accumulative social enthropy, which will blow up state early or later. This state has 3 (I think you can find more) possibilities to survive in long term period: 1) convert population to mindless mass; 2) kill large amount of inconsistent people or remove them to a very distant places (hey, Australia ) and be at intensive brainwashing and freedom restriction for others; 3) create mighty artificial enemy (alternative evil state, aliens), but this is transient treat.

Which one do you like best of all?

Second one is just an expansion of current geopolitical structure, nothing new here, except some cultural alternations.

The biggest hangup on the subject of world government is the mine is best syndrome. The same one I find in many discussions. What is the "best" xxxxxx.

I haven't told than my vision is "best", I just "prefer" it Nobody can't be absolutely objective, especialy then speaking about such subjects as future world order

[Randallw]

First one is absolutely closed system with accumulative social enthropy, which will blow up state early or later. This state has 3 (I think you can find more) possibilities to survive in long term period: 1) convert population to mindless mass; 2) kill large amount of inconsistent people or remove them to a very distant places (hey, Australia ) and be at intensive brainwashing and freedom restriction for others; 3) create mighty artificial enemy (alternative evil state, aliens), but this is transient treat.

Which one do you like best of all?

As someone whose ancestor was shipped to Australia on the first fleet (Sort of like the Mayflower but without a choice ) I'm kind of fond of number 2

I would support a unified world government. Multiculturalism is a bit of a catchphrase in Australia, but I disagree with it. In my mind many different cultures all believing in different things cause conflict. They all believe their culture is superior and refuse to see anyone elses point of view. Better that everyone in the world be forced to all believe in the same thing. As for a space "Empire", it is dependant on a mode of travel fast enough to ensure communication between different planets. If the only means to travel is slow, such as a generational ark, then each planet will evolve its own culture.