[ 1/March/22 ]
I Agree with Mon Ty, one world anything is existential level risk, by definition.
Security demands both diversity and redundancy.
What few seem to comprehend at present is that the logic of evolutionary strategy is clear that security requires cooperation.
Cooperation is not control.
Cooperation is acknowledging joint values, and acknowledging the value of diversity, and creating joint security from that diversity. Recurs that to every level you are able.
One world government is a very high risk strategy that is almost guaranteed to fail, due to two major classes (and an almost infinite set of minor classes) of risk.
The major risks are single point of capture by some level of agency with non-aligned values, and the other is single point of failure due to failure of some set of assumptions that are not recognized as such (bias blindness). Diversity is the only real security against either of those major failure modalities.
Cooperation is demanded for diversity to survive. Freedom is actually optimized in cooperative contexts (nothing wrong with a bit of competition provided it is built on a fundamentally cooperative base).
We have a term for any cell lines in our body that switch from cooperation to competition – it is called cancer, and it is usually fatal unless treated. The cause of cancer is always a failure of communication between cells at some level. We can see it in biology, but we fail to recognize it in politics or economics.
Throughout history most cultures have died from failing to treat the cancers that emerged within their various levels of structure.
Unless we get many more people accepting that strategic and evolutionary reality, then our species will self destruct. There is no way that a species as technologically inventive as ours can possibly survive all out competition. It is always and necessarily so much easier to destroy than it is to build, that is simply a fundamental thermodynamic reality of existence.
The greatest single threat to our existence is a strong bias in our neural networks to over simplify that which is both irreducibly complex and contains fundamental and eternal uncertainties. The self righteousness that results from such oversimplification leads to systemic failure (any and all levels). Sure, there are some situations where urgency requires simplification in order to respond in the time available, but that is not generally applicable across all contexts. We do actually live in an extremely complex reality, and we all need to accept that reality, and have appropriate levels of humility and uncertainty in our responses – which is where diversity becomes such a great strength.
Armed conflict will only cease when individuals generally accept that diversity is the necessary outcome of any real expression of freedom, and everyone shows respect for any and all diversity that is not an actual and unreasonable threat to existence.
With modern levels of automation and production there is no need to think in terms of limited resources, and there is an absolute need to see ourselves as part of the wider systems of life upon which our existence depends, and design systems accordingly. A myopic focus on overly simplistic economics does create multiple levels of ecological threat. We are not short of energy, the sun is a nice safe nuclear reactor 93 million miles away that produces all the energy we could reasonable need. With appropriate recycling we are not short of matter or resources. With appropriate levels of cooperation we could use automation to produce abundance for all. It is our tendency to over simplify, and rely on patterns from the past, rather than exploring the possibilities available in the unexplored, that create most armed conflict.
So I am generally optimistic about our future, but only if we accept the demonstrable logical reality that cooperation is fundamental to the survival of complexity, and only if there is fundamental reform of existing economic and political systems. And those ideas will be a challenge for many.