[bahadirarici]

Well, i am not going to argue about the roots of nationalism. I am going to argue that we should trow it to the garbage bin of history. We dont need nationalism anymore. It will only harm the higher values of mankind.

[anasawad]

What values exactly ?
Humanity in the modern age is basically a large group of hypocrites (everyone included), we keep talking about values and morality and rights and all these things.
But nevertheless never miss a chance to break them to our benifit.

There are no values, there are nationalistic drives for more benifit and prosperity that leads to violence and death. However in many nations these are simply covered up by the cloak of values and morality of the given nation doing it.
Not because they want to lie to others but just because they want to make them selves feel better.
'm not talking about the US here as some would assume, 'm talking about all nations in the world currently, all do exactly this.


And even if lets say we had values and everything, it is of our nature to seek to belong to a certain group that we feel to have something in common with it.
First it was our ken, then it grew to become the tribe, then the city, then the nation, then the empire, then those grew too big so political factions and parties became a thing and people started following them until today.

And as much as unity would seem lovely, enemity or even simply competition in economy or anything really without actual fighting tend to define all the sides in it.
Their identity is formed by it. You cant take that away, it simply doesn't work.
If we removed all the nations, all the political ideologies, and all religions from the world right now instantly. Humans will create new things to identify with by tomorrow morning and compete with each other in.
A global union will work in one case only, if we discovered some allien civilization and came in contact with it. We'll now become humans VS alliens and we'll be united.
Or maybe even if some nation managed to become enemies with everyone in the world. Then a united identity could emerge with the world VS that given nation.
Simply, there must be an enemy that can always be clearly defined.

[bahadirarici]

i dont think i can agree with your disutopian perspective. I believe in higher values of humanity that will unite us under one union.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

[quote="bahadirarici"]Nationalism is not 2000 years old, it is French Rev. and we should turn from it. We need to meet under nationless union.[/quote]
Nationalism is far older than the French Revolution, though. Much of Europe and Asia has been organised as nation-states (or empires with one nation controlling others) for a thousand years or more.

[quote]i dont think u understood what i say there.[/quote]
No, I don't understand. You were arguing for city-states - ie the world fragmented into smaller independent entities, not a 'union'. You wanted people divided more.

[quote]We, humanity, learned that nationalistic urges are toxic. We should unite under higher values.[/quote]
Why would city-states have 'higher' values than the current system of nation-states?

[quote]We dont "war"
Does France attack Germany? They will be under same federation, there will be city-states, like USA but united all the first world for starters.[/quote]
The USA is not a federation of anything like city-states. It has a strong central government, where the military power is. Secession is impossible - they fought a civil war the last time it was tried. But if you see all the city-states united in a federation that is like the USA, then everyone will have complete freedom of movement between them all. So far from your idea of "more homogeneous crowds", you will have the kind of mixing you see in the USA, but over all of the area you see this federation controlling.

[MistyTiger]

i dont think they would shout each other nor they would fight about borders.

What makes you so sure?

People will do anything to get land, even kill for it. If borders will be re-made, there will be a struggle to see who gets the bigger plot and who will get stuck with the smaller area.

In the city where I live, people are upset since building companies are building more buildings next to their neighborhoods. They have no say since they cannot afford to buy up all the land, therefore keeping the land around them more private.

[One Degree]

People will do anything to get land, even kill for it. If borders will be re-made, there will be a struggle to see who gets the bigger plot and who will get stuck with the smaller area.

This is why I promote standardized borders based upon Latitude and Longitude. Once set, there is nothing to dispute. Many borders today are based upon such things as rivers which change course and allow conflict to result. The fuss over the Federal Government seizing private property in Texas is a current example.

[B0ycey]

This is why I promote standardized borders based upon Latitude and Longitude. Once set, there is nothing to dispute. Many borders today are based upon such things as rivers which change course and allow conflict to result. The fuss over the Federal Government seizing private property in Texas is a current example.

As admirable as a standardised new order of individual countries based on longitude and latitude sounds, this concept is nothing more than fantasy. Who rules the more profitable land? Who rules the barren land? Who rules the coast. Who rules the sea? Not to mention the fact that large countries such as the US would forfeit their wealth and dominance. No world leader would accept this concept. This would destroy the world as we know it, create WW3, and result in the return of tribalism. This will segregate the world, not unite it. If you want a united world, you need order. The UN was a good starter, but it is not based on economics and gives greater influence to dominant nations over smaller nations. A global trade union is a better concept based with countries as they are. Not only is this achievable, it wouldn't result in conflict. Unless the US got jealous of course. But perhaps even this utopian dream is nothing more than fantasy too.

[One Degree]

As admirable as a standardised new order of individual countries based on longitude and latitude sounds, this concept is nothing more than fantasy. Who rules the more profitable land? Who rules the barren land? Who rules the coast. Who rules the sea? Not to mention the fact that large countries such as the US would forfeit their wealth and dominance. No world leader would accept this concept. This would destroy the world as we know it, create WW3, and result in the return of tribalism. This will segregate the world, not unite it. If you want a united world, you need order. The UN was a good starter, but it is not based on economics and gives greater influence to dominant nations over smaller nations. A global trade union is a better concept based with countries as they are. Not only is this achievable, it wouldn't result in conflict. Unless the US got jealous of course. But perhaps even this utopian dream is nothing more than fantasy too.

Your arguments are valid, but are based upon these changes occurring rapidly. I see these changes as an evolution that is already in progress. It is already happening, but we do not have a frame work to allow it to happen in an orderly fashion. Think of all the independence movements currently existing in the world. Think about all the current border disputes.(South China Sea for example) All of this could be resolved peacefully by the UN endorsing standardized guidelines by which an area should be allowed to secede. Perhaps something like any area of two degrees latitude by 3 degrees longitude has the right to declare it's independence or allegiance by a vote of it's residents? This provides a definitive means of deciding border disputes and defining the ultimate evolution of equal autonomous areas. As far as geographic/climatic concerns, areas with fewer than 10,000 people should be considered international territory.

[B0ycey]

Your arguments are valid, but are based upon these changes occurring rapidly. I see these changes as an evolution that is already in progress. It is already happening, but we do not have a frame work to allow it to happen in an orderly fashion. Think of all the independence movements currently existing in the world. Think about all the current border disputes.(South China Sea for example) All of this could be resolved peacefully by the UN endorsing standardized guidelines by which an area should be allowed to secede. Perhaps something like any area of two degrees latitude by 3 degrees longitude has the right to declare it's independence or allegiance by a vote of it's residents? This provides a definitive means of deciding border disputes and defining the ultimate evolution of equal autonomous areas. As far as geographic/climatic concerns, areas with fewer than 10,000 people should be considered international territory.

But your idea has one massive flaw. Just take America for example and ignore the world at whole. Do you seriously think the 10000 people who have been given the Mojave Desert to govern are going to accept a system that has 10000 people with the same land size but in a more desirable area of wealth (like an oil field or perhaps a tech centre) given to them. No chance. And certainly not when they have lived under the largest and most powerful country in the world. It is nothing more than a utopian dream where you alone think it could work. And trust me. It would only cause conflict and jealously. Not union. Only a Global Union such as the UN could achieve such a dream. And even that relies on global leaders uniting under one banner. So even that dream seems utopian.

[One Degree]

But your idea has one massive flaw. Just take America for example and ignore the world at whole. Do you seriously think the 10000 people who have been given the Mojave Desert to govern are going to accept a system that has 10000 people with the same land size but in a more desirable area of wealth (like an oil field or perhaps a tech centre) given to them. No chance. And certainly not when they have lived under the largest and most powerful country in the world. It is nothing more than a utopian dream where you alone think it could work. And trust me. It would only cause conflict and jealously. Not union. Only a Global Union such as the UN could achieve such a dream. And even that relies on global leaders uniting under one banner. So even that dream seems utopian.

We either continue stumbling along repeating the same conflicts over and over, or we choose to embrace Utopian ideals and try to make them reality? It is an easy choice for me. I prefer a plan to not having a plan. A global union is essential, but we keep making the mistake of giving such organizations more power than is wise. Their sole purpose should be to prevent aggression by the individual members. A quick view of a world population density map will show people have already chosen to live in the best climatic areas. The people in areas such as the Mohave may be jealous, but are powerless to do anything other than move and their numbers are minimal. The world population is already separated into a few hundred metropolitan areas. They are already citystates and simply have not realized what the world has already become.