Should all nations be ended?

[marieltrokan]

If all nations were to be ended, how do you think it should happen?

[Velocity_Boy]

A few hundred strategically-placed nuclear warheads should do the trick!

 

"World War Three may be fought with nuclear weapons but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones."

 

--Albert Einstein

Edited June 17, 2016 by Velocity_Boy

[iNow]

Ended how? Borders? Rules? Peoples? Militaries?

[marieltrokan]

I suppose by worldwide political action. Not violence, but just through a worldwide referendum.

[StringJunky]

I suppose by worldwide political action. Not violence, but just through a worldwide referendum.

People will always label themselves, it's what gives them a part of their identity.

[iNow]

We'd need to decide what rights and protections are universal to all humans then work out a mechanism to enforce them and reward those who do.

[marieltrokan]

I think a start would be to say that all people deserve to be referred to as the Universe; not just humanity as a whole, but each individual.

[Phi for All]

I think a start would be to say that all people deserve to be referred to as the Universe; not just humanity as a whole, but each individual.

 

I would prefer not, thanks. It's inaccurate, and fairly meaningless in all the contexts of the word I'm aware of.

[marieltrokan]

Why is it inaccurate? Do you think that everyone on Earth should be asked if they want to be referred to as the Universe?

[Phi for All]

Why is it inaccurate? Do you think that everyone on Earth should be asked if they want to be referred to as the Universe?

 

If you torture words so they mean what you want them to, what good are they to the rest of us? The definition of universe is established, and has nothing to do with "everyone on Earth", except that they are a subset of it.

 

You're a subset of Primates as well, which is a much more accurate thing to call each other.

[Strange]

I think a start would be to say that all people deserve to be referred to as the Universe; not just humanity as a whole, but each individual.

 

 

How does a grossly inaccurate statement like that help anyone?

[MigL]

I'd like to be known as 'T-bone'.

Don't you think everyone on Earth should be asked if they'd like to refer to me as 'T-bone' ?

[iNow]

This actually provides a clear example of the problem with the premise in the OP. We're seeking that ONE true identity, one collective sense of community, but even in this tiny cross section here of like five people we already encountered disagreement.

 

Ah... Universe... Erm...primates... I mean, uhm, humans.

[marieltrokan]

I think the answer is for the UN to say in public that the topic of nations and the identity of the Universe should be raised by national leaders.

[iNow]

I don't have any idea what that means, though, and I'm sympathetic to your intent. In truth, sounds like you've taken some ecstasy and your oxytocin and dopamine circuits are overriding your rational bits.

.

Yes, we are part of the universe. We are the universe expressing itself as a human for a little while. Okay. And?

[marieltrokan]

Because reality is uniformity, I just think it's better to have a uniformity of no nations than uniformity of nations. After all, nations require social alienation to exist, and because any life form doesn't exist to be shunned, no nations by default is what should exist.

[iNow]

Okay. So take away nations. So what? We still exist in packs and tribes locally. Whether you refer to different schools, different grocery stores, different access to clothes and utilities and opportunities, there is always difference. Even extremely close, your house is different from your neighbors house. There are walls. There is separation, and for good reason. Nations are that same phenomena writ large.

 

It's the bacteria knowing the difference between food and not food, ouch and not ouch. It's the fish knowing the difference between the predator and the prey, and the child knowing the difference between safety and danger.

 

I agree we should strive to be more open and kind and giving and to help each other and avoid the countless many ails of the world. Do you agree that wish for some universal oneness simply isn't going to achieve that since difference itself is embedded in our cells and our genes and our everything?

[StringJunky]

"Hello, Primate. I'd like to introduce you to Primate"

"Hi, Primate. Pleased to meet you"

"Pleased to meet you too, Primate.

"Thank you, Primate"

"Well, Primate and Primate. Let's be going shall we?"

"Of course, Primate"

"Certainly, Primate, after you, Primate"

"Thank you, Primate"

"No, problem, Primate"

Edited June 18, 2016 by StringJunky

[MigL]

Hmmm, no nations you say ?

Well that would make the Euro Cup very boring !

 

Go Azzurri !!

( Italian national team )

Edited June 18, 2016 by MigL

[Ten oz]

Doesn't matter what we (humans) call ourselves. There willalways be competition for resources. Groups will always from large partnership to ensure they get all the resources can. That will always create conflict which will perpetuate the want for weapons and forces to protect resources.

[michel123456]

If all nations were to be ended, how do you think it should happen?

Not how, but what happens.

We have seen that in Europe. When you try to erase the nation borders, you do not unite people together. In fact you go to the next smaller border. In Europe it is called "regions".

And if you erase the borders of the regions, you will finally reach the border of the villages. It is so disappointing...

Edited June 24, 2016 by michel123456

[Strange]

It seems that the need for ingroups and outgroups is hard-wired in human nature. Presumably it has/had some evolutionary benefit.

[John Cuthber]

Great Britain has just been ended; and replaced by Little England.

[Prometheus]

People will always label themselves, it's what gives them a part of their identity.

 

That may be true, but the internet, particularly social media, might provide an alternative. Instead of labelling ourselves by geographical region, we can label ourselves however we choose online. We might find that we have more in common with someone half-way around the world than our own neighbours. Much like i find many fine people on this forum who can restore my faith in fellow brits, and humanity in general, when most of my family voted for brexit.

 

Whether a world divided like this is better than one divided geographically i don't know, but it is an appealing possibility to me.

[StringJunky]

 

That may be true, but the internet, particularly social media, might provide an alternative. Instead of labelling ourselves by geographical region, we can label ourselves however we choose online. We might find that we have more in common with someone half-way around the world than our own neighbours. Much like i find many fine people on this forum who can restore my faith in fellow brits, and humanity in general, when most of my family voted for brexit.

 

Whether a world divided like this is better than one divided geographically i don't know, but it is an appealing possibility to me.

A world composed of many virtual islands occupied by groups with shared ideologies. That's the way it's heading I think. New of tribes are being formed; as you say, not geographically located. That's cool to me because I am grouping with people more like myself that are not generally around in my geographic vicinity. It's good for the world in the long run I think and progress in general.

Edited June 24, 2016 by StringJunky