The Global human party contributes to relevant topics on Quora.com as GHPorg. Some are reproduced here.
A. This is probably not what the academics say, but....
1. Protect citizens from environmental catastrophe (Drought, flood, tsunami, meteor collision etc)
2. Protect citizens from inter species competition (Covid mosquitoes bears locusts etc)
3. Protect citizens from cultural competition within the species (war, terrorism, slavery, ideological stupidity, human generated pollution etc)
This all adds up to: 'Skew the environment we live in to benefit individual and collaborative evolution', which would be a lot easier to achieve if we did it at a global species level rather than as competing nation states.
A. Existing nations do it already.
We all align ourselves to multi layered cultural groups, it is part of our collaborative and individual natures. Us the family, us the business, us the football supporters, us the religion, us the political party, us the nation, us the species.
Nations currently try to balance these competing group cultures to minimise internal conflict and try to strengthen the top level national 'Us' so that the nation can compete against other nations. Religions and other ideologies also do this, which is why there have been long running conflicts and alliances between religious cultures and national cultures
A one world government would have to ensure that the species 'Us' is more important than any other group 'Us'.
The interesting bit, is just how would a one world government form a strong overarching species culture that everyone can willingly subscribe to, while tolerating and even promoting the variations of sub groups? And, how would we transition to it from our existing system of competing nation states?
A. What causes a nation to go to war? Jealousy, fear, greed, natural aggression to dominate the weak, survival desperation, overstepping the vilification of a common enemy (many nations and cultures are unified and defined by their imagined enemy), revenge based on some sense of historical victimhood, a sense of supremacy of 'Our' culture or religion or ideology or DNA, boundary disagreements, Us and Them.
Conflict is always caused between Us and Them, whether it is at a national level, or cultural level or gang level or basketball team level or religion level or clan level. We all align ourselves to multiple layers of 'Us'.
The system from which we have evolved is based on competition both as individuals and collaboratively, and conflict is a result of our competitive natures. It is up to us to agree the morals and ethics that help us control the ways we compete with each other, which make it easier to collaborate and allow us to compete without damaging conflict. We are still evolving the ways in which we gain control of our competitive natures both as individuals and as groups.
A. The UN does seem to be based on the same foundations as the LON. Neither has/had judicial or executive powers to make national changes. Both rely on sponsor nations for funding and other assets. They have similar aims which cannot be enforced unless the sponsors agree and provide the necessary actions to support declarations. The aim of preventing national conflicts has been a particular failure of both. The UN however is seeking a much wider remit to promote best practice governance across global risks such as climate and environment, health, famine, workers rights, but again it only has the power to collate, educate and enthuse competing nations to do the right thing.
Image of a very nice nanny shouting from the sidelines at a pitch full of competing hooligans.
For a global organisation to actually achieve some of these useful-for-the-species aims, it would have to gain power in multiple nation states so it could make common judicial and executive changes. Which is why nations grew out of city states, tribes and clans in the first place.
A. We are still evolving the way in which we organise ourselves.
We have moved on (well most of us) from family and tribal feuds into larger and larger aggregations under single governance systems which we currently call nation states.
Along the way we have developed a whole range of tools to help us trust each other enough to collaborate rather than fight, like morals ethics laws language money education charity etc.
We are already on the road towards a global governance system.
Along this road we have to overcome nationalism religion and other ideologies and all these things that we teach our children to differentiate Us from Them. All these things are imaginary and we could if we chose, teach our children that we-the-species is more important than separate nations.
Unfortunately human crystallise their ideas with age, and adults can usually only repeat what they have been taught, so it will take some friction to encourage us to evolve our organisational structures.
A. The UN does not have the resources to fight a major war. It can only marshal the forces of nations who agree to 'lend' them to the UN for a specific purpose. If any culture or ideology made a systemic war on 'others' it is likely, in our current organisational structure of competing nation states, that nations would keep control of their own assets and fund them from their own budgets and industrial bases, using national alliances to compete with a larger force.
This is one reason why we need to re-engineer the way we organise ourselves and evolve from competing nation states to a system based on species culture and species governance.
A. Being able to collaborate is useful, as a body of people can have a greater impact than an individual.
Humans compete individually and collaboratively and that can include killing each other.
Individuals use the tools of Ethics and morals to curb our coarser methods of competition and restrict them to things like business and sport competition. Essentially we do have the ability to agree to be nice to each other and work collaboratively with our neighbours.
Groups of humans use the same tools and have developed them into agreement methods like laws and treaties and federations.
So we do have the ability to agree to collaborate at scale and we have evolved tools to formalise those agreements.
The way we organise ourselves today has become stuck in the concept of separate nation states tied to geographies, which require the definition of cultures to differentiate Us from Them.
Nation states, and the cultures that define them, are responsible for wars, land disputes, tariffs, barriers, borders, tax havens, trade wars, currency disputes, economic migration and actively promote cultural differences that prevent us working together as a global society. They are responsible for preventing global responses to natural disasters and man-made problems.
In theory it is perfectly possible to organise ourselves so that we compete without killing each other, but to do so we must evolve the ways in which we organise ourselves.
Common ethics and morals, means common law, means common system of governance, means no nations. Impossible? Just remember that that at birth, there is no notion of nationhood or culture. These are taught to us by those who have it already. It would be perfectly possible to instil a single global governance culture if the next generation were taught to do so from birth.
A. Autocracies, where a small group of individuals define strategy and control implementation, can range from being beneficial to the people under their control, to a devastation. The difference between china and other autocracies is that the chinese autocrats are currently somewhat enlightened, understand the ways of the world and its people, and actively work for the benefit of the chinese people, while other autocracies do not have the same level of understanding and many appear to work only for themselves.
Democracies meanwhile, tend to elect a mix of well meaning amateurs, self aggrandising salesmen, vociferous one issue evangelists, or those seeking stability of the status quo. Unfortunately most voters are unable to pick good ones, either because they don't have the time to investigate candidates properly and they just vote the same way as their peers, or because modern media and messaging sales blurb, prevalent around elections, deliberately obfuscate candidates true natures in favour of cartoon like characters that are easier to sell to voters.
At least in democracies the resulting cacophony of government is fairly constant, while autocracies can quickly flip, with changes at the top, into something less beneficial.
The question for humanity going forward is how to get the best of both worlds?
A. Assuming you are repulsed by capitalism and attracted to communism because you are uncomfortable with inequality.....
All implementations of a communist governance system are likely to end up looking like a capitalist system because we live within the constraints of a competitive evolutionary supersystem where inequality is inevitable.
People will differentiate themselves whatever governance system we concoct.
We should however learn to manage inequality to enable people to better themselves and their surroundings through their own efforts, or through collaborative efforts, and restrict the ability of the successful (or their idiot offspring) to hoard all the biscuits. In particular, Wealth taxes in any governance system would help reconcile communal and capitalistic behaviours, as would spending those taxes on common services rather than gold palaces, nukes and bombastic statues.
We should learn from all our experiments in governance and engineer a new approach based on a better understanding of ourselves and our cosmic environment. Of course we would have to overcome nationalism religion and all manner of other ideological doodahs that we make up and treat as if they are real, but hey that is the challenge of being human....and we are still evolving both genetically and in the way in which we organise ourselves to work collaboratively.
A. Perhaps because the impressions people first receive about a one world government come from sci-fi movies and books whose fantasies require nasty perceived enemies to get your emotional juices flowing. For a more rational view on the benefits/issues of a one world government system read "on the organisation of the species"
A. Our ancestors have already experimented with various systems of governance at ever increasing scale, and these have competed against each other and been refined over millennia to deliver the ones that we use to govern ourselves today. Evolution in our governance systems is ongoing, as is the evolution of our DNA. A world governance system is perfectly achievable using the tools humans have already developed and use daily.
A single governance system would have a single global law, a single global tax system, a single currency, provide common services to a global standard. It would make government debt disappear using a version of MMT to control money supply, and would use wealth taxes to prevent a few hoarding all the biscuits. Nations would disappear along with their borders, tariffs and most geography based wars. multi layered cultures would free float as diasporas. environmental and working standards would be applied globally to moderate our impact on the ecosystem we depend on, and level-up living standards globally. The system would promote and sustain long term visions like the development of technologies to get us off the planet before it goes up in a puff of smoke, and set a common moral framework so that we can control the behaviours that allow us to trust each other and collaborate while still enabling the freedom of expression, thought and dissent that we need to evolve into the future.
A governance system could be constructed from an improved and scaled up mix of democratic and expert system, where people still vote for their local representatives. It would be nice if voters made an effort to understand current issues and the nature of candidates before blindly voting for some political party facade. It would be nice if the system revealed the nature of candidates before voting, to help weed out well meaning idiots, self agrandising salesmen, power crazed demagogues and other undesirable characters. It would be good if the system provided processes to help educate candidates, the elected, and voters. It would be good if all candidates had the same level of campaign funding provided by the system.
A. It seems we need a strong force to break existing cultural bonds that separate Us from Them, so that people (usually the next generation) can aggregate together as a larger group.
Historically, we have scaled up our organisations from families, to tribes and clans, to villages, city states, nations, federations and empires through war, usually driven by an autonomous dictator. Democracies can morph out of an existing autocratic system, usually through messy revolution.
To achieve a world with only one government (judicial and executive), all nations must be aggregated into a single system, supported by global law, global taxes, global currency, and a single administration system.
Democracies tend to vote for the status quo and so are unlikely to vote to remove their culture based nations and replace them with something larger. At best they might vote for a federation, but this is not one world government.
An autocracy may attain the force required to kick us all into a higher state of aggregation.
However, we may now have developed enough tools during our evolution, to consciously form a single governance system and persuade people of all nations that it is better than a system of competing nation states. It would need a vision for the species that every citizen can subscribe to and education to counter the national and ideological forces of the status quo. A global organisation would be required to start the ball rolling in multiple nations.
So, either might be possible, but it will take generations, is likely to be messy, but the arrow of our organisational development points in that direction, so we had better start thinking about how to do it comfortably.
A. Citizens of every nation can be be grouped into Haves, Have-nots, and Have-too-much.
Have-nots (even in economically developed nations) tend towards starvation.
Yes we do grow enough food globally, winter in one hemisphere is summer in another, and we know how to store it and prevent it rotting and we can distribute it to where it is needed, but we do not.
Competing nation states and their supporting cultures prevent the global collaboration that would be required for this to happen and National economics prevent better distribution within nations.
So, yes it is perfectly possible, but we have to re-engineer the way we organise ourselves, move away from competing nation states and move towards a single system of global governance, and set up a more equal way to distribute from the Have-too-much to the Have-nots
A. A one world government would look like any national government whose judicial system has been tasked with getting its citizens to conform to its laws. There are many possible variations in implementation as can be seen from looking around the world.
Essentially, laws ethics and morals help us control the more forceful natural capabilities we have evolved with, so that we can collaborate with others, channel our need to compete and differentiate ourselves in less destructive ways. It is also in our natures, at some stages of our lives, to test rules and boundaries, which is why we will always need a judiciary service.
A common set of laws would make governance and trade efficient, and a global judicial service could apply those laws to a common standard.
A. A world Government should be concerned with providing common services to its population, leveling up globally and preventing a few from controlling everything, managing the way we exploit the planet, promoting technologies to get us off the planet before it goes up in a puff of smoke, and setting a common moral framework so that we control our behaviours that allow us to trust each other and collaborate.
Independently of all that, humans have and always will, believe in all sorts of gibberish that leads to formation of religions, and humans have and always will, look for ways to differentiate themselves using fabricated languages, clothes, foods, and everything else we agree on that makes a subculture to differentiate Us from Them.
A one world government would free multi layered cultures from geographical boundaries and allow them to free float within a single governance framework.
A. If One world government was based on a common culture using common morals law and taxes, provided common services and is controlled by a common democratic process, then nation states disappear along with their borders, trade barriers, financial systems and differences in service provision to citizens. The species can then 'level up' around the world and work collaboratively to resolve global issues like climate change and the need to get off the planet before it succumbs to cosmic forces.
To achieve this we would need to re-engineer the ways in which we organise ourselves. If people stopped instilling their nationalism and ideologies into their children and instilled instead a sense of we-are-all-one-species culture, then this might be possible for a future generation.
Then most of the tensions that develop into wars today disappear.
No borders - geography based ownership wars disappear. The global system can better deal with global problems such as famine, floods, drought, pandemics.
Species governance culture would become most important - Sub cultures based on religion, language, skin colour, cricket team, sexual orientation, etc etc would become diasporas no longer tied to geography, free to float and co-exist within a common species-culture governance framework. Cultural wars disappear unless cultures think they are more important than species culture, or they wind themselves into an emotional frenzy, which unfortunately is part of being human.
Common services based on common taxation - reinforces common culture and if implemented as part of levelling up should remove equality based disagreements and riots.
Common financial system - Trade wars disappear, national debts resolve themselves.
Common judicial system - corruption, fraud, drugs trade, slavery and all the other behaviours we have that make it difficult to trust each other, can be addressed better at a global scale with one world government.
Common democratic process - should remove the need for revolutions as long as people feel they can make the laws better for them through voting, but this will always be a finely balanced part of the system.
But then, we are human, and group conflict is a capability that has evolved with us.
So a world government would reduce the causes for war, but humans would have to evolve to be able to control our emotions and obey the moral rules to remove war entirely.
A. All living beings have evolved the ability to decide how to act (within the constraints of their genetic capabilities). Some have evolved the ability to decide to collaborate with others, which in humans, forms the basis of our societies, families, tribes, nations. The limited resources of the planet and the fact that we need to exploit other beings (carrots, oysters etc) for our survival mean that competition and differentiation are fundamentals of the system. Fairness is only a consideration when we use it as a tool to help us collaborate with others (human or otherwise).
Rules and laws are based on morals and ethics, and humanity has invented these to aid collaboration. It is entirely in our natural gift to exercise free will and choose whether to obey social rules and collaborate, or whether to go our own individual ways.
Achieving this balance between conforming to a rules based society and freedom of expression and action are what every system of government is struggling with.
We need a system that encapsulates both, and we should educate ourselves better in how and why this works.
A. To 'be good' means obeying some human rules that we have made up and agreed to uphold. We need rules to curb our individual competitive evolutionary natures, and these rules allow us to work collaboratively as they form the basis of trust. Working as a group has more power to influence our environments and our evolutionary success rates than working individually. Of course we also require group moral behaviour otherwise we just move our tendency to kill each other as individuals to killing each other in groups.
All people need rules to enable them to work together, whether the rules have been entangled with some imagined creation theory and reinforced in a church, or are informed by our developing theories based on scientific evidence and enforced by our judicial systems. So I would say that as an athiest you do want to voluntarily conform to morals, encapsulated in laws, so that you can prosper alongside your neighbours. Multiple religions may have started the drive towards moral enforcement, but they have evolved into judicial systems which free people from ancient dogma. Of course people have have told to believe all sorts of gibberish since time immemorial, and that is unlikely to stop, but the only important and consistent thread in our historical evolution is our ability to form groups based around common morals and trust.
A. All living beings exploit other living beings unless they can live on sunlight or recycled decomposed bodies.
Humans are currently omnivorous and we can only evolve by exploiting living beings whether or not they are capable of running (or swimming or flying) away. A Carrot is a living being, as is an oyster. Accept yourself for what you are. We can of course choose how we treat the beings we exploit during life. Self consciousness, empathy, fear of death, pain are outputs of many living beings. After all, they are only a few DNA sequences away from us, and we are all part of a single interacting evolving system.
A. As the temporary wearer of flesh that can ingest air, roast mutton, water, smells, ideas, can sense light, sound, pressure, heat, and can transform them into movement, stools, words, emotions and impressions in all of those beings you interact with, of course you can make the world better. You just need to decide what 'better' is and then do it. And remember that small things soon add up.