Nation-states

[wolfyx]

I think that the "nation states" are losing their viability in today's world as a political form.

In the beginning humans, like any other social mammals, were organized in tribes. When the civilizations evolved, the need of a higher political organization appeared : the nation-state. The primitive states were autocratic monarchies that were usually created when a powerful tribe instated its dominance over the others on a certain territory. In order for this states assure their legitimacy and perennity, they had to ensure the sociocultural homogeneity over the controlled territory.

The main advantage of this superior organization was that created the sens of unity and because of this a large number of people started to work together and to collaborate for achieving a common goal. Inter tribal wars inside a "nation" became a lot less common and laws, protected by the powerful king, were instated. This crated order and stability and as a result humanity evolved greatly. Wars against the "outsiders" were, on the other hand still acceptable and even considered necessary and moral. As a result, in a chain reaction, all the other sociology-cultural groups had to centralize their power in order to ensure their survival.

This world of "nation-states" exists already for more then 5 millenniums and it became a part of human subconscious. That's why for most people a different form of governance seams impossible.

But what is the situation today?

The humanity evolved to a stage where the life of a human been if lived at a planetary scale. Physical travel around the globe, became a matter of hours and information transmission a matter of seconds.

We are technological advanced enough to control and use a major part of our planet energy. We have become numerous enough to be able to deplete our planets finite resources, and the population is still growing at an alarming rate. We have the weapons capable to wipe out the whole life on earth if we are crazy enough to start a all-out war now.

No political decision really makes sens right now if it does not consider the global context. International organizations (UN, UNESCO, etc.) exist right now but they don't have enough power to really set a direction.

But lets remember what the nation- state is. A political structure created to centralize the power, to represent and control a sociocultural homogenous group. As you can see it completely lacks the global perspective in its very definition, and also the sociocultural homogeneity inside of a nations today no longer exists. A nation-state is unsustainable if people do not feel "represented" by their leaders and do not identify themselves with the direction set by the central power.

[Darklordabc]

This world of "nation-states" exists already for more then 5 millenniums and it became a part of human subconscious. That's why for most people a different form of governance seams impossible.

Whats a better alternative, one world state?

A nation-state is unsustainable if people do not feel "represented" by their leaders and do not identify themselves with the direction set by the central power.

Thats why the happiest states our the ones were people are in control (democracies).



P.S: Welcome to volconvo!

[wolfyx]

Whats a better alternative, one world state?
[/]


Thats why the happiest states our the ones were people are in control (democracies).

P.S: Welcome to volconvo!

We can debate about an alternative together.

I hope there are some smart people here, capable of reading essay-like posts entirely and that try to understand them before replying :)

P.S. Thank you

[barts]

I would agree with you, wolfyx. The trend is away from nation-states towards groups of states. The EU being the most apparent example, but "Americanada" is also becoming such a group. As well, we have a global situation now where the most powerful countries are reluctant to take military action against other states without the imprimatur of the United Nations. If the trend continues, a de facto if not formal United States of Earth will be the reality.

This trend has practical implications. Let me offer one example. The current Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party is deaf to environmental protection. It is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto climate change treaty, the first country to do so. It actively promotes Canadian projects that are environmentally damaging. It is diminishing the effectiveness of current environmental protections. In response to this some Canadian environmental groups, with more to follow, are appealing to the legislatures of other countries which trade with Canada. They are asking those countries to ban the importation of Canadian products or resources which are not created at standards equivalent to those in the importing country. It's absurd, but Canadians can often to do more to protect their environment by going to Brussels or Washington rather than Ottawa.

In my view, given the EU example, this is a good trend.

And, welcome to Volconvo.

[SoylentGreen]

This world of "nation-states" exists already for more then 5 millenniums and it became a part of human subconscious. That's why for most people a different form of governance seams impossible.

.

Really? five thousand years? Source please.

I would suggest that the concept of a nation state is relatively a new one and that it was not until the the nineteenth centuary that it could be said to be the dominant form of land ownership.

Until then Europe was littered with small dynastic kingships. The phenomena of consolidating all those small Fiefdoms into larger nation states is a modern concept.

[spinel]

As you can see it completely lacks the global perspective in its very definition, and also the sociocultural homogeneity inside of a nations today no longer exists. A nation-state is unsustainable if people do not feel "represented" by their leaders and do not identify themselves with the direction set by the central power.

There's no sociocultural homogeneity in the US, if I'm understanding that term. But we do have large groups of people on the left feeling they are not identifying themselves with the direction set by the "central power".

[Jack]

It's often difficult to sustain a rational and dispassionate debate on any topic that suggests a form of international governance that even approaches the theme of a "one world government". The Christian's Bible-based fear of the concept and the hysteria from the "New World Order" crowd make having a practical discussion of the idea that nation-states may on the road to irrelevancy in our modern, global economy almost impossible. I think it's a worthy topic of debate and one, I hope, we can sustain here without degenerating into fear-mongering mythologies or conspiracy theories.

[lsbskins1]

It's often difficult to sustain a rational and dispassionate debate on any topic that suggests a form of international governance that even approaches the theme of a "one world government". The Christian's Bible-based fear of the concept and the hysteria from the "New World Order" crowd make having a practical discussion of the idea that nation-states may on the road to irrelevancy in our modern, global economy almost impossible. I think it's a worthy topic of debate and one, I hope, we can sustain here without degenerating into fear-mongering mythologies or conspiracy theories.

Good luck with that...

You might as well expect to have a rational discussion about Pit Bulls. Someone is going to jump in and insist that the concept of a common moral framework for human interaction/the dog is evil by it's very nature.

[wolfyx]

Yes nation-states are a form of identification for the primitive man, just like religion. Its human nature to want to "belong" to a group. The problem is that the present status quo has lasted for so long that now it has a very well established place in the collective unconscious. Very few humans can comprehend that the biggest group that they belong to is "humanity".

Because people can not see the bigger picture they are so easily controllable. It's enough to create the idea of a "God" and the people will follow and serve you. Its enough to create the idea of a "nation" and people will go die in wars if you tell them to.

Since the beginning of times simple and popular concepts had to be used to unite and control the masses. People feel lost and they are too lazy to think for them selfs. Just give them a sens of direction and establish a set of values in which they can find some measure of self worth.

I agree that the nationalism creates a sens of identity and competitiveness and that it helps preserve the moral and economic values of a "nation". But almost exactly the same can be said about religion.. And all of a sudden if I use the word "religion" instead of "nation" what I say is a lot less crazy (except for the evangelicals or radical muslims I guess).

My opinion is that both are primitive concepts shaped for the primitive people. They are representation that serve no other purpose then to create the feelings of "belonging" and " self worth". Maybe in its current state of evolution humanity still needs them, but for how long? When will the humanity become evolved enough to be able to function just by being intellectually honest to itself?

[ruksak]

When will the humanity become evolved enough to be able to function just by being intellectually honest to itself?

You're gonna have to wait a few millennium for the rest of the stupid people to die off. Darwinism is effective but sturdily slow in its process.

I'm not sure if you have issue with the creation of borders or what?

Cultural purity is the reason for nations/borders, or at least it was in some instances (America has almost no cultural purity anymore). Until all cultures merge and become one, how can we have things any other way?

[wolfyx]

Even for some of the smartest, the idea of nation states completely disappearing is incomprehensible. So many consider that nations-states will continue to exist (forever??)...

We should make a clear distinction between nations and socio-cultural groups. They are not equivalent nowadays, as they used to be when the nation states were first created. "Nations" are artificial and they are falling apart nowadays because of the failure to understand this distinction. Look for example at the dismantling of ex Yugoslavia, the genocides in Rwanda or Sudan, the ethnic and religious conflicts in Belgium, Ireland or Spain and I could go on forever with this examples...

The world is mosaic of socio-cultural groups and not one of nations. Until the people can understand this basic truth we can not move forward.

[Darklordabc]

The world is mosaic of socio-cultural groups and not one of nations. Until the people can understand this basic truth we can not move forward.

That is what usually unites nations, shared values. We wont be able to go any larger then nations states until our neighbors start to have our same values. This is why Australia and New Zealand can talk of uniting, but Australia and Indonesian cannot.

Before we can have anything like a world government, we have to assimilate the other cultures to ours, which doesn't seem likely any time soon.

My opinion is that both are primitive concepts shaped for the primitive people. They are representation that serve no other purpose then to create the feelings of "belonging" and " self worth".

It serves more purpose then mental comfort. People form groups and nations to empower themselves and their ideas. An individual who believes in American values (for example) is nothing, but a whole nation who believes in the same values is a global force to be reckoned with. Its not as simple as some sort of psychological safety blanket like as you describe it.