Is Global Solidarity Possible?

Global solidarity is very possible if you manage to get rid of naivety and dysfunctional economic ideas.

Today we are in a reform where we are moving away from Globalism, which is a fine term for an abusive economic structure in where almost all nations and people have their percentage of the wealth generated, reduced. The money goes to private investors instead, and a few states like China.

The countries with the reduced income, relied on debt to keep their country going, as well as letting slide infrastructure maintenance, reduce social welfare and get people to work more.

Going back to compartmentalized national economies with trade balance between them, will create a system where a nation can actually manage their countries without the threat of being drained of wealth.

Wealth generation is actually quite simple but without economic and political borders it is very hard. It is all about efficiency, which includes efficiency of administration and efficiency of industry as well as maximizing the population's health, within the borders of a nation.

One major problem is naivety. IQ and the Pareto principle are biological facts. You have to set the high IQ high Pareto people in charge. No system works when we do as we do today, placing the most vocal or ideological person in charge.

Is it possible well i suppose it might be. is it likely probably not. nonetheless there are probably some universal standards that a vast majority of humans would agree upon. don't eat your children for example and probably quite a few others i dare not elaborate upon out of fear of the quora censors. take the base standards as common ground and build upon them. i don't think it's enough however to call it solidarity if we merely have a set of axioms like don't eat your or anybody else's children in which nearly everyone believes. there must be a common goal that we wish to strive toward and guiding principles leading on the path toward that end. there will always be some people who think differently so in this sense solidarity is impossible. however if the end point actually and truly embraces people's inherent differentness from each other then i think some progress may be made toward global solidarity.

Considering that it seems most conflict is scarcity driven, no, it's exceedingly unlikely to have world peace without sustainability.

Unless we achieve a certain homeostatic balance with ourselves, our environment, and our food sources, we will be merely jumping from one existential crisis to another. Sadly, humans tend to resolve conflicts of this sort with violent agression.

If we have no water, there will be war.

If we have no food, there will be war.

If we have pestilence, there will be war.

It's entirely possible to achieve sustainability. It's however difficult to persuade the powerful that such a thing is both beneficial and profitable.

Therefore, it seems equally unlikely that we will achieve such a balance, and infinitely improbable that we will ever see a global peace.

That’s easy, for two main reasons.

1. Eliminating humans would defeat the point of peace on Earth, it would just be wild, for a time, until uncontrolled nuclear reactors, storage facilities and factories leak so many poisons that it creates a global toxic desert where only a few species mutate to survive.
2. World peace is simply defined as the absence of war. The solution is surprisingly simple, we just don’t elect officials who declare war, impeach them if they do, and you’re done.

Of course, this hasn't happened yet due to the trillions invested in the buying and selling of weapons, oil and minerals that don’t always belong to them, (aka uninhibited colonialism without borders) mostly through war and the political campaigns to convince people to not oppose it white the companies cash in. Note I did not say support, as few have ever been legitimately “pro war” (anyone who is has no idea what war is like, ask a veteran) but they at least admit that war might be a potential band-aid to other “economic problems” at hand.

Some say, there would be peace on Earth if all humans were the same, because differences are what draws us apart. I don’t think so. Even if all people were the same, everyone would still put his/her own interests before anyone else’s (which, after all, is a normal mechanism to ensure survival), so there would always be conflicts, because not everyone’s interests can be met at the same time. Just look around: there are conflicts in marriages, between family members, between former friends etc. They are not limited only to different nationalities, races or religions. If you had two identical individuals (physically and mentally), each one would fight for his or her own interests, and that sometimes inevitably goes against the other person’s interests.

So, I say: if you want peace on Earth without eliminating humans, you have to eliminate either their intellect or their free will. As long as there are intelligent beings with free will, they will be inherently selfish and that will always cause conflicts between them.

Firstly, how do you define world peace?

Another thing in your mind is that “eliminating humans” can get you World Peace which is clearly wrong.

You have to realize that one day everything will end, does it end now or in a decade, or in a century? Does it really matter? Not at all.

Let’s just say we attain “World Peace”, now what? Everyone lives, no one dies. More advancement in technology and medicine, etc. This all means more people, more resources. And none are unlimited. So conflicts are bound to arise, no matter what.

And given our internal vices, never can we ever accept everything, except the end/death which is a universal truth.

So if I am to take this postively, the only option would be if everyone can achieve “Internal Peace” only then we will have “World Peace”.

By changing the behavioral characteristics of humans. It actually could be done constructively. We are now coming into the era where we have the tools. But, the usual first fear is that the process would be eugenics. Done well it would not be that. It would be evolution speeded up. But, then there is the second worry. The second typical response is that bad humans would take the tools of the process and produce bad outcomes. That is likely.

Cite this page