So, we like our flags, we like our homelands, and we love our fellow citizens. We want our land, we want our sovereignty, and we want ownership of territory. But we have a growing population, fewer resources, and privatized technology (employed for profit or through government coercion, when feasible). Some parts of the world have plenty of space left (not to mention useful resources), but those parts may not be within our homeland. Will we have to give up nationalism (the holding high of the nation-state, and its general sovereignty) or our home? Will we have to forgo national citizenship to continue to thrive on this planet?
Any form of reverence for the state, ie nationalism, is the bane of modern society. If we do move towards internationalism, we should be anti-nationalist internationalists. Individualism is key. For the proper allocation of resources we need simply to respect the rights of all individuals worldwide. Every nation has a competitive advantage in the global marketplace, and can therefore sustain one another through free trade. But if we have nations like the US killing millions of innocent people in search of our own form of 'internationalism' (NWO), harmony will never be achieved. If we end the blind 'patriotic' support of nationalism in the US we can start to work towards global peace. I assume you want a non-coercive global alliance? This will not be achieved through a central global body of governance.
No. We are overproducing food in most of the world, and have plenty of room. You will see more urbanizing, and better ways to attack such problems. I must say there is a lot of untapped land out there if some entrepreneurs want to capitalize.... 3/4 of the world's land mass is untapped, we will adapt when the time comes.
I assume you want a non-coercive global alliance? This will not be achieved with simple idealism, ideology, or even (anti) resistance. Where's your practicality, aaronman? Say we end it in the "free" United States. How about in China? How about Korea? How about pseudo-homogenous Japan? Oh, who do you figure will be the sovereign of the Ocean?
First of all, Who is this "we"? 2nd) na man, it could be ONE nation under 1 and 1 under all. insted of say 152(guessing) nations under 1. Hypostanding
Well just like we had to wait tell Europeans could further ship building to weather the ability to go across the sea, we will have to wait tell that day when we technology can further it. In Columbus's case, it wasn't tell the nation of Aragon and Castile joined together to make Spain. I could see the same thing happening here, except it was a lot easier back then, all they had to do was get a queen to marry a king. Democracy has really put a limitation on that one.
Technology is not sovereign over itself, and you know better. I even closed off this escape route in the OP. Technology is either employed at the bidding of the modern monopolistic state (the only legitimate source of power over its domain) or for profit. Unfortunately profit is only permanent and real when there is a legitimate measuring stick: again the domain of the modern state. "We" loud, proud, and arrogant nationalists a.k.a. patriots. One nation? Hmm... who will lead it? What will happen to the Americans (and their Constitution), the Chinese (and their cultural history), and the Europeans (and their Rationality)?
tHere is nouthing wrong with PatRiots. EVERY one should be one or El a.k.a.. PatRiots will help the entire world. PatRiots will lead it. ParRiots will bring together and temper all that each of the to be nation has to offer be it history or rationality.
Who said there was anything wrong with them? I just posed a series of questions in the OP regarding the future of land-owning states. I await answers.
I had a feeling that you would take it as you had, in my error I had forgotten to fix that when i finished the post. It is an answer. the question has a sent of resentment twords the future of a nation of land that can be used by an all encompasing "nation" and it by the idea of natiolism. I say that that very ideal(nationilism) is what keeps a nation going, so damn its a real big no.
I understand it's what is helping to keep nations going. Nationalism is pro-nation-state by nature. But, we're facing a practical dilemma, and ideals won't get us anywhere this time.
[box] me If our homeland was to be everones then it would be good. [box,me] I say the only thing that could really help out with this is the preemptive cremation to the phenox we know as nationalism, as we know it. Simply for the ashes of rebirth.
I disagree, the want for profit has always driven need for new technology, it isn't the other way around. Walmart didn't change all there lighting systems to save energy because saving energy is ultimately good for the environment, they did so because they looked at the money they would save in 3 years time from updating, and acted accordingly, that is profit. http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/334339-win-oil-win-game.html I hate to pimp my own thread, but the dude in the video explained what I just said in much greater detail.
WalMart is not relevant here. Oil is not the only issue here. Living space is the issue. And I disagree that profit is always what has driven technology: Ben Franklin.
Every person and animal has a stake and right to this earth. All "property" is theft by that i mean land and resources. Everything done should depend on how it will effect the people and land 10 generations from now. and the world is already international via capitalism
Ultimatly yes it is an issue, but as long as when we find out, the universe is forever, then ultmatly we have no problem at all. I'd have to remark that you INsite is miles from here. Living space as an issue can't be an issue to a whole because as a whole we have the universe. How is it the issue?
Think of the number of Bengalis (people from Bangladesh). Now look at a map and see how big it is. Now think of the number of Greenlanders. How big is Greenland? There was nothing metaphysical about this OP. This was political. Yeah, I see what you mean, but you know, there are these silly people who claim that a scrap of paper (Constitution) can ensure them their rights WITHOUT A STATE. I find that sort of thinking truly paradoxical. I mean, property rights but no state? Are you kidding me? All in the name of "individualism" when they mean "materialism".
Electricity is not a technology, maybe the lightning rod, you could credit him with, but the Greeks and Egyptians discovered it way before he did. He just furthered the idea of the current, not saying he wasn't good contribution. All I am saying is, that was not a technological break through. More a scientific one than anything.