Do you think the world will unite?

[irishScott]

If we Terraform Mars and Venus, I can see 3 distinct cultures forming. Similar to how animals evolved separately once separated by continents.

There simply won't be enough travel between the planets to allow for intermingling. Evolution itself could take different paths on each planet.

Then there will inevitably be conflict between the planets. Cultural differences, trade imbalances, etc.

Well, the question was "Do you think the world will unite?" not "Do you think humanity will unite?"

 

[clamum]

Maybe way into the future but it would be so long from now it seems kinda dumb to predict. Although I'd say an alien invasion would do it.

At least I'll be dead long before there's some shitty fuckin commie "utopia" one-world government.

 

[Midwayman]

Like one big hippy commune? Forget it. People are selfish and lazy. It takes a very special person to work hard when they know they'll get the same reward as the guy who sits on his ass all day.

 

[Train]

Well, the question was "Do you think the world will unite?" not "Do you think humanity will unite?"

Right, I was implying each of the planets would unite, being necessary to engage in conflict with the others.

 

[Patranus]

LOL - No.

Look at what happened with the United States.
It was "united" under the constitution but left the states more or less able to run/pass policies as they please. Then people found ways to exploit the constitution for their own gain by homogenizing the states and it is divided as ever.


Sure, the world could unite under something like the original US constitution outlined but there will always be groups of people who think they know better than you and try and impose their way of life onto you.

 

[T_Yamamoto]

No never

 

[destrekor]

He said extra-solar, which is just stupid.

What, as in... doing so tomorrow?
Or in the distant future?


Given the time to develop propulsion technology, what is so LOL about extra-solar colonization?

Propulsion limitations are the only thing technically holding us back. That's a pretty big wall that will probably require a few centuries to scale, but once we can attain fast enough travel, the first stages will be like ancient sailing missions across the ocean, requiring weeks if not months.
And, last time I checked, even with ancient infrastructure, we found a way to support such colonies.
Baby steps.


If we can get to that point, we'll already have inner-space quite well conquered, and will have orbital colonies as well as lunar and martian colonies established.
If that stage of our civilization arrives before an "on the brink" style of WWIII, and occurs before an earth-destroying threat (at the hands of nature or aliens), then space habitation will drive us to unite under a single banner.
It may not be entirely voluntary and bring great amounts of glee, but unless it's a militaristic-regime performing a coup, I think it'll be at least hesitantly welcomed. As mentioned, trade and fair practices will mandate such an oversight.

And as orbital colonization and planetary colonization expands, the threat of conflict will rise yet again. The curious question is, how long after that does a new/evolved united government come into its own? As in, so the Earth government and the non-Earth government(s) didn't agree and had a spat - does it take a few times trading blows before a United Mankind government forms, or does that even happen before it can escalate?
What if there's enough intelligence to create a top-level government from the moment the colonies have grown enough, one that overseas everyone but then let's the Earth and Colonies create their hierarchical structures and manage their affairs until it's an inter-party affair.

The analog of the original U.S. experiment is very much what I see as the overall format for a global governing body, perhaps with a few twists. It'd definitely need to be a federal republic, especially in the early stages so that cultures and governments could maintain some autonomy and remain unique.
The cultural transformation of an evolving U.S. would be appropriate as well, so as to minimize conflict due to stagnant cultures and religious differences, among other causes for concern. The thing that would not be welcome in the "evolving U.S." model, is the political infection that followed. The world body would need to be careful about crafting a representative/electoral system that minimizes both the odds and impacts of such an outcome. It's a little daydreamy, I realize, but I think not impossible given a rigorous crafting process and care to prevent any loopholes that allow for great change.
You could almost create an "unalterable" government. Allow for new laws that fit very carefully into an extremely rigid web, but don't allow people sweeping changes, going go far as to remove certain democratic government approaches (citizens voting for such sweeping changes).

I think a carefully crafted republic, with less democracy, has the potential to be a favorable global governing body. Leave the democracy flourishes for the lesser governments, but the top-level needs to be a well groomed, carefully crafted and very limited republic-style empire. We know the history of large republics falling in on themselves, but they grew into that position.
Make them a certain static size, with a certain level of expansion written into the books, with no room for sweeping changes and growth in power... unless civilization itself falls on its face, that "empire" shouldn't face the typical empire struggles where they too big or too powerful.
It would be interesting if we/they could also write into law one, and only one type of sweeping, radical change: a mandated vote every so often (once every three decades, perhaps?), or maybe a petition to put this up for vote for all citizens type of event... a vote that says, should a committee be drafted and a large army drawn, in order to create and protect a new era for the republic, to be introduced into regular law 10-15 years after this date.
Require a massive majority (4/5's ?), and... do something fancy with laws and policing to ensure transitions are smooth. Keep a certain structure always the same but allow those committees to change certain things, expand this or reshape that, etc...

Just kind of flowing new thoughts to text here... haven't given it much thought. Seems an interesting thought... this thread is fairly pointless as is, might as well make a thought-exercise out of it.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

No, we will discover physics and implementations of said physics that will allow it. Hell we already have concepts on the books that theoretically world, they just require quantities of power we can't generate yet.

It'll probably take centuries. Tell me, since you're so sure, what will the state of physics be in 600 years? Will we have discovered any new branches of physics we don't have the slightest inkling about today?

It's enticing to think we know everything and that things will only develop along the paths we can foresee. Makes us feel powerful, and people like you can "lol" about it on the internet. Fact is we don't know all that much, we're finding out and creating exponentially more every year. We've answered questions that people as little as 70 years ago didn't even know to ask.

In 600 years scientists and engineers of the time will look back on a lot of what we thought and laugh, just as we do to previous generations today. Yes, your knowledge of physics will likely be laughed at too. Sorry if that puts your panties in a twist.

That's where you're wrong. We will not and can not generate more energy than the universe contains. We will never be able to travel anywhere near light speed, which isn't even fast enough, nor will we be able to warp space. Even the most powerful events in the universe, which are predicted to bend space can not be detected by our most sensitive instruments, and those only produce ripples at best, where we would need enormous distortions to make meaningful travel possible. Last time I checked, supernovas are not something you want to be around, yet supernova energy is pitifully lacking. No matter what discoveries lie ahead, these facts will not change. There are simply certain limits to moving mass that we have known plenty about since the turn of the century, and despite wishful thinking, and false faith in our ability, these will not be changed by any degree of advancing knowledge. Sorry to shit on your parade, but god is infinitely more likely than science's ability to transmute physical law.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

What, as in... doing so tomorrow?
Or in the distant future?


Given the time to develop propulsion technology, what is so LOL about extra-solar colonization?

Propulsion limitations are the only thing technically holding us back. That's a pretty big wall that will probably require a few centuries to scale, but once we can attain fast enough travel, the first stages will be like ancient sailing missions across the ocean, requiring weeks if not months.
And, last time I checked, even with ancient infrastructure, we found a way to support such colonies.
Baby steps.


If we can get to that point, we'll already have inner-space quite well conquered, and will have orbital colonies as well as lunar and martian colonies established.
If that stage of our civilization arrives before an "on the brink" style of WWIII, and occurs before an earth-destroying threat (at the hands of nature or aliens), then space habitation will drive us to unite under a single banner.
It may not be entirely voluntary and bring great amounts of glee, but unless it's a militaristic-regime performing a coup, I think it'll be at least hesitantly welcomed. As mentioned, trade and fair practices will mandate such an oversight.

And as orbital colonization and planetary colonization expands, the threat of conflict will rise yet again. The curious question is, how long after that does a new/evolved united government come into its own? As in, so the Earth government and the non-Earth government(s) didn't agree and had a spat - does it take a few times trading blows before a United Mankind government forms, or does that even happen before it can escalate?
What if there's enough intelligence to create a top-level government from the moment the colonies have grown enough, one that overseas everyone but then let's the Earth and Colonies create their hierarchical structures and manage their affairs until it's an inter-party affair.

The analog of the original U.S. experiment is very much what I see as the overall format for a global governing body, perhaps with a few twists. It'd definitely need to be a federal republic, especially in the early stages so that cultures and governments could maintain some autonomy and remain unique.
The cultural transformation of an evolving U.S. would be appropriate as well, so as to minimize conflict due to stagnant cultures and religious differences, among other causes for concern. The thing that would not be welcome in the "evolving U.S." model, is the political infection that followed. The world body would need to be careful about crafting a representative/electoral system that minimizes both the odds and impacts of such an outcome. It's a little daydreamy, I realize, but I think not impossible given a rigorous crafting process and care to prevent any loopholes that allow for great change.
You could almost create an "unalterable" government. Allow for new laws that fit very carefully into an extremely rigid web, but don't allow people sweeping changes, going go far as to remove certain democratic government approaches (citizens voting for such sweeping changes).

I think a carefully crafted republic, with less democracy, has the potential to be a favorable global governing body. Leave the democracy flourishes for the lesser governments, but the top-level needs to be a well groomed, carefully crafted and very limited republic-style empire. We know the history of large republics falling in on themselves, but they grew into that position.
Make them a certain static size, with a certain level of expansion written into the books, with no room for sweeping changes and growth in power... unless civilization itself falls on its face, that "empire" shouldn't face the typical empire struggles where they too big or too powerful.
It would be interesting if we/they could also write into law one, and only one type of sweeping, radical change: a mandated vote every so often (once every three decades, perhaps?), or maybe a petition to put this up for vote for all citizens type of event... a vote that says, should a committee be drafted and a large army drawn, in order to create and protect a new era for the republic, to be introduced into regular law 10-15 years after this date.
Require a massive majority (4/5's ?), and... do something fancy with laws and policing to ensure transitions are smooth. Keep a certain structure always the same but allow those committees to change certain things, expand this or reshape that, etc...

Just kind of flowing new thoughts to text here... haven't given it much thought. Seems an interesting thought... this thread is fairly pointless as is, might as well make a thought-exercise out of it.

Even if we could build the ships necessary to overcome the fuel/speed/mass/fuel/speed/mass problem and get to a pitiful 50% C, have fun melting on the way, have fun imploding into a black hole due to your mass, etc.

Honestly, if we ever do explore the galaxy, it will be accomplished by the immortal machines we evolve into, but it will still be accomplished at a very slow pace. No news of our explorations would ever reach home, and nothing would return, making the voyage meaningful only to those that took it.

 

[irishScott]

That's where you're wrong. We will not and can not generate more energy than the universe contains. We will never be able to travel anywhere near light speed, which isn't even fast enough, nor will we be able to warp space. Even the most powerful events in the universe, which are predicted to bend space can not be detected by our most sensitive instruments, and those only produce ripples at best, where we would need enormous distortions to make meaningful travel possible. Last time I checked, supernovas are not something you want to be around, yet supernova energy is pitifully lacking. No matter what discoveries lie ahead, these facts will not change. There are simply certain limits to moving mass that we have known plenty about since the turn of the century, and despite wishful thinking, and false faith in our ability, these will not be changed by any degree of advancing knowledge. Sorry to shit on your parade, but god is infinitely more likely than science's ability to transmute physical law.

We've discovered new forms of physics before. I'm sure the very notion of a machine that could land on the moon would have seemed impossible to the smartest people on the planet 600 years ago, and they would have trumpeted numerous known, immutable "scientific laws" to prove their point.

All you've said so far is:

The physics we know is immutable, and there are no new physics to be discovered that will alter the fact that we are stuck on Earth.

Which is little more than arrogant idiocy that you can't even hope to prove. You have my pity, your arrogance is getting in the way of your imagination. If you can't conceive of something right now, you reject it. I'm glad I've never thought that way, my life would suck.