I agree that a global society (with a political and economic infrastructure) will likely arise due to our civilization's increasing technologies, although it may take a while and suffer setbacks. In the case of a natural or manmade catastrophe, though, "Type 1 Civilization" may never come to fruition.

On the other hand, I think the ideological conflict of capitalism and communism is dead (IMO, Soviet Communism was never anything but state-monopoly capitalism anyway.) Modern debate about government interference in the market usually sides with less government control rather than more. Even in "Communist" China, 70% of China's gross domestic product (GDP) is in the private sector, if that serves as any measure. The socialism-capitalism equilibrium seems to be relatively stable right now. Meanwhile, just as an equilibrium is continually sought at the national level between individual liberty and collective security, though, I imagine a new equilibrium will be sought at the global level. In the words of John Robb: "The balance is increasingly between preserving the benefits of global interconnectivity and insulating against the myriad threats that can strike at us through those same connections." (Brave New War) The former equilibrium is the work of national governments; no institutions seem to exist for finding the latter equilibrium.

The push for a global society has apparently been due to economic incentive. I can't find the quote or the person who said it, but a businessman said something like, "There are no American or German businesses, there are only successful businesses." I agree with him to an extent, although it seems that businesses still have regional ties and government affiliations, especially those subsidized industries (like agriculture and defense). I'm not sure if any map can be accurately drawn for twenty or thirty years into the future, but I have a feeling it will be radically different and composed of EU-like states.

Hey Luap,

"The balance is increasingly between preserving the benefits of global interconnectivity and insulating against the myriad threats that can strike at us through those same connections."

Yes I believe your correct as far as old world communism goes. However this new age threat is very similiar to the old stereotypical commie vs capital ideology. As capitalists we pushed for our individual rights vs the ideology of communism which in theory is the eradication of those rights in favor of the community.

It's basically just another side of the same coin. And you can be assured that people aren't going to give up airplanes, cell phones, and internet. The interconnectivity isn't going away. In fact, it will become increasingly complex and the ability to insulate against those who use newer technologies/resources (for evil) will become more difficult.

although it seems that businesses still have regional ties and government affiliations

Although those regional ties will change over time due to a change in language and culture.

I'm not sure if any map can be accurately drawn for twenty or thirty years into the future, but I have a feeling it will be radically different and composed of EU-like states.

I agree the map will change. But what do you mean by EU-like states? How would interconnectiveness serve to facilitate such a change? If anything I see the opposite. The political boundaries were already in place and the entities joined in a union to compete globally.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Scramjet76]

The Mandarinate

Originally posted by Scramjet76
However this new age threat is very similiar to the old stereotypical commie vs capital ideology.

By 'new age', do you mean Greens? Environmentalists, climate-change advocates? Would that also include multiculturalists? I'm sure you don't mean people who are into chanting mantras to balance their chakras, they're a different lot completely.

It's true that the left in America and elsewhere in the rich world has embraced green issues and often projects socialist policies as the solution to every environmental problem. But just because of one's (perfectly natural, in my view) loathing of socialism, one shouldn't let the association make one lose sight of the fact that green issues are real, and need to be tackled. There are other means besides socialist ones. We should use them.

But let's move on to your point. You were suggesting that because of the irreconcilable ideological opposition of left and right, we may never achieve one world government. I think you're too pessimistic. You're American; you haven't lived in a world where socialist and even communist parties fight it out with the capitalists -- conservative or liberal -- in democratic elections. I have. Generally, if the economy improves, the leftists don't do so well. But over time, what really happens is that both groups move towards the centre, offering policies that are a mix of 'social-democratic' and 'free-market', which most voters are pretty comfortable with. You can observe this best in Western Europe, where the accommodation has been taking place the longest.

The coming world government (I like to call it the New World Order, isn't it an original name?) will probably be something like that. Its political parties will be broad churches. There'd be a pro-business party, a pro-people party, a pro-faith and tradition party -- possibly others too, but I can't think any other big comprehensive groupings like that. Anyway, each of these parties would be a huge political umbrella sheltering hundreds of smaller regional and national (oh yes, there'll still be countries) parties, many of which will be coalitions in which every variety of that general bent will be represented by at least one opinionated and vociferous local or one-issue party, advocacy group or -- heaven forfend -- revolutionary movement. Though as always the real revolutionaries will stay on the outside all of this, lobbing bombs in.

With any luck, the vast size and seething diversity of these political melting-pots will render them ineffectual, stricken with 'consensus paralysis' -- the inability of big committees to reach a decision that all members can agree to support. The policy and adminstrative vacuum generated by their paralysis will then be filled by the bureaucrats, of which there will be an ample supply -- notice that a world government must necessarily have additional layers of decision-making hierarchy to those possessed by national governments -- world government is centralized government, and centralized government is big government. People say it can be different, but no-one's ever managed it yet.

So what you'll get is a vast, patient, ponderous, topplingly hierarchical Mandarinate. And this would be only fitting, because I suspect the model of the future world government will probably look more like Imperial China in its heyday than it resembles any Western state or union. And -- given the way the economic dice are falling these days -- a solid fraction of the people at the top are likely to be Chinese. Maybe they'll start growing their fingernails long again.

in effect to judge the dependancy of type 0 to type 1, in relation to conciousness and the mystical secrets of the universe, we have to consider a variety of subjects. Sacred geometry, alchemy, the subject based around 2012, hyperdimensional physics, and many more unique subjects. I believe that some one that has the intelligence(i dont) should look into the effects of all of these subjects. I have not the brain power to explain the synthesis to put these ideas together. However, i , in my mind have pieced it together, it all leads to a point in our species' evolution, where conciously at some point VERY SOON jump or fall. When i take into account interplanetary climate change, the subject of a growing conciousness, a date set by myans of 2012, the idea that a black hole at the centre of our galaxy could let forth a burst which may or may not change the make up of our dimensions. Someone i think needs to physically pull all this together. any decent replys in a respective fashion, email me(jack4396) at jism4396@hotmail.c.uk