Could the entire world become a single nation?

[Nietzsche]

Overlooking that this is clearly an improper extrapolation, why would you say that? Why is recognizing that groups of humans become difficult to engage and manage after around a dozen or so individuals impractical? I thought this was pretty well-known.

If it were half as impractical as you seem to be suggesting, I don't think civilization would've occurred at all. If anything, as states grew larger humanity progressed more and more quickly.

If it is fairly centralised (like most countries) then it probably goes downhill after about 5 million. Size increases complexity exponentially.

..5 million? Of the 195 countries on the planet, 117 of them are at or above 5 million. 89 of them are at least double that.

A federation large enough to support a significant military for defence broken down into highly autonomous regions/municipalities of no more than a few million.

So, again, the likes of France, Japan, South Korea, so on and so forth just don't exist?

No. We are too diverse and identity driven and government would be highly ineffective and contentious.

I don't understand this line of thought. Larger states allow for better and more flexible resource use and inherently more cooperation. If a location bereft of certain resources can easily obtain them from another place without the red tape and haggling of nations fighting for lucrative trade agreements, it means they will simply do better.

That was actually an advantage as it meant power had to be decentralised to a significant degree.

Nowadays, you'd get far more of someone in some office thousands of miles away making decisions about places they didn't understand.

You're not very well versed in how the British Empire was ran, are you? Not trying to be snarky.

 

[Nietzsche]

There have been many attempts in the past by ambitious leaders to try to conquer the world. But for whatever reason, they just couldn't do it. Last time around, it was Germany, Italy, and Japan who tried, but they were relatively small nations with limited resources. In order to really pull off a global conquest and unification, the crazed, power-mad dictators would have to be in charge of large, powerful nations, such as America, Russia, and China. Then, they can get together and divide up the world into their own spheres of influence.

None of them were vying for world domination. Germany's goals was European hegemony and colonizing Eastern Europe(and the Balkans) up to the Urals.

Italy wanted to reconstitute the Roman Empire, specifically its African, Balkan and Middle-Eastern territories.

Japan wanted dominance of the Pacific ocean.

Not really "world domination".

 

[Nietzsche]

I bet if you tore down all of those idolatrous statues of Jesus everything would work out for the better.

The Muslim world is largely without statues of Jesus, and we are all aware it is a sprawling Utopia, the very definition of progress, rational governing and prosperity.

Checkmate, Kaffirs!

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Re-thinking states and territories in large federations such as the USA, EU, Canada, China, USSR etc:

How large can a country be without getting unwieldy? What is the best size? Can the entire world become one country or not?

Only when there is no more over-population.
Too many people wrongfully see having more than 2 children as a way of improving the position in society.
Excess young males are then 'encouraged' to migrate to parts of the world that are wealthy because they
have stable population growth. If these get absorbed, then that is reason to have more children; this way
they believe they can conquer that part of the world through racial/cultural hegemony.

This is the driving force beyond most major warfare, which causes poverty and the division of nations;
as better balanced nations seek borders as a means to keep away the endless migrants and beggars.

Sadly, I wonder if the only way for this to end is to impose family limits globally, the same way that China
did to its own population. This will be massively traumatic; but unfortunately it would be far less traumatic
than the endless problems resulting from allowing the current situation to continue.

I have a plan for making it easier. But its so hard to get people to listen to reason.
Everything is just ego-worship, even among the wealthy balanced populations.

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be nice if Americastan & Canuckistan were one country.
Then I could drive thru Ontario to get to NY, saving me about 60 miles each way.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Re-thinking states and territories in large federations such as the USA, EU, Canada, China, USSR etc:

How large can a country be without getting unwieldy? What is the best size? Can the entire world become one country or not?

That would mean giving up sovernity for a world charter. Best case would be for a world federation as opposed to a world nation. Dunno how well that would go. It would be like combining NATO with the Warsaw Pact. Not very likely.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there anything for sovereignity, though? It seems to me that it is glorified fiction.

 

[Brickjectivity]

That would require the whole of humanity to be ideologically homogeneous.

That is obtainable by means of mass transplantation of cultures and forced intermarriage. I'm not saying that this would be a stable or happy thing but that historically it has been made to work. Temporary unity would be possible of course. Stable and happy is the question.

Using the ancient method lets say the three scariest countries: Russia, USA and China get together. Lets say that they each force their military to join into one force and intermarry all over the world. All future military students attend the same training and schools and must be of mixed heritage to be in the force. That is the first phase. Then populations are forcibly transferred across the Earth over a period of only five years: Half of China is moved to Russia and USA, half of USA is moved to China and Russia, and half of Russia is moved to USA and China. The final step is forced intermarriage. Then you have mass transplantation of cultures as per the ancient methods and a permanently transformed, creole culture. Everybody would hate it at least at first.

There you go: ideologically homogeneous culture.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ontario?
A bit too close for comfort.

I'd promise not to spread atheism there.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not quite what I was worrying about.

The "Ignorant... capitalist engineer libertarian" part of your title is much more spooky.

I might spread engineering though.

 

[suncowiam]

Only when aliens invade us.

 

[Augustus]

..5 million? Of the 195 countries on the planet, 117 of them are at or above 5 million. 89 of them are at least double that...So, again, the likes of France, Japan, South Korea, so on and so forth just don't exist?

The question was at what point do they become unwieldy, not at what point do they become impossible to manage.

The small former Soviet republics have in general done much better than the large ones for example.

I don't understand this line of thought. Larger states allow for better and more flexible resource use and inherently more cooperation. If a location bereft of certain resources can easily obtain them from another place without the red tape and haggling of nations fighting for lucrative trade agreements, it means they will simply do better.

If the vast majority of decisions are made at the local level, you can still have relatively large states that gain many of the benefits, and mitigate many of the harms. 100 million people divided into 60 highly autonomous municipalities functions a lot differently than a state in which most key decisions are made at a national level. An NY liberal doesn't want a Texas conservative making decisions that have a significant impact on their life and vice versa.

Larger centralised states suffer from diseconomies of scale with negative effects. Running a universal healthcare system for 500 million is far more complex and bureaucratic than running one for 1 million people. This is true for every aspect of government.

Large centralised countries increasingly isolate the decision makers from the results of their decisions which makes power holders far less accountable. A village chief can't escape the consequences of their decision, by a Chinese government minister can escape almost all of them. The smaller the political unit, the more accountable the decision makers become.

Large states have to fit more diversity into a 'one size fits all' approach. The Eurozone is a good example of why this is problematic, also the EU expansion into Eastern Europe could possibly be the thing that causes it to break up. It's already been responsible for 1 major state leaving. And if they had let Turkey in as many leaders wanted to I'd say it would be a certainty that multiple states would be likely to leave.

You're not very well versed in how the British Empire was ran, are you?

It was expressed relatively - 'far more of'...

The more time consuming and the less effective the means of communication and transportation, the more decisions have to be made in a decentralised manner by people on the ground.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Our brains biologically limit our group-think abilities to somewhere around 15,000 people. We simply can't process much more than that. Combining this with our propensity to constantly engage in us-vs-them mentalities, and it's easy to see why we remain so divisive as a species, even when it benefits us to be different.

Every single attempt at large-scale unification, at every level, has failed. Once cultural identities are accepted, it's very hard to suggest that they change without being interpreted as an aggressor of some type...

So, no.
Imagining a single, global, nation is a wishful vision, fanciful imagination, and a fairy tale.

 

[Quintessence]

If it were half as impractical as you seem to be suggesting, I don't think civilization would've occurred at all. If anything, as states grew larger humanity progressed more and more quickly.

Why are you conflating unwieldily with impractical? I said it was unwieldily, not impractical. Two entirely different things, dude.

 

[Falvlun]

Can the entire world become one country or not?

Not unless there is some outside threat, like aliens, which make the differences between humans seem petty in comparison.

Or perhaps after multiple other worlds are colonized: then the Earth humans could band together against the Mars people and the Lunar people.

Otherwise, I don't see there being much motivation for people to give up their differences and divisions.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That would require the whole of humanity to be ideologically homogeneous.

Nope. Just the ones who have the ability to exert control.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Re-thinking states and territories in large federations such as the USA, EU, Canada, China, USSR etc:

How large can a country be without getting unwieldy?

Thirty-two.

What is the best size?

Seventeen.

Can the entire world become one country or not?

Can it? Sure, anything's possible.. Will it? No.

 

[LuisDantas]

At some point, there will be either a major disaster or some form of unification of, at the very least, mutual understanding.

All other possibilities became moot decades if not centuries ago.

However, it does not look like humans are in the least equipped with the anthropological ability to make it work.

 

[UpperLimits]

Re-thinking states and territories in large federations such as the USA, EU, Canada, China, USSR etc:

How large can a country be without getting unwieldy? What is the best size? Can the entire world become one country or not?

Good Lord - I hope not!! We have enough problems in western Canada just being controlled by Ontario. I can't imagine being controlled by the Middle East.

Have any of the proponents of this foolishness ever thought about WHO would eventually end up with the balance of power in such a system? HINT: It's not going to be Americans. They don't have the population. It will be a struggle between China, India and the M.E. Just take a look at the UN if you need any further clarification. IF you push for one world government, then kiss your American way of life - goodbye!!

How big is big enough? Well, I could handle cutting things off at the Manitoba/Ontario border.

 

[Brickjectivity]

IF you push for one world government

I am not.