The rich nations have exploited the world for hundreds of years. It is becoming increasingly difficult to exploit resources, since low hanging fruits are already gone and there is much more concurrence in exploiting; even a reverse movement in which the developing world is claiming its share in the world product - even leading to emerging powers.
No wonder the rich world is retracting, there is little to gain and much to lose: now the strategy is closed borders, strong security policies, withdrawing from international programs, and fight by proxy with the existing and upcoming world powers for areas of influence, without being directly involved in order to avoid the backslash that the increasingly harsh policies that will be required in order to continue exploiting world resources will cause.
The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our standard of living, whatever it takes.
Good. This top-down world governance project needs to be abandoned. It's hegemony wrapped in a nice package of development aid (and military interventionism under the surface)
>there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where do you address yourself, you know?
What is it with the international elite, looking down at the world from their quaint old chateaus and cushy jobs, who believe all the worlds problems will be solved if someone could give them more money for their advice and add another layer of government/bureaucracy on top? Why is the ICRC pushing this agenda?
Stop it, firstly stop the interventionism! Military and economic. Stop bombing the ME, stop acting holier than thou and imposing this narrow globalist set of ethics onto the world. Stop trying to grab power and pretend it has some altruistic component. It's causing chaos.
These problems are not going to be solved by a world government.
Quite contrary to the opinion expressed in the article that Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a problem, I consider them symptoms of a public trying to stop these crazy globalist agendas.
Unless you have been living on a different planet, US and Europe (The West) have pretty much withdrawn from the Middle East.
The ones doing the bombing now in the middle east are Russia and various Muslim factions killing each other.
The west has withdrawn from the quagmire and also is the one accommodating refugees for some reason, unlike the like of rich Arab countries like Saudi and UAE who share the same religion and cultures.
There are, though. Turkey, Iran and Jordan's proportion of refugees is a very substantial % of their population. In the gulf states there are millions of Syrians and Palestinians, just called guest workers rather than refugees. In a lot of ways that's more humane, as they can work straight away. We, bizarrely, refuse refugees the right to work while complaining that they don't contribute.
That's because in most countries that take refugees, average people own no capital (except maybe housing, an illiquid and unproductive asset) and can only contribute labor for income, resulting in a situation where "jobs" are a scarce resource. Now, if ownership of capital were more widespread, refugee labor would be much more welcome.
In the long term, yes, but the labor market is quite inelastic in the short term, and without a strong and robust safety net, short term effects dominate for most workers.
Western countries aren't accepting all that many refugees. Fear of refugees was certainly part of the reason the UK voted for Brexit; here in the US, I've seen an active political campaign attacking someone who touted supporting moving a mere 20,000 refugees from Syria.
The countries that host the most refugees are such large, rich countries as Turkey, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon. Jordan recently closed its border with Syria to stop the flow of refugees (currently at 1.4 million Syrian refugees in a population of 9.5 million or so). Compare this to the refugees fleeing to the European Union, about the same number over all in a population of 510 million.
Complete chaos had been the default state of that region for over 2000 years. Interventions and abrupt withdrawals by Western powers certainly haven't helped, but it's naive to think that they are the primary cause.
To say "we're out now therefore it's not our fault" is ridiculous, pretty much every tinpot dictator/terrorist leader in those countries can be tied in one way or another back to the CIA or any of the three letter orgs from the US or Britain, just to name a couple, Saddam Hussien, Osama Bin Laden. We've been screwing with the Middle East for decades, before which it was a relatively progressive and pretty normal place, not perfect but arguably just a decade or so behind the US at the time.
As it turns out, when your only filter for "people to support financially" is "do they hate the Russians" and you never look any further, you tend to get some not-great results.
What you call a top-down world governance project, I call a expansion in international co-operation after the disaster that was the first 2 World Wars.
That international cooperation has undoubtable made the world a safer place. It has seen the expansion of the middle class in BRIC. Between 1981 and 2005, poverty dropped from 84% to 18% in China, 80% to 42% in India, 17% to 8% in Brazil. Between 1990 and 2012 the average global life expectancy jumped by a full 6 years! Hell, if you lived in Liberia, it was 20 years!
Compared to the chaos of the first half of the 20th century (not to mention parts of the second half), the world is absolutely peaceful and a better place for just about everyone.
To be totally fair though that peace owes a big part of itself to the MAD concept and the fact that all the strongest nations worldwide have enough firepower pointed at each other with itchy fingers on the triggers to annihilate the planet 5 times over.
Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying that the hippies were wrong and we got a lot further by threatening each other than we ever did holding hands and singing songs.
Did the major nations of the world ever hold hands and sing songs? Has that actually been done? I'm not super up on my world history, but I don't remember that ever being a thing.
>That international cooperation has undoubtable made the world a safer place. It has seen the expansion of the middle class in BRIC. Between 1981 and 2005, poverty dropped from 84% to 18% in China, 80% to 42% in India, 17% to 8% in Brazil. Between 1990 and 2012 the average global life expectancy jumped by a full 6 years! Hell, if you lived in Liberia, it was 20 years!
It's the withdrawal of colonialism (due to WWII exhaustion, national freedom movements, and political pressure) and the end of the 2 superpowers Cold-War peripheral collusions, that gave those countries a better chance to catch up and develop themselves.
Not some "international co-operation" coming top-down.
The "world elite" and "global governance" were also directly responsible for things like the elimination of smallpox.
I'm not sure either that ICRC people encouraging more of this is the problem or Trump vacillating between isolationism and threatening to "bomb the shit" out of countries represents anything that vaguely represents a solution.
Empires are great for wealth creation. America has constructed an empire-that's-not-an-empire through internationalist orgs like NATO, the IMF, the UN, etc.
Before we had Pax Britannica and Pax Romana. Now we have Pax Americana. But probably Pax Americana will go just like Pax Britannica and Pax Romana. I don't think we've reached the end of history yet.
Just because I have been seeing these a lot: where does this talk about the "globalist elites" come from? Is there an intellectual leader to this 'movement'?
Elite just means "the small minority of people with big power/wealth".
And "globalist elite" just means people in power in governments, multinationals, etc, that are in favour of an extension of their power and reach etc through global treaties, etc -- to the detriment of regional governments.
That's par for the course for having power, and how the world has been running since forever.
Except if you also think that 10 countries having 2/3rd of the world as slaves in their colonies up to merely 5-6 decades ago was also a "conspiracy theory" or "paranoid rhetoric".
In which case I salute the historical ignorance and naivete.
Unless this world government is going to organize the biggest genocide in history (as the conspiracy goes), or implement (energy) austerity on a massive scale, I don't see what such an institution will do for climate change.
All it will achieve is the greater concentration of power in the hands of even fewer people.
The potential solutions that come to mind range from, on the pessimistic end, apocalyptic, to technological if we are to be optimistic. We'll either think our way out of the crisis with cleaner sources of energy, or nature will have it's way and our population will dwindle.
An effective carbon tax that goes to finance alternative energy tech seems like a pretty good start that can only be implemented with global consensus.
A tax that will be passed on to the consumer which will disproportionately affect the poor? It won't be people in Switzerland or Silicon Valley that will be materially affected by such a scheme.
Taxes can be structured to not impact the poor and/or additional aid can be structured to offset the impact - much like income tax, or luxury tax, or inheritance tax.
>A tax that will be passed on to the consumer which will disproportionately affect the poor?
A tax on BS consumption won't "disproportionately affect the poor". The poor have vastly more basic needs to be concerned with a tax on all kinds of consumerist crap.
Or rich nations subsidizing nuclear power in the poor nations who are manufacturing stuff for them. We've effectively off-shored our manufacturing pollution.
The atmosphere and oceans are a common good, and it's hard to see how we'll stop polluting without enforceable agreements. And that means some entity has to do the enforcing.
Global warming denial seems to be an ideological necessity to the right-wing because they can't accept a problem exists that can only be solved by global governance. Witness the poster you're replying to, suggesting we accept human extinction rather than taxes and regulation.
>The potential solutions that come to mind range from, on the pessimistic end, apocalyptic, to technological if we are to be optimistic. We'll either think our way out of the crisis with cleaner sources of energy, or nature will have it's way and our population will dwindle.
That was the original statement. To me, the fact that 'range' is included, means there's more than just two choices implied. I do believe it misrepresents the argument to suggest that there's only two 'extremes' of "taxes and regulation" or else "we go extinct."
In an ad-hoc manner? We have lots of global bodies like the UN, and numerous ad-hoc global treaties.
Global cooperation doesn't have to be global governance, and involve everything and the kitchen sink.
>Shouldn't international laws and co-operation between nations, naturally develop into a global government?
No, they shouldn't.
We have different cultures and different preferences in our different countries, we don't want powerful bully countries coercing us in what to believe, including countries so backwards as to still practice the death penalty or to think "welfare" is some dirty word.
It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation.
If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world?
To me it seems intuitive that the world is better off governed as a web of many different institutions (nation states) with varying interests, as opposed to hierarchically under a singular power attempting to coalesce around an impossible consensus.
Of course, not all the "nodes" (states) are equal, which is why we have "spheres of influence." Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II. You don't see China or Russia trying to export their hegemony onto the rest of the world, yet the United States continues its attempts to "export democracy" into areas like the Middle East. Why not let the Middle East develop into its own pole of power along with the US (the "West"), Russia, and China (the "East")?
The world would be much better off if the global elites allowed the spheres of influence to develop naturally and peacefully, without trying to push those in the middle one way or another. Some cultural differences are simply impossible to overcome, and any attempt to ameliorate them only ends in violence. One might argue it's not even in the world's best interest to "overcome" cultural differences. One of the great tragedies of globalization is the emergence of a monoculture (go to any club in the world, for example, and you hear only American music) that could cause people to sleep walk into the control of a single world power.
> It seems contradictory that the hive mind of HN argues for decentralized technology and Internet governance, while also arguing for a globalist agenda and top-down international cooperation.
You and I must read very different parts of HN, since in every article concerning globalism, the top comment, or one of the top comments criticizes globalism.
If there is one phenomena that does permeate HN, it's 2edgy4me contrarianism-for-the-sake-of-contrarianism, and even that isn't very strong here.
> Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II
I wouldn't say there was anything natural about the bipolar post-WWII world. It was the result of both sides striving to be dominant, coupled with nuclear weapons.
You'll never have a country willingly cede advantage to another -- only transient configurations of alliances, agendas, and resources that lead to temporarily stable multipolar scenarios.
China and Russia have attempted to expand their spheres of influence drastically in recent years. China in particular donated 189.3 billion USD in foreign aid and government sponsored investment internationally, not to mention everything that is going on in the South China Sea.
I'm a big believer in distributed power, but I think a global cooperative government should be necessary to guarantee a few basic things:
1) Ensure free movement of people and goods
2) Ensure no unambiguous human rights abuses (like genocide), though this actually could be arguably fall under (1)-- if people are free to leave, human rights abuses don't necessarily have to be policed.
This would help ensure a network of competitive governments.
54 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 101 ms ] threadNo wonder the rich world is retracting, there is little to gain and much to lose: now the strategy is closed borders, strong security policies, withdrawing from international programs, and fight by proxy with the existing and upcoming world powers for areas of influence, without being directly involved in order to avoid the backslash that the increasingly harsh policies that will be required in order to continue exploiting world resources will cause.
The rich voter demands from its government only one thing: increase our standard of living, whatever it takes.
How is this for a simpler theory
China is the one doing the exploiting and manufacturing now, in turn exporting their goods to the rest of the world in exchange for IOUs
Correcting for population, China's inference is much less than the West's.
Correcting for cumulative historical inference, China's does not even register compared to the West.
>there is a gap at the global governance level. Who's in charge of that? Where do you address yourself, you know?
What is it with the international elite, looking down at the world from their quaint old chateaus and cushy jobs, who believe all the worlds problems will be solved if someone could give them more money for their advice and add another layer of government/bureaucracy on top? Why is the ICRC pushing this agenda?
Stop it, firstly stop the interventionism! Military and economic. Stop bombing the ME, stop acting holier than thou and imposing this narrow globalist set of ethics onto the world. Stop trying to grab power and pretend it has some altruistic component. It's causing chaos.
These problems are not going to be solved by a world government.
Quite contrary to the opinion expressed in the article that Brexit and Trump are symptoms of a problem, I consider them symptoms of a public trying to stop these crazy globalist agendas.
Unless you have been living on a different planet, US and Europe (The West) have pretty much withdrawn from the Middle East.
The ones doing the bombing now in the middle east are Russia and various Muslim factions killing each other.
The west has withdrawn from the quagmire and also is the one accommodating refugees for some reason, unlike the like of rich Arab countries like Saudi and UAE who share the same religion and cultures.
Hmmm... have you actually looked?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_of_the_Syrian_Civil_W...
This is doesn't even include Palestinian refugees.
http://www.unrwa.org/where-we-work/jordan
Same story in Lebanon and Turkey
https://mgtvwspa.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/refugee-story-3...
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/french-air-force-avenge...
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/07/led-air-strikes-kill-2...
Is not that they are out of middle East, it is that they are occupied in Libya:
https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-now-bombing-4-countries-as-...
The countries that host the most refugees are such large, rich countries as Turkey, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon. Jordan recently closed its border with Syria to stop the flow of refugees (currently at 1.4 million Syrian refugees in a population of 9.5 million or so). Compare this to the refugees fleeing to the European Union, about the same number over all in a population of 510 million.
Chaos that was predicted while the US was drumming up the wars in Afganistan and Irak.
damned if you do damned if you dont
As it turns out, when your only filter for "people to support financially" is "do they hate the Russians" and you never look any further, you tend to get some not-great results.
That international cooperation has undoubtable made the world a safer place. It has seen the expansion of the middle class in BRIC. Between 1981 and 2005, poverty dropped from 84% to 18% in China, 80% to 42% in India, 17% to 8% in Brazil. Between 1990 and 2012 the average global life expectancy jumped by a full 6 years! Hell, if you lived in Liberia, it was 20 years!
Compared to the chaos of the first half of the 20th century (not to mention parts of the second half), the world is absolutely peaceful and a better place for just about everyone.
Not saying it's a bad thing, just saying that the hippies were wrong and we got a lot further by threatening each other than we ever did holding hands and singing songs.
It's the withdrawal of colonialism (due to WWII exhaustion, national freedom movements, and political pressure) and the end of the 2 superpowers Cold-War peripheral collusions, that gave those countries a better chance to catch up and develop themselves.
Not some "international co-operation" coming top-down.
I'm not sure either that ICRC people encouraging more of this is the problem or Trump vacillating between isolationism and threatening to "bomb the shit" out of countries represents anything that vaguely represents a solution.
Before we had Pax Britannica and Pax Romana. Now we have Pax Americana. But probably Pax Americana will go just like Pax Britannica and Pax Romana. I don't think we've reached the end of history yet.
1981 - 2005, also known as the period when the US and Russia couldn't maintain their hegemony over B, I and C anymore.
No, there are just people thinking for themselves.
Elite just means "the small minority of people with big power/wealth".
And "globalist elite" just means people in power in governments, multinationals, etc, that are in favour of an extension of their power and reach etc through global treaties, etc -- to the detriment of regional governments.
That's par for the course for having power, and how the world has been running since forever.
Except if you also think that 10 countries having 2/3rd of the world as slaves in their colonies up to merely 5-6 decades ago was also a "conspiracy theory" or "paranoid rhetoric".
In which case I salute the historical ignorance and naivete.
Alright. How do we deal with global warming?
Shouldn't international laws and co-operation between nations, naturally develop into a global government?
All it will achieve is the greater concentration of power in the hands of even fewer people.
The potential solutions that come to mind range from, on the pessimistic end, apocalyptic, to technological if we are to be optimistic. We'll either think our way out of the crisis with cleaner sources of energy, or nature will have it's way and our population will dwindle.
Taxes are not the solution to every problem.
A tax on BS consumption won't "disproportionately affect the poor". The poor have vastly more basic needs to be concerned with a tax on all kinds of consumerist crap.
The atmosphere and oceans are a common good, and it's hard to see how we'll stop polluting without enforceable agreements. And that means some entity has to do the enforcing.
Global warming denial seems to be an ideological necessity to the right-wing because they can't accept a problem exists that can only be solved by global governance. Witness the poster you're replying to, suggesting we accept human extinction rather than taxes and regulation.
Straw man or False dilemma?
That was the original statement. To me, the fact that 'range' is included, means there's more than just two choices implied. I do believe it misrepresents the argument to suggest that there's only two 'extremes' of "taxes and regulation" or else "we go extinct."
In an ad-hoc manner? We have lots of global bodies like the UN, and numerous ad-hoc global treaties.
Global cooperation doesn't have to be global governance, and involve everything and the kitchen sink.
>Shouldn't international laws and co-operation between nations, naturally develop into a global government?
No, they shouldn't.
We have different cultures and different preferences in our different countries, we don't want powerful bully countries coercing us in what to believe, including countries so backwards as to still practice the death penalty or to think "welfare" is some dirty word.
Compared to the era where they carpet bombed the world, had 2/3 of the global population as slaves in their colonies, etc?
If you believe in the principles of decentralization as they relate to technology, can you not apply the same axioms to the world?
To me it seems intuitive that the world is better off governed as a web of many different institutions (nation states) with varying interests, as opposed to hierarchically under a singular power attempting to coalesce around an impossible consensus.
Of course, not all the "nodes" (states) are equal, which is why we have "spheres of influence." Western powers as of late seem to be pushing for a singular sphere of influence, as opposed to accepting the bipolar or tripolar world that has naturally developed after World War II. You don't see China or Russia trying to export their hegemony onto the rest of the world, yet the United States continues its attempts to "export democracy" into areas like the Middle East. Why not let the Middle East develop into its own pole of power along with the US (the "West"), Russia, and China (the "East")?
The world would be much better off if the global elites allowed the spheres of influence to develop naturally and peacefully, without trying to push those in the middle one way or another. Some cultural differences are simply impossible to overcome, and any attempt to ameliorate them only ends in violence. One might argue it's not even in the world's best interest to "overcome" cultural differences. One of the great tragedies of globalization is the emergence of a monoculture (go to any club in the world, for example, and you hear only American music) that could cause people to sleep walk into the control of a single world power.
You and I must read very different parts of HN, since in every article concerning globalism, the top comment, or one of the top comments criticizes globalism.
If there is one phenomena that does permeate HN, it's 2edgy4me contrarianism-for-the-sake-of-contrarianism, and even that isn't very strong here.
I wouldn't say there was anything natural about the bipolar post-WWII world. It was the result of both sides striving to be dominant, coupled with nuclear weapons.
You'll never have a country willingly cede advantage to another -- only transient configurations of alliances, agendas, and resources that lead to temporarily stable multipolar scenarios.
1) Ensure free movement of people and goods
2) Ensure no unambiguous human rights abuses (like genocide), though this actually could be arguably fall under (1)-- if people are free to leave, human rights abuses don't necessarily have to be policed.
This would help ensure a network of competitive governments.