Global Politics and transition to Type 1 Civilization

Recently there was a thread started in the Multimedia Uploads Forum involving the popular theoretical physicist
Michio Kaku, and some of his future visions. It is Kaku's belief that we are beginning to see the emergence of a Type 1 Civilization in our society.

In this video Kaku explains that we are moving towards a Type 1 Civilization at an amazing rate. He points to evidence of merging nation-states (i.e. EU), the emergence of a dominant planetary language (english), and the internet (as a Type 1 telephone system) as some examples of this transition to a new global society.

With the increase in technology we can no longer keep our cultures and ideologies from crossing paths. We seem almost destined for a global society including a global political system.

I feel like the future could hold a merger of the USA and EU to combat a merger of China and Russia. That isn't to say that Americans want to merge with Europeans! But if i.e. China merges with Russia, they might not have a choice. IMO, it will ultimately come down to the ideology of communism vs capitalism. Look at the major powers on the planet. You see the liberal left in the USA not going away. They continue to try and push socialistic ideas into our system. Ultimately a China-Russia merger might have to incorporate more socialism/capitalism into their ideology... as we might have to incorporate more socialism/communism into ours. It might be necessary to avoid killing eachother over plots of land, resources, political ideology etc.

Is Kaku wrong in thinking that newer and better technologies not only fascilitate but demand a one world gov't? And if this is the case, is the final struggle between adamant capitalists and communists yet to come?

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,



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



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


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.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Hi Astyanax



No I'm suggesting that because of the irreconcilable ideological differences between world powers that eventually something has to give. Competition will force unions (of Nation-States) which will inevitably bring us back to square one: Communist ideology vs Capitalist ideology.

Professor Kaku is basically saying that Capitalism is pushing a Type-1 civilization upon us if we like it or not. We know that both Russia and China are not true communists, yet certainly there are very influencial folks within their societies who are adamantly opposed to adopting the democratic capitalistic system we have in the USA.

Will the future see a merger of China and Russia to oppose western powers? It could happen. And if growth is inevitable and we are all on the same planet isn't some type of confrontation inevitable. Whether is solved through force or understanding is the question. I'm asserting (or hoping) that it will be solved through understanding as we move towards a one world gov't.



Yes I totally agree. But in a future scenario of merging nation-states will populations who have evolved under USA control or Russian control be "comfortable" with adapting their ideologies in order to find common ground?

It's one thing to find common ground between european countries who have already shared borders throughout history. But can the superpowers merge their ideologies to satisfy their populations, politicians, and national security?



I think that is what I'm eluding to.. I grew up in the USA conditioned to believe in certain ideologies. But I agree a future world gov't would mandate more communist characteristics in order to properly function. Hopefully not like imperial China though. I'll always stand for free elections and mucho education.