United Earth? New Horizons & Nationalism

[Albertese]

...

I wonder if nationalism will decline with space tourism? I mean space tourism at the level where the common person goes to Mars and maybe the moons of the outer planets sees the Earth like a star.

Earth as seen by the Curiosity rover on Mars:

Though nationalism still thrive in our time despite most people know the Earth is tiny relative to the vast Universe.

At the end of the day it's up to individuals how they interpret the size of the Earth relative to the Universe.

This post and image makes me think of carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot speech. If you aren't familiar with it and you have three and half minutes, I encourage you to check it out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923jxZY2NPI

--Alex

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I wouldn't imagine it be all that different for United Earth...at least until after the founding of the Federation.

Not even then. The coming of the Federation doesn't mean that United Earth ceases to exist. Quite the opposite, actually - Earth is just another Federation member world, nothing more.

True, the capital buildings (and Starfleet Headquarters) happen to be located there, but that doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

The old national cultures and thoughts would all still be there. Just the governmental structures would have a layer or two over them, the one more over that after joining the Federation.

Exactly.

 

[dswynne1]

Personally, I don't want to ever have a one-world government. For one, it means having to deal with people with a totally different mindset culturally. And, for another, such aspirations are socialistic. Sorry. I believe in competition between nations, and I certainly believe in the idea of a sovereignty. 'Murica. ;-)

 

[sojourner]

^This is a funny statement coming from an 'Murican.

 

[dswynne1]

^This is a funny statement coming from an 'Murican.

Well, I do hope to convey, even in jest, that the idea of a "United Earth" is not needed, in order for humanity to advance in the STEM fields. I like the idea of independent agencies, from NASA to European and Russian agencies, to the Indian, Chinese and Japanese agencies, and even the civilian/private space firms, working on various projects independent of each other. Having all these firms and agencies working under one umbrella will encourage group think, which, IMO, is not good for innovation. And, as human exploration goes on, the politicians and bureaucrats will hammer out agreements for space cooperation. After all, the last thing anyone wants is weaponized space.

But, I digress.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

If you could manage

To make the rhyme

Your posts could be mounted

On Burma Shave signs.

That doesn't rhyme.

*bummed*

 

[Nerys Myk]

Everyone's a critic.

 

[Ithekro]

. After all, the last thing anyone wants is weaponized space.

But, I digress.

But then who will sell weapons to the Martian Colonies for their general rebellions and uprisings? Its tradition.

 

[horatio83]

The thrust of it was National Pride and once that was satisfied, the only thing that kept us going back the few other times we did was contractual.

I do not disagree with your accurate description of the actual space program but your notion that nationalism could be the only motive to get out there. In my mind it was pure historical chance that it happened because of that and in the future (as well as in hypothetical different pasts) we might very well get out there for totally different reasons.

 

[horatio83]

In the past I would have agreed, but the recent events have made me a little more wary. Now I think you'd need a good deal of protections, checks, and balances to prevent such a superstate from being largely run by bureaucrats, where the citizens get a symbolic "voice" that's then ignored. We don't get much detail onscreen on how Trek's United Earth government squares that.

Needless to say, a worldwide goverment would only be good if it were actually democratic. Right now I would agree that national rule is better than and the only currently feasible form of resistance against the only form of worldwide governance we have: antidemocratic corporate behind the scenes (with things like the secret pseudo trade agreements it becomes more overtly antidemocratic) rule.

One key feature of United Earth seems to be he lack of pressure to make economic gains via agression. In a world where basic resources are not scarce (obviously stuff like starships still are) and people do not strive to be super-rich and are content with a normal lifestyle it is easier to have democratic rule than in a world where everybody yearns to get more at the costs of somebody else.

 

[Autistoid]

Personally, I don't want to ever have a one-world government. For one, it means having to deal with people with a totally different mindset culturally. And, for another, such aspirations are socialistic. Sorry. I believe in competition between nations, and I certainly believe in the idea of a sovereignty. 'Murica. ;-)

Why exactly?

 

[MacLeod]

^This is a funny statement coming from an 'Murican.

Well, I do hope to convey, even in jest, that the idea of a "United Earth" is not needed, in order for humanity to advance in the STEM fields. I like the idea of independent agencies, from NASA to European and Russian agencies, to the Indian, Chinese and Japanese agencies, and even the civilian/private space firms, working on various projects independent of each other. Having all these firms and agencies working under one umbrella will encourage group think, which, IMO, is not good for innovation. And, as human exploration goes on, the politicians and bureaucrats will hammer out agreements for space cooperation. After all, the last thing anyone wants is weaponized space.

But, I digress.

Space exploration is expensive and we have many pressing needs to address here on Earth as well. So perhaps by co-operating in space exploration by pooling money we can do both. As it could free up money to spent on those things we need to fix on Earth.

You could sill have the innovation you speak out by different companies competeting to build/design different parts of a spacecraft. Or have multiple teams come up with potential designs for a spacecraft before deciding which one to build.

 

[Autistoid]

^This is a funny statement coming from an 'Murican.

Well, I do hope to convey, even in jest, that the idea of a "United Earth" is not needed, in order for humanity to advance in the STEM fields. I like the idea of independent agencies, from NASA to European and Russian agencies, to the Indian, Chinese and Japanese agencies, and even the civilian/private space firms, working on various projects independent of each other. Having all these firms and agencies working under one umbrella will encourage group think, which, IMO, is not good for innovation. And, as human exploration goes on, the politicians and bureaucrats will hammer out agreements for space cooperation. After all, the last thing anyone wants is weaponized space.

But, I digress.

Space exploration is expensive and we have many pressing needs to address here on Earth as well. So perhaps by co-operating in space exploration by pooling money we can do both. As it could free up money to spent on those things we need to fix on Earth.

You could sill have the innovation you speak out by different companies competeting to build/design different parts of a spacecraft. Or have multiple teams come up with potential designs for a spacecraft before deciding which one to build.

The pooling of resources is generally a nightmare.

Syncing up projects is near impossible.

Not to mention what's needed is higher volume projects.

The iss is a prime example of how costs balloon.

It'd be much better for space if each nation was trying to create it's own space station.

 

[T'Girl]

Needless to say, a worldwide goverment would only be good if it were actually democratic.

That in of itself is no promise of "good."

Democracy (looking around the world) comes in many different forms and flavors. Simply having a world government that bear the general description of "democratic" isn't enough to classify it a good government. Because it is possible to have a bad democracy.

 

[horatio83]

Because it is possible to have a bad democracy.

If one uses the word democracy to categorize forms of government, yes, then there are ample of bad democracies.
But this is a fairly limited view. If one doesn't just look at form but also at content you gotta use democracy like a word like justice, i.e. as an ideal to constantly strive for or, more technically, not as a binary 'either democracy or autocracy' but rather as continuous 'more or less democracy'. Then more democracy is clearly better than less. (Needless to say, the notion of democracy always implies the rule of law; mob rule is not democratic.)

Unless you are a right-winger, then of course democracy is something you strive to reduce which is what has happened ever since the reactionary Thatcher/Reagan revolutions that undid the social democratic post WWII (or in America post New Deal) regimes and put us (i.e. the West) on a path towards corporate socialism which is a form of autocratic or oligarchical rule under the guise of formal democracy.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Gene Roddenberry made it up that the planet Earth operated under one government for the same reason(s) that every Planet of the Week operates under one government: it's easy to write and for the audience to follow. To take such make-believe to heart and say, "that's it! That's how the entire Earth should be governed" is to take all of that fantasy just a little too seriously, perhaps.

 

[horatio83]

On the contrary, United Earth is not a convenient story-telling device like the transporter (we never literally see it so the show could have just been agnostic about politics) but a key feature of Star Trek.
Not so much in terms of a political entity that is part of the foreground of the show but the background. For example in TOS United Earth is personalized by crew members who come from all over the planet and, one layer higher, from United Earth to UFP, from different planets. Even nowadays this clearly sticks out and during the sixties it stick out even more.
Ethnic diversity and political cooperation (achieved by the way without political correctness; the crewmembers of the NCC-1701 frequently make fun of their ethinic identities) are fundamental to Trek and it wouldn't be Trek if the crew were e.g. made up only by people from one nation (or even just one planet).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe in competition between nations

There's another word for that. It's called 'war.'

 

[OpenMaw]

Needless to say, a worldwide goverment would only be good if it were actually democratic.

It would never endure. It would erode.

Keeping power decentralized is the better course for the sake of individual freedom. The power should be, as much as possible, with the individual.

Not to mention, cultivating, and maintain different cultures ensures different outlooks, and perspectives, which will ultimately accelerate progress.

"If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." - Patton.

I believe in competition between nations

There's another word for that. It's called 'war.'

On the other hand, the space race portion of the competition between the United States and Soviets was, all things considered, peaceful. There was even cooperation. That competition is what lead to the technological revolution we've seen over the last half century.

 

[T'Girl]

For example in TOS United Earth is personalized by crew members who come from all over the planet ...

The reference to "United Earth" in TOS was quite vague, Earth was just Earth. Apparently the term United Earth isn't in common use in the 24th century, I don't immediately recall ever hearing it.

Needless to say, a worldwide goverment would only be good if it were actually democratic.

It would never endure. It would erode.

Keeping power decentralized is the better course for the sake of individual freedom. The power should be, as much as possible, with the individual.

My personal take is that United Earth is basically a international management organization, it mediates between Humanities many (and still sovereign) nations, and acts as a central point of contact for interstellar relations.

If at some point in the future Humanity does come together as a cooperative multicultural grouping, a single world government will be unnecessary.