What do you think is the primary cause of human suffering across the globe?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm going to double-down on religion and here's why: it cannot exist without the destruction of critical thinking and the destruction of critical thinking is the foundation of the harms caused by all of the other choices (Hate; Greed; Politics; etc).

So, technically, I would say it's the destruction of critical thinking and that, I guess, would be under "other," but because Religion is effectively synonymous with it, I went with the big R as the primary mover.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I have to pick one, I say identity politics. That breeds tribalism and that breeds hate, discrimination, war, etc.

Hmm... what's the reverse? Pure individualism? That's anarchy. Don't you think identity politics sometimes is good, and sometimes bad? But mostly good.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If I have to pick one, I say identity politics. That breeds tribalism and that breeds hate, discrimination, war, etc.

Hmm... what's the reverse? Pure individualism? That's anarchy. Don't you think identity politics sometimes is good, and sometimes bad? But mostly good.

Tribalism needs an other. If there is no other you don't have the problems that flow from it. But sadly, it is the flipside of empathy and I don't think one could exist without the other entirely.

 

[DBT]

Cooperation? Rather than absolute individualism or rampant nationalism, fostering a sense of cooperation between individuals, groups and nations?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If I have to pick one, I say identity politics. That breeds tribalism and that breeds hate, discrimination, war, etc.

Hmm... what's the reverse? Pure individualism? That's anarchy. Don't you think identity politics sometimes is good, and sometimes bad? But mostly good.

Tribalism needs an other. If there is no other you don't have the problems that flow from it. But sadly, it is the flipside of empathy and I don't think one could exist without the other entirely.

I think it's a fundamental aspect of human psychology. We always have a tribe, and always have an other. Without an other, there's no love in the world.

Slavoy Zizek said it the best, love can just as well be seen as a negative emotion. Love is when you go from indifference to rejecting anything that isn't the target of your love.

Without tribalism we won't have people caring about each other at all.

There's a fun detail about oxytocin that lots of people don't understand. It's seen as the love hormone. It creates stronger connections between people. But as soon as you get stronger feelings for someone the hate for those you deem as the other goes up. It could just as well be called the hate hormone.

I think humans are fundamentally tribal. The only thing we can control is what we're tribal about. But I do think we need an other to function.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cooperation? Rather than absolute individualism or rampant nationalism, fostering a sense of cooperation between individuals, groups and nations?

Since everybody operates out of self interest how do you propose we do this? How aren't we doing this already, to the best of our ability?

 

[bigfield]

Cooperation? Rather than absolute individualism or rampant nationalism, fostering a sense of cooperation between individuals, groups and nations?

Since everybody operates out of self interest how do you propose we do this? How aren't we doing this already, to the best of our ability?

We don't have a global government yet, so there's a long way to go before we can say we're doing as much as we can with respect to cooperation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cooperation? Rather than absolute individualism or rampant nationalism, fostering a sense of cooperation between individuals, groups and nations?

Since everybody operates out of self interest how do you propose we do this? How aren't we doing this already, to the best of our ability?

We don't have a global government yet, so there's a long way to go before we can say we're doing as much as we can with respect to cooperation.

What's that going to fix that we're not already fixed? Today we've effectively done away with the need of a global government by having free trade agreements and treatise. Global government isn't a magic bullet. Governance is just a tool. Just because we force people to sit in the same boat, doesn't mean they'll start rowing in the same direction.

With a global government I think we'll just label wars as civil wars and it'll be business as usual.

 

[bigfield]

We don't have a global government yet, so there's a long way to go before we can say we're doing as much as we can with respect to cooperation.

What's that going to fix that we're not already fixed? Today we've effectively done away with the need of a global government by having free trade agreements and treatise. Global government isn't a magic bullet. Governance is just a tool. Just because we force people to sit in the same boat, doesn't mean they'll start rowing in the same direction.

With a global government I think we'll just label wars as civil wars and it'll be business as usual.

It really depends how powerful it is and how it governs. It would only be business as usual if we continue with neoliberalism, which sustains conflicts rather than resolving them.

1. Currently corporations can bypass the rule of law simply by shifting all or parts of their operations and accounts overseas. A government that enforces one set of laws globally could put an end to this practice.
2. Nation states fight with each other. A global government that controls trade and the military would end that dynamic by making the nation state obsolete.
3. Wealth is concentrated in some countries at the expense of others. A global government could redistribute wealth and protect developing regions from exploitation.
4. Global government can also pursue "nation-building" projects that involve the entire world. For instance, instead of pursuing space exploration as a competition between corporations and rich nation states, we could have something more like Starfleet from Star Trek.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It really depends how powerful it is and how it governs. It would only be business as usual if we continue with neoliberalism, which sustains conflicts rather than resolving them.

Really? In the 1990'ies the developing world shifted from socialist state control policies to liberal policies and in just 15 years (1995 to 2010) we saw the greatest rise in human wealth the world has ever seen. That's a rise in living standards among the world's poorest people. If that's not solving problems, I don't know what is.

Neoliberalism is the best weapon we have against corruption. If there's no monopolies or anything to skim off from the skimming stops. Neoliberalism is exactly what countries with weak civic institutions need.

1. Currently corporations can bypass the rule of law simply by shifting all or parts of their operations and accounts overseas. A government that enforces one set of laws globally could put an end to this practice.

That's by design. This would be incredibly easy to fix, if there was any political will behind it. After 9/11 we managed to lean on Switzerland to stop protecting terror group assets. There's no will to fix it, so it won't be fixed. If it's not fixed now, it wouldn't be fixed by a world government.

2. Nation states fight with each other. A global government that controls trade and the military would end that dynamic by making the nation state obsolete.

Not really. Armed conflicts arise over conflicts over how to share a resource. A world government won't fix that. Your assumption rests on the faulty assumption that wars are the result of angry people just hating each other. Nazi Germany didn't invade the USSR because Hitler hated communism. Germany wanted access to the Baku oil fields. All conflicts are like this.

3. Wealth is concentrated in some countries at the expense of others. A global government could redistribute wealth and protect developing regions from exploitation.

No, they're not. The economy is not a zero sum game. Redistributing wealth makes everybody more poor. I'm still a lefty and socialist. But I also understand economy. You have a faulty view of the world. The problems of poverty aren't fixed by just giving poor people money. Very quickly they'll be poor again.

4. Global government can also pursue "nation-building" projects that involve the entire world. For instance, instead of pursuing space exploration as a competition between corporations and rich nation states, we could have something more like Starfleet from Star Trek.

We're already doing this. But politics is the art of the possible. While Assad (pure evil) was fighting ISIS (more evil) why get involved? It's not until now, when ISIS is gone that we can start doing any serious kind of nation building in Syria.

 

[bigfield]

Really? In the 1990'ies the developing world shifted from socialist state control policies to liberal policies and in just 15 years (1995 to 2010) we saw the greatest rise in human wealth the world has ever seen. That's a rise in living standards among the world's poorest people. If that's not solving problems, I don't know what is.

Neoliberalism is the best weapon we have against corruption. If there's no monopolies or anything to skim off from the skimming stops. Neoliberalism is exactly what countries with weak civic institutions need.

Neoliberalism looks very good while economic growth is so fast that some of that new wealth trickles down to poor(er) people and lifts their standard of living, but it will inevitably lead to conflict when that growth slows down and people realise that they're being royally fucked.

Liberalism (not just the neo kind) ignores the systemic disadvantages that people suffer: Just pretend everyone's an individual and that liberal society is a meritocracy. People only tolerate the uncaring unfairness of neoliberalism while it enriches them at least a little.

Liberalism also fosters right wing extremism. Freedom of expression gives carte blanche to propagandists and we're seeing how that turns out.

That's by design. This would be incredibly easy to fix, if there was any political will behind it. After 9/11 we managed to lean on Switzerland to stop protecting terror group assets. There's no will to fix it, so it won't be fixed. If it's not fixed now, it wouldn't be fixed by a world government.

Who's "we" in this context? A lot of people around the world don't get to be part of that "we" and their problems are ignored. Which is probably why some of them amass assets in Switzerland.

2. Nation states fight with each other. A global government that controls trade and the military would end that dynamic by making the nation state obsolete.

Not really. Armed conflicts arise over conflicts over how to share a resource. A world government won't fix that. Your assumption rests on the faulty assumption that wars are the result of angry people just hating each other. Nazi Germany didn't invade the USSR because Hitler hated communism. Germany wanted access to the Baku oil fields. All conflicts are like this.

A world government would need a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and the police/military strength to enforce the law. The US states can't go to war (anymore) because the federal government is strong enough to crush any attempt.

I think rule of law is critical to making global government work. If nations could treat this hypothetical world government like countries treat the UN then it would be pointless.

3. Wealth is concentrated in some countries at the expense of others. A global government could redistribute wealth and protect developing regions from exploitation.

No, they're not. The economy is not a zero sum game. Redistributing wealth makes everybody more poor. I'm still a lefty and socialist. But I also understand economy. You have a faulty view of the world. The problems of poverty aren't fixed by just giving poor people money. Very quickly they'll be poor again.

I think you've read too much into "redistribute wealth". I envision things like nation-building, socialist institutions like UHC etc. that are paid for with taxation. Cash handouts would be pointless and I don't think people want that anyway.

4. Global government can also pursue "nation-building" projects that involve the entire world. For instance, instead of pursuing space exploration as a competition between corporations and rich nation states, we could have something more like Starfleet from Star Trek.

We're already doing this. But politics is the art of the possible. While Assad (pure evil) was fighting ISIS (more evil) why get involved? It's not until now, when ISIS is gone that we can start doing any serious kind of nation building in Syria.

Recent attempts at rebuilding countries generally haven't turned out well.

However, the kind of nation-building I had in mind were improvements to stable societies rather than rebuilding collapsed ones, which is an extreme case. Building infrastructure, solving environmental problems etc. I've probably used the wrong word, but "nation-building" is the closest term I can think of.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Neoliberalism looks very good while economic growth is so fast that some of that new wealth trickles down to poor(er) people and lifts their standard of living, but it will inevitably lead to conflict when that growth slows down and people realise that they're being royally fucked.

It doesn't just look good. It is good. Nothing has ever trickled down. That was bullshit when Reagan said it, and it is bullshit now. When growth slows down you switch to socialism and more state control and regulation. Because now your country can afford it.

When a country deregulates wealth grows exponentially. It's like dots painting on a balloon. As you inflate it those who had more in the beginning have most in the end. But everybody wins.

Again... nobody gets fucked by neoliberalism. It works great for the economy. But isn't great at making people happy. Which is why every advanced economy today is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. We do it because it works

Liberalism (not just the neo kind) ignores the systemic disadvantages that people suffer: Just pretend everyone's an individual and that liberal society is a meritocracy. People only tolerate the uncaring unfairness of neoliberalism while it enriches them at least a little.

Don't look at me. I never said it was meritocratic. It's the lack of meritocracy that I don't like about neoliberalism. And why I'm a socialist.

Liberalism also fosters right wing extremism. Freedom of expression gives carte blanche to propagandists and we're seeing how that turns out.

Wait, what? Are you against free speech and free expression? I'd say that limitations on free speech leads to extremism. Because problems are swept under the rug rather than talked about.

Who's "we" in this context? A lot of people around the world don't get to be part of that "we" and their problems are ignored. Which is probably why some of them amass assets in Switzerland.

You, and me. That's who. The world did it together. I don't know who you are talking about who didn't benefit?

2. Nation states fight with each other. A global government that controls trade and the military would end that dynamic by making the nation state obsolete.

Not really. Armed conflicts arise over conflicts over how to share a resource. A world government won't fix that. Your assumption rests on the faulty assumption that wars are the result of angry people just hating each other. Nazi Germany didn't invade the USSR because Hitler hated communism. Germany wanted access to the Baku oil fields. All conflicts are like this.

A world government would need a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, and the police/military strength to enforce the law. The US states can't go to war (anymore) because the federal government is strong enough to crush any attempt.

I think rule of law is critical to making global government work. If nations could treat this hypothetical world government like countries treat the UN then it would be pointless.

The reason the US states aren't at war with one another is because USA is well run. If it wasn't, they would be. It's not a hard concept.

3. Wealth is concentrated in some countries at the expense of others. A global government could redistribute wealth and protect developing regions from exploitation.

No, they're not. The economy is not a zero sum game. Redistributing wealth makes everybody more poor. I'm still a lefty and socialist. But I also understand economy. You have a faulty view of the world. The problems of poverty aren't fixed by just giving poor people money. Very quickly they'll be poor again.

I think you've read too much into "redistribute wealth". I envision things like nation-building, socialist institutions like UHC etc. that are paid for with taxation. Cash handouts would be pointless and I don't think people want that anyway.

Ok, fine. But until the neoliberal wealth generation has been allowed to run it's course where's the money supposed to come from? A world government won't magically fix corruption in the poor parts of the world

4. Global government can also pursue "nation-building" projects that involve the entire world. For instance, instead of pursuing space exploration as a competition between corporations and rich nation states, we could have something more like Starfleet from Star Trek.

We're already doing this. But politics is the art of the possible. While Assad (pure evil) was fighting ISIS (more evil) why get involved? It's not until now, when ISIS is gone that we can start doing any serious kind of nation building in Syria.

Recent attempts at rebuilding countries generally haven't turned out well.

However, the kind of nation-building I had in mind were improvements to stable societies rather than rebuilding collapsed ones, which is an extreme case. Building infrastructure, solving environmental problems etc. I've probably used the wrong word, but "nation-building" is the closest term I can think of.

Because nation building is a crap shoot. Sometimes you fail to build self re-enforcing social capital loops that keep it running. Most times they end up in dictatorships. Take a peak at how Europe transitioned from monarchies to democracies in the 19'th and 20'th century. It was two steps forward and one step back all the time.

From history we've learned that we just have to keep at it. Preferably gradual reform over revolution. But when gradual reform is impossible, revolution is the way to go.

But parliamentary liberal democracy is the most stable and robust type of government humanity has ever devised. So it tends to win out over time. As long as we keep pushing for liberal reforms.

 

[ideologyhunter]

When Adele's 'Hello' turns up on the radio.

 

[rousseau]

When Adele's 'Hello' turns up on the radio.

I've been revisiting her albums lately. If they hadn't been overplayed to the point of nausea I'd actually call her music quite pleasant.

 

[rousseau]

I have to chuckle a bit over the idea of a global government in a world where municipal politicians can't agree on bike lanes or public transit, and 50% of the population is inherently racist and nationalist.

I think a union of nations or blocs is about the best you can do, but when people start getting hungry - look out.

 

[rousseau]

But parliamentary liberal democracy is the most stable and robust type of government humanity has ever devised. So it tends to win out over time. As long as we keep pushing for liberal reforms.

Liberal democracies are stable until autocratic countries which are more agile start dominating them economically because they can't get anything done.

 

[DBT]

Cooperation? Rather than absolute individualism or rampant nationalism, fostering a sense of cooperation between individuals, groups and nations?

Since everybody operates out of self interest how do you propose we do this?

As you say, self interest gets in the way. I have no solution for that.

How aren't we doing this already, to the best of our ability?

Sure, we are - 'best of our ability' in relation to self interest. But not to best of our ability in terms of mental capacity, or intelligence applied to building a better world for all inhabitants.

 

[DrZoidberg]

But parliamentary liberal democracy is the most stable and robust type of government humanity has ever devised. So it tends to win out over time. As long as we keep pushing for liberal reforms.

Liberal democracies are stable until autocratic countries which are more agile start dominating them economically because they can't get anything done.

Lol. Can you come up with any example of this? China was looking promising until Xi Jinping decided to grab power and now China is back to the same degree of power concentration as under Mao. China's economic growth has now grown to a halt. What a surprise. Good luck with that guys.

The problem with autocratic countries is that they put most of their energy into maintaining the current power structure. This is tremendously expensive. The less a country needs to spend on security the better for the economy. The fact that autocratic countries are more agile is in theory awesome for the economy. But it almost never pans out in the long run.

In today's fast moving economy every ruling body of a country needs to constantly keep experimenting with the economy. What was true yesterday won't be true tomorrow. It's harder than ever before to rule and maintain the love of your people.

A couple of notable exceptions to autocrats being good for the economy.

1) Lee Kuan Yew. The guy who made Singapore rich. What was the secret sauce? He never wanted to be a dictator. He was constantly looking for ways to quit. Since he thought his job was temporary and he'd soon leave it behind he kept his hands clean. No oppression of groups or fascist tactics. Worth noting is that Singapore was an old trading city, and thus has been very multi-cultural the last thousand years. Fascism doesn't work in multi-cultural countries. While actually being a dictator Lee Kuan Yew behaved like an elected leader. And was great at his job. And as far as I can tell... a unique type of dictator.

2) The catchup dictators. In this club we have Deng "it doesn't matter the colour of the cat as long as it catches mice" Xiaoping, aka the not communism school of communism. Empereror Meiji of Japan. Vladimir Putin of Russia. Pinochet. The problem with these ones is that the growth of an economy is often confused with wealth. If your predecessors were grossly incompetent for centuries and you're the first one to just get out of the way of the market forces, you can't lose. But once your economy has caught up then you actually have to be good at your job or that love goes away. This is what happened to Pinochet, and Putin now.

3) The "you can buy love" dictators. These are dictators who sit on an extremely wealthy natural resource they're using to pay off critics. This list is long. Saudi Royal family. King of Brunei. Gaddafi. Mobudto Sese Seko. And so on. While these countries are richer than their neighbours, if they would have been well managed they'd been fabulously wealthy. Like Norway or USA. Two countries who have managed their oil wealth well.

In democratic countries being an elected leader is a thankless job. Nobody wants it for the job itself. The pay-off comes after they're out of office. Then they get to exploit the network they built as leaders to enrich themselves. So they have an incentive to leave the country in a better shape than they found it. This BTW is why so many African post colonial democracies failed. Since those economies were abysmal being the leader of a nation was the only job that paid well. Once out of office the only job prospects were going back to being a farmer. No shit those guys wanted to stay in office as long as possible. Democracy can only work in an already well developed economy.

 

[bigfield]

I'm going to break this up into several posts with divergent themes:

It doesn't just look good. It is good. Nothing has ever trickled down. That was bullshit when Reagan said it, and it is bullshit now. When growth slows down you switch to socialism and more state control and regulation. Because now your country can afford it.

When a country deregulates wealth grows exponentially. It's like dots painting on a balloon. As you inflate it those who had more in the beginning have most in the end. But everybody wins.

Again... nobody gets fucked by neoliberalism. It works great for the economy. But isn't great at making people happy. Which is why every advanced economy today is a mixed socialist/capitalist economy. We do it because it works

I don't think a government's success should be measured in economic growth. What's the point if it doesn't make people happy?

Neolliberalism seeks to remove the things that make people happy: the social safety net, public and subsidised goods and services, workers' rights. Neoliberal governments have been unwinding socialist programs; in Australia the government tried to dismantle our UHC system in the late 70's, and subsequent governments have been privatising various public services to this day, to the detriment of the working people. During the 90's government tried wound back worker's protections, and so has the current government.

Don't look at me. I never said it was meritocratic. It's the lack of meritocracy that I don't like about neoliberalism. And why I'm a socialist.

I didn't mean you personally. Poor choice of phrase on my part.

 

[bigfield]

Liberalism also fosters right wing extremism. Freedom of expression gives carte blanche to propagandists and we're seeing how that turns out.

Wait, what? Are you against free speech and free expression? I'd say that limitations on free speech leads to extremism. Because problems are swept under the rug rather than talked about.

There are two fundamental problems with the way free speech works in a liberal society:

1. Not everyone has a platform, so minorities don't have a platform from which to exercise their right of reply when someone attacks them. In Australia we've recently seen this with respect to Muslims and Africans.

2. The system has no protection against propaganda. Propagandists don't fight fair, most people don't have a defence against propaganda. It's up to the people in charge to identify their messages as propaganda, deny them a platform and enforce a minimum standard of integrity.