Is it possible to make a world where countries are driven by concern of people as a whole rather than separate national interests? - eviltoast
  • Trd@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alot of sci-fi is based on this, star trek for example talk about how humans are able to create almost unlimited energy and the discovery of the replicator. And yet it took several generations for humans to focus on science, medicine and art and specializes them self in different subjects, you didn’t have to do so but not doing so was looked down upon. So if we all just focus on unlimited power! And a machine that can reproduce anything with just energy we should be on a good way to function together. I’m still afraid that religion will still be a chaotic fraction in than equation.

    • teegus@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing people would still want power over others. If there is no scarcity in resources, then we will find something else to fight over.

      • SirToxicAvenger@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        there’s always racism/ethnicity. need a few thousand years of interbreeding to get rid of that issue

        • DaCookeyMonsta@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even then people will create pseudo races to discriminate. Just look at Rwanda and Burundi. Hutu and Tutsi are not even genetically distinct, yet a huge war between the two broke out along the lines of “race”.

      • SheDiceToday@eslemmy.es
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Land. Sexual partners. Values/morality. Those are the big two (and a half) that I could see.

        Until VR is perfected (to the degree touch/taste/smell/sight/auditory/proprioception/etc. all match exactly what reality would deliver), things like views (wouldn’t you want your house to be on the shore of Malibu?), proximity to activities (if everyone suddenly found themselves wanting to be a surfer, the beaches will become pretty crowded), proximity to others (whether that’s immense crowding of folks into massive cities, or the loners who would want space and again, views [like of forested hills]) and other similar concepts would still motivate people to be in conflict. There would definitely still be winners/losers in all of those areas.

        I’d say the sexual partners idea speaks for itself. Even as we appear to be at the zenith of sexual freedom in the west, there are lots of problems (such as incels/the concept of incels) cropping up that cause conflict. Probably a small chance of giant, intercontinental conflict, but who knows.

        And we already see the imposition of values or morality by laws. I very seriously doubt that would diminish. Perhaps unlimited energy and whatever-matter-on-demand-you-want would allow people to move to where others’ thoughts align with theirs, but if you could get away from local imposition of opposing values, it would be setting the stage for regions then being in conflict. Would a faction that believed homosexuality was the source of remaining human suffering allow their neighbor to engage in free love? I think we have our answer already in the form of genocides that have occurred in the world; ones where divisions were drawn based on nearly arbitrary lines. Throw pseudo-religious ideas/values into that mix, and you have yourself a war.