World Government for the Progress of Humanity

Humanity has come very far in the past few thousand years in terms of scientific and material progress, which has also been accompanied by profound social and political change. Both aspects of progress have driven each other in a process that has been continuously accelerating. But we should not rest in satisfaction at the achievements of modernity yet—we must now unlock the next chapter in human progress. World government is a political innovation which has the potential to do this, by bringing together all of the world's resources, minds, and funding and directing them towards better priorities.

Nationalism may have had a role in ushering some of the advancements of the modern era, compared to the political systems that preceded it. But it is limited by its inherent wastefulness in having nearly two hundred subsets each pursuing separate efforts, and splitting humanity’s financial, natural, technological, and human resources. From the perspective of humanity’s progress as a whole, consider how pointless is the nature of space programs today, with each nation pursuing separate and often already-attained objectives with its limited share of humanity’s resources, just for the sake of its achievement as a group. Humanity would gain much more from a global mission to Mars or a Moon base, than from a hundred space missions of a much lesser scope and often redundant.

Opponents of world government may point out the role of international competition in the advancement of humanity, providing incentives that we would miss out on with a world government. The role of competition has indeed been much hyped in delivering progress, yet its utility does not extend to all situations. Collaboration is often more effective when there are economies of scale, ambitious projects that require greater resources, expertise that can be shared, or for research purely for the advancement of human knowledge. Competition can help improve efficiency and commercial viability, and in research driven by applications. Thus both have their own utility; and we must note that much progress has also happened outside of international competition, such as many advancements in medicine. Too much emphasis on competition can also detract from areas where collaboration might be more fruitful, like environmental technology or healthcare. Collaboration stands to be greatly enhanced by global unification without being limited by boundaries.

Moreover, national competition is of an unhealthy kind, which also involves destructive tendencies and drags down progress. Under a competitive situation the major goal is only to stay ahead of the ‘other’, and progress is only a secondary consequence. It is therefore very much possible for actors to seek to disrupt or sabotage each other’s efforts along with/instead of advancing themselves. Such actions range from nations imposing trade restrictions to prevent other countries from getting access to advanced technology to outright sabotage or destruction. Ensuring that such a destructive aspect does not overshadow competition and prevent our advancement requires an authority to maintain law and order and limit the actions of the competitors. At the global scale this entails a world government.

Competition can be of two kinds. One type is bounded by rules with an authority to enforce them, as seen for example in sports matches. The other is unfettered, a ruthless, no-holds-barred situation, as in a street brawl. It is competition of the first kind that can drive humanity to greater heights and needs to be encouraged, with a world government to serve as the regulating authority. International competition in its savageness will disappear, but there will remain plenty of avenues for healthier competition within a united world. Individuals, organizations, and even lower levels of government will continue to compete, but under the watchful eye of a world government that will prevent them from becoming vicious.

There is too clear a mismatch between the priorities of nationalist governments and the true needs of humanity. Nations today squander incredible amounts of resources on priorities like militaries and immigration control which are of no utility to humanity as a whole. On the other hand there is so much to be done scientifically and technologically for humanity—from exploring space, to protecting the environment, to making our lives more efficient and productive. Humanity is so engrossed in nationalist and identity tussles that often the very drive for progress and scientific understanding is forgotten, or turned only towards identity objectives. What does it say about the condition of humanity, that both the place with the earth’s highest average temperature (Dallol, Danakil Depression) and the place with the lowest average temperature (Plateau Station, Antarctica) do not even have a functioning weather station at present? Human knowledge and innovation could be greatly accelerated at a fraction of the cost of the futile ends nations pursue today.

We also cannot just rely on spinoffs from nationalist activities in the hope that they will fit into our other purposes; rather, it is better to pursue this progress for its own sake. A nationalist might highlight how so many vital inventions had their origins in military applications or research pursued by the military (from the internet and GPS to duct tape and superglue), and which world government would supposedly deprive us of. I would counter that much of this was only because the military also has primacy in priority and resource allocation. A similar level of support, if directed towards research for humanity’s welfare rather than nationalist objectives, would undoubtedly have produced just as many inventions of value to humanity, if not far more.

The pursuit of a world government is, more fundamentally, also about reviving the futuristic spirit in humanity, which today seems to be swamped under a wave of conservatism and dystopian pessimism. Nationalism aside, at present idealism in general in politics and society has faded from the bulk of the population, replaced by sceptical pessimism that not only makes no effort towards progress but also aims to stifle those who do. Even in areas like technology where rapid advancements continue to be seen, there are plenty of dystopians obsessing about the ‘risks’ while few seek to leverage it to transform humanity’s conditions. However, world government is only the political aspect of what should be a more general approach amongst humanity: driving progress through our collective agency and ability. Thus we should expect, but also work towards, a greater focus on progress than we see at present.

Consider an alternative history where, by some twist of political events, a world government was established in 1950. Imagine where humanity would have been now! What wonders we might have yet achieved, had all the scientific talent that went into developing weapons, all the effort nations made to create trouble for each other, and all the funds therein wasted, gone into furthering the technological and material state of humanity. And now we must make a choice as to where we want to be in 2100: do we want to continue limiting our potential for advancement by this fractured world order, or do we want to make progress even faster by unifying our efforts?