Your Thoughts On Pan-humanism

Personally, I think that the political structure of pan-humanism - a one-world government - isn't going to be feasible for a very long time, though I do believe and hope that it will eventually be possible. Any sort of one-world government would have to be fairly decentralized. But the more philosophical concept of pan-humanism - the concept of a global society that contains both a global monoculture and individual traditions, which coexist peacefully - is both likely and good. In a worst-case scenario, we'd see one culture steamrolling the rest, essentially a new form of imperialism, likely from either China or the West, giving their international policies, especially with regard to Africa. But I think it's possible that humanity will be able to be a single whole that is nonetheless different and diverse. In practical terms I think we'd see a balancing of ideology - the community focused philosophies of socialism and the African family mixing with the more independent streaks of market capitalism and the West's emphasis on the individual, the reverence for elders in some societies being tempered by the Western belief that age does not confer ultimate authority, and that all power should be questioned. I don't think that any culture is truly incompatible, and that there's room for a degree of every belief in global society.

Of course, I'm just one person, and I'm sure that about half the posts from now on will tell me just how wrong I am, and how overly naïve my views are. I welcome and await discussion.

A voluntary, democratic confederation or federation on a global scale could be cool if it's like Star Trek's United Earth.

But, the time for that is a LONG way from now. And the key word is voluntary.

There's gonna need to be a huge shift and homogenization in human values, the continued westernization of non-western nations and voracious consumption of American culture (and its dominance in the pop cultural sphere) is a good sign though.

Unless something awful happens that brings us together and compromise takes over, but that's the stuff of science fiction.

I'm not much one for internationalism, though I think at some point, the contest of nations will have to end, that it will become a thing of the past. Long time from now though, provided we don't bomb ourselves into some irradiated dark age with roving techno-barbarians and warlords.

My beliefs are hard to put a label on. But my ideal world is pretty much the exact opposite of a pan-humanist one. While I agree with the humanist part of the philosophy, I am against the large-scale centralization of power. In fact, when American conservatives say most power should rest in the hands of the states, I don't think they go far enough. I believe that most power should rest in the hands of cities. I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy and direct democracy is not feasible with massive governments like we have. If your government is too big to operate by direct democracy then your government is too big, period.

Frankly, my ideal world is one of thousands upon thousands of city-states. And that is about as opposite from pan-humanism as one can be I think.

All cultures are not equal; nor do all cultures value peaceful coexistence.



"Radical" Islam, for one. Even "mainstream" Islam, as practiced in Saudi and Iran. Severe restrictions on women; death penalty for homosexuality. Blaming women for getting raped and stoning them. Honor killings.

Communism traditionally avows that the whole world must be made communist, and communist states have typically been expansionist conquistadors.



Africa is a horrific mess. Well, quite a lot of it is. Tribalism, tribal warfare. Superstitions like raping a virgin is a sure cure for AIDS. Child soldiers addicted to heroin. Ritual cannibalism for magical protection from bullets. Poverty and filth almost beyond conception. TIA.


European Communitarianism vs American Individualism. Capitalism vs Socialism. Free market vs Central planning. Self-determination, self-reliance vs authoritarian nanny government. Language barriers. Educational barriers.


Some cultures in this world are 100 to 3000 years behind the times.



You'd be trying to assemble a puzzle made up of pieces that hate each other and actively try not to fit together. Some pieces are prosperous, others are poor... some of the latter would like to plunder the wealth of the former, not realizing or caring that in so doing they kill the golden goose. Some pieces are on fire and could ignite others if forced together.



Any one-world government with any actual authority (as opposed to the joke which is the UN) could only come about in the foreseeable future through massive coercive action (ie war).

The only other possibility would be some kind of world-wide, inter-cultural philosophical inspiration the likes of which has never been seen and can hardly be conceived of.


Or, maybe, at some point in the FAR future (hundreds of years from now, at least), when ease of travel and communication has lead to the NATURAL growth of a common cultural base, a general prosperity springing from new technology and the freedom to use same... when the difference between living in Atlanta and Bangaladesh is little more than a matter of "local color"... then, maybe. Maybe.



Wouldn't hold my breath or anything.

Nemoy said:

Personally, I think that the political structure of pan-humanism - a one-world government - isn't going to be feasible for a very long time, though I do believe and hope that it will eventually be possible. Any sort of one-world government would have to be fairly decentralized. But the more philosophical concept of pan-humanism - the concept of a global society that contains both a global monoculture and individual traditions, which coexist peacefully - is both likely and good. In a worst-case scenario, we'd see one culture steamrolling the rest, essentially a new form of imperialism, likely from either China or the West, giving their international policies, especially with regard to Africa. But I think it's possible that humanity will be able to be a single whole that is nonetheless different and diverse. In practical terms I think we'd see a balancing of ideology - the community focused philosophies of socialism and the African family mixing with the more independent streaks of market capitalism and the West's emphasis on the individual, the reverence for elders in some societies being tempered by the Western belief that age does not confer ultimate authority, and that all power should be questioned. I don't think that any culture is truly incompatible, and that there's room for a degree of every belief in global society.

Of course, I'm just one person, and I'm sure that about half the posts from now on will tell me just how wrong I am, and how overly naïve my views are. I welcome and await discussion.

Click to expand...

The problem is that we don't have much time left and that the best we can achieve is probably to get concensus among countries to protect populations. This will be almost impossible, as the elites of some powerful nations depend on brutality to keep their livelihoods.

I think we've got a drive-by poster here... one drop and no stop....

Nemoy said:

Personally, I think that the political structure of pan-humanism - a one-world government - isn't going to be feasible for a very long time, though I do believe and hope that it will eventually be possible. Any sort of one-world government would have to be fairly decentralized. But the more philosophical concept of pan-humanism - the concept of a global society that contains both a global monoculture and individual traditions, which coexist peacefully - is both likely and good. In a worst-case scenario, we'd see one culture steamrolling the rest, essentially a new form of imperialism, likely from either China or the West, giving their international policies, especially with regard to Africa. But I think it's possible that humanity will be able to be a single whole that is nonetheless different and diverse. In practical terms I think we'd see a balancing of ideology - the community focused philosophies of socialism and the African family mixing with the more independent streaks of market capitalism and the West's emphasis on the individual, the reverence for elders in some societies being tempered by the Western belief that age does not confer ultimate authority, and that all power should be questioned. I don't think that any culture is truly incompatible, and that there's room for a degree of every belief in global society.

Of course, I'm just one person, and I'm sure that about half the posts from now on will tell me just how wrong I am, and how overly naïve my views are. I welcome and await discussion.

Click to expand...

Such a structure violates every human instinct, and rejects the very nature of the evolutionary process that has brought man to it's place today. Man has not evolved to love one another in total. Man has evolved to discriminate, and protect what it sees it must. It's the reason for tribes, and cities, states and nations. It is the natural core of the evolutionary process.

A one-world government is the fantasy of those who don't, or can't, accept this universal truth.

Being that is will indicate an end-time prophecy, best it never happens.

ocean515 said:

Such a structure violates every human instinct, and rejects the very nature of the evolutionary process that has brought man to it's place today. Man has not evolved to love one another in total. Man has evolved to discriminate, and protect what it sees it must. It's the reason for tribes, and cities, states and nations. It is the natural core of the evolutionary process.

A one-world government is the fantasy of those who don't, or can't, accept this universal truth.

Click to expand...

So we have evolved from tribes to cities and nations, what do you see limiting us to a world government in the future. We have the foundation for it now, vast global trade. And it has always been trade that connects tribes, sometimes unifying, sometimes warring. As we have advanced out of the jungle, we find more reason to trade and tour than we do war. When I was in grade school there was no way any of us would have contemplated visiting Russia, let alone China, now it's routine.

"Pan-humanism" is impossible... completely impossible... until humanity evolves enough to discard all the ideologies, identity exercises, and systems of belief that end up making us very different. Thus usually prone to fighting it out because of those differences.

Van Basten said:

A voluntary, democratic confederation or federation on a global scale could be cool if it's like Star Trek's United Earth.

But, the time for that is a LONG way from now. And the key word is voluntary.

There's gonna need to be a huge shift and homogenization in human values, the continued westernization of non-western nations and voracious consumption of American culture (and its dominance in the pop cultural sphere) is a good sign though.

Unless something awful happens that brings us together and compromise takes over, but that's the stuff of science fiction.

I'm not much one for internationalism, though I think at some point, the contest of nations will have to end, that it will become a thing of the past. Long time from now though, provided we don't bomb ourselves into some irradiated dark age with roving techno-barbarians and warlords.

Click to expand...

No Van, it wouldn't be like some Trecky Utopia,it would be like the EU a bureaucratic morass, anti-democratic, grossly corrupt and wildly inefficient. Run by self-enriching, self-regarding posturing egotists. World government? Good government in one nation state is hard enough to achieve. But by all means let's look at this again in a thousand years or so.

BrewerBob said:

My beliefs are hard to put a label on. But my ideal world is pretty much the exact opposite of a pan-humanist one. While I agree with the humanist part of the philosophy, I am against the large-scale centralization of power. In fact, when American conservatives say most power should rest in the hands of the states, I don't think they go far enough. I believe that most power should rest in the hands of cities. I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy and direct democracy is not feasible with massive governments like we have. If your government is too big to operate by direct democracy then your government is too big, period.

Frankly, my ideal world is one of thousands upon thousands of city-states. And that is about as opposite from pan-humanism as one can be I think.

Click to expand...

Although I'm also a libertarian socialist, I believe there are many cases where a centralized institutions are very beneficial --so long as they are legitimate authorities (i.e. Are they democratic? Do the people have the direct ability to influence the system and usurp corruption, is there power controlled and regulated by a governing doctrine that all party's have consented to, is the system transparent, etc? If yes, then I have no problem with it.)

Realistically, the world is global now. That's a genie we can't put back in the bottle (nor do I think we should even if we could). There's a profound number of things (funding of academia/education, policing human rights, etc) that need to be addressed at a global level. There's really no way around that. Having one super-power (imperialism, again, is another genie you cannot put back in the bottle) is very bad for the world. I think it's pretty illegitimate that the US can influence the political outcomes of other countries or engage in massive military campaigns across the globe which only benefit us.


We are a long way away from this, but the UN --if the US/Europe could stop dominating the discourse for it's own selfish gains-- isn't a bad place to start.

Goshin said:

I think we've got a drive-by poster here... one drop and no stop....

Click to expand...

I've never understood that. Go through the trouble to create and account, then post and leave? Why would someone do that?

It won't happen as long as there is diversity. Much like removing prejudice.
I like diversity. More than the idea of everyone being of a like mind.
So it isn't for me. Maybe it is for the future humankind but not for me.

Beaudreaux said:

I've never understood that. Go through the trouble to create and account, then post and leave? Why would someone do that?

Click to expand...

Dunno. We used to get a lot of that. Spamming canned messages for whatever reason.

Fearandloathing said:

So we have evolved from tribes to cities and nations, what do you see limiting us to a world government in the future. We have the foundation for it now, vast global trade. And it has always been trade that connects tribes, sometimes unifying, sometimes warring. As we have advanced out of the jungle, we find more reason to trade and tour than we do war. When I was in grade school there was no way any of us would have contemplated visiting Russia, let alone China, now it's routine.

Click to expand...

As I see it, trading, and "touring" seem to be things humans have done for thousands of years. But it seems to me, even when doing so, humans have remained attached to cities, states, and nations for all of that time. I don't think it is in the nature of humans to be accepting of all peoples. Competition, scarcity of natural resources, or even simple human traits such as envy and jealousy, have brought about wars and conquest throughout the history of man.

I believe this drills down to the survival of the fittest code that evolution has established as a primary law.

This one-world government idea would take a level of faith and spirituality that I don't believe is possible. As such, I think it would be unnatural.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see all people of the Earth get along and live happily ever after. Given the nature of man, I'm not convinced it could ever be attained.

Goshin said:

Dunno. We used to get a lot of that. Spamming canned messages for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I can see that during the election season but this guy's post wasn't political as much as simply pro pan-humanist. As if that's something most of us talk about over breakfast every morning.

Beaudreaux said:

I can see that during the election season but this guy's post wasn't political as much as simply pro pan-humanist. As if that's something most of us talk about over breakfast every morning.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I've heard the term before but wasn't sure what the context was before reading his post.

Goshin said:

... nor do all cultures value peaceful coexistence.

.

Click to expand...

So true

Why is it anyone's problem when people 10,000 miles away cannot get their act together.

My friends and family should have to suffer equally because of their poverty, violence, and fanatical religions?

BS!

Sweden said:

No Van, it wouldn't be like some Trecky Utopia,it would be like the EU a bureaucratic morass, anti-democratic, grossly corrupt and wildly inefficient. Run by self-enriching, self-regarding posturing egotists. World government? Good government in one nation state is hard enough to achieve. But by all means let's look at this again in a thousand years or so.

Click to expand...

You enjoyed killing my optimism, didn't you?

@bold: Well, I was speaking in terms of centuries or even millenia, so it's not like I meant now or in the next century.

You're right though.....

OrphanSlug said:

"Pan-humanism" is impossible... completely impossible... until humanity evolves enough to discard all the ideologies, identity exercises, and systems of belief that end up making us very different. Thus usually prone to fighting it out because of those differences.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't this preclude the existence of the United States?

I'm not a proponent of a one world government. Like someone above said I think power in the hands of local municipalities, with certain levels of 'high level' oversight is a good thing. I think city/state currencies are a good thing also.

But a million different ideologies, identities and systems of belief end up making the United States of America. In fact I kind of thought that was the point of the United States of America. If it can work (not without it's issues, obviously) with a population of 300 million, then surely it's not that the principle itself is impossible, but just the current extent to which it works.

BrewerBob said:

My beliefs are hard to put a label on. But my ideal world is pretty much the exact opposite of a pan-humanist one. While I agree with the humanist part of the philosophy, I am against the large-scale centralization of power. In fact, when American conservatives say most power should rest in the hands of the states, I don't think they go far enough. I believe that most power should rest in the hands of cities. I prefer direct democracy over representative democracy and direct democracy is not feasible with massive governments like we have. If your government is too big to operate by direct democracy then your government is too big, period.

Frankly, my ideal world is one of thousands upon thousands of city-states. And that is about as opposite from pan-humanism as one can be I think.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but I think it's a futurist possibility and not a now one.

Nemoy said:

Personally, I think that the political structure of pan-humanism - a one-world government - isn't going to be feasible for a very long time, though I do believe and hope that it will eventually be possible. Any sort of one-world government would have to be fairly decentralized. But the more philosophical concept of pan-humanism - the concept of a global society that contains both a global monoculture and individual traditions, which coexist peacefully - is both likely and good. In a worst-case scenario, we'd see one culture steamrolling the rest, essentially a new form of imperialism, likely from either China or the West, giving their international policies, especially with regard to Africa. But I think it's possible that humanity will be able to be a single whole that is nonetheless different and diverse. In practical terms I think we'd see a balancing of ideology - the community focused philosophies of socialism and the African family mixing with the more independent streaks of market capitalism and the West's emphasis on the individual, the reverence for elders in some societies being tempered by the Western belief that age does not confer ultimate authority, and that all power should be questioned. I don't think that any culture is truly incompatible, and that there's room for a degree of every belief in global society.

Of course, I'm just one person, and I'm sure that about half the posts from now on will tell me just how wrong I am, and how overly naïve my views are. I welcome and await discussion.

Click to expand...

I'm in favor of a 'One World Government' in that I'm in favor of a democratic and united human species. I think this is a gradual goal that will take several centuries to reach and wouldn't be surprised if we are still fractured as we colonize the inner-solar system---though I hope not.