Arguments Against World Domination
Updated: Feb 10
The world does not need to have only one country to rule all of humanity. That would contain the possible risk of allowing individuals, or a group of people, to control the entire world with great, avoidable difficulties. Just imagine how much power such a ruler - or rulers - would have if they had the entire world at their disposal.
From military might to immense political power, unmatched by anyone else. There is a reason why “taking over the world” is considered, whether morally or by popular culture, as the most recognized form of “evil”, initially built by Hitler and his short-lived empire. That is, even though, he didn't really wanted to rule the world. His scheme for world domination might as well been nothing more than a myth. "Fortunately", in the real world, people can be evil even without that ambition in mind.
Even if that hypothetical country was a democracy, I think it would be exceptionally difficult to maintain it as such with so many problems to solve across the globe. Regional unrest, poverty, law enforcement, and deciding how to divide the world into inner/semi-autonomous sectors.
Not only could it cause financial problems, terrorism, mass protests, and the state of the entire population of our planet being dependent on one government to solve all these issues! The chance of overthrowing the government of the country is, in my opinion, highly likely, both because of people’s thirst for power, and because rebellions would probably be more frequent in a global country. And when I say a "global country", I refer to a planetary state, controlled by a single/centeral government.
There is a reason, after all, that many empires throughout the history of humanity have failed to conquer the world not because of the lack of technology. It'a because many rebellions occurred in empires, which shook its stability, public order, and the attempt to keep the citizens satisfied by preserving a reasonable tax rate, despite the maintenance of overseas territories.
Also, the idea of nationalism, is one that collapsed many colonial empires, big or bigger. If anything, it's a good reason for philosophical thought to be relevant to humanity at large.
Thinking about it right now, a country that covers an entire world is also problematic because there may be significant disagreements within the diverse groups and ethnics of people. It would be justifying their potential uprisings by wanting full autonomy and to determine their own politics according to their own ideology, religion, and culture.
Being too united can also be a great problem as being too diverse, ironically. With many uprisings in such a massive country, there would also be high rates of crime, which eventually might lead that country into an anarchy, where a main authority has failed implementing and enforcing its rules.
In conclusion, having a globe-covering country may not be a good idea at all. Humans are indeed tribal creatures, but also creatures that aspire for autonomy and freedom; values that a global country may strictly restrict for the sake of public order and stability.
This is why it is often good that the villains don't win -- dominating the world also entails indefinite management. And that is? Oh boy, tons of paperwork, probably. Some of them might not understand what they're getting themselves into.
Afterthought: If there might be a realistic alternative to a world government, that might be a union of megacorporations. Although I'm a capitalist in my views, I understand how financial freedom, to little to-no limitation, can make a great deal of restriction on others. This site is a business, yes? But I am a compassionate capitalist, not a greedy one.
When I speak of "world domination" in a video of mine, I speak of global relevance. Philosophical writings can be regarded as either literal or abstract. The wisdom of a philosophy reader, is to be able to distinguish these two. You are also free to ask me, for the proper clarification you deserve.
Sources
(Afterthought source):
Criticism by Ms. Tamara Moskal:
"In the current political, and economic setting and human mental development, I agree that conquerors of the world would encounter huge governing problems and might fail as leaders of such a diverse nation.
Yet, I believe that Civilisation Type 1 will rise one day if we survive as a species to that day. The United Earth would be technologically advanced to such an extent that many problems named in the article would be solved or no longer exist.
Weather control would enable Earthlings to harvest everywhere in the most efficient way and AI robots would be a new labor force while human life would concentrate more on self-improvement than on economic concurrence.
Nationalism would turn to Earth as a home rather than to regions as planet resources would be distributed equally to all - with advances in technology. Such a Utopian dream might become reality one day. However, I’m afraid that this only would be possible after a disaster of epic proportions like a nuclear war or a cataclysm reducing population drastically and -- in the most idealistic outcome -- becoming the ground for a new human civilization type 1".
