Creating an Extinction-Proof Civilization — Politics

Ancient Futurist

In order to create a civilization that can last indefinitely, over geological timescales, it must not just know how to control the climate, have a stable economy, and protect the planet from impacts. For a civilization to last over geologic timescales, it must also have a political system stable enough to not cause the downfall of civilization.

The threat of global disunity

The threat that global disunity poses to human civilization has been recognized at least since the 1950s. In 1950, during the early days of the Cold War, the journalist Vincent Sheean argued that a global government would be needed to prevent human civilization from destroying itself during a nuclear war.

The idea of a global government is a controversial one and the subject of more than a few conspiracy theories, a few of which insist that one already exists. Nonetheless, as our civilization becomes more global and we have more and more of an impact on planetary processes, the need for a global government becomes more apparent.

We currently have a global economy and global crises including climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, but we have no global policy-making engine. This has made the response to climate change, for example, very slow and inconsistent, with some countries acting more than others and no way to bind countries to develop ways to address these global crises. Part of the reason that countries are not able to deal with these problems on their own is because it is a global problem. Even if one country goes completely green or is able to eradicate COVID-19, for example, not all countries are taking the same measures, so progress will be slow. The same problem would apply to an asteroid impact and other potential disasters.

Although the threat of nuclear war is not as visceral as it once was, with nuclear treaties and the end of the Cold War, nuclear weapons show show that we still have ability to wipe out civilization through conflict between nations. Even if it is not a nuclear war, biological warfare could be just as dangerous. As long as the planet remains politically disunited, our path to a truly planetary civilization that can thrive on this and other planets indefinitely will be uncertain.

Possibility of a global government

If a global government is needed, what would this global government resemble? The United Nations is an organization which allows nations to cooperate with each other and the United Nations is involved in a lot of humanitarian and peacekeeping work around the world. Nonetheless, the United Nations is not a global government and does not have any power to enforce its resolutions. Nations can choose to ignore resolutions and there is not much that can be done about it.

An effective global government would need to be more powerful than the United Nations and have ability to enforce its mandates. On the other hand, it would be best if the world government did not become so powerful that it implemented a global authoritarian state. I believe that the best case scenario would be a global democratic government with limitations on its power that nonetheless allow it to be a true world government. Other than being democratic, what other policies or ideas should define a world government that is able to ensure lasting, sustainable peace and prosperity for the the planet? This discussion is not exhaustive, but I will outline three principles which I think will probably define a sustainable world government that can enable our civilization to last indefinitely without destroying itself through war or environmental degradation. These principles are subsidiarity, ecological civilization, and a collective identity at the planetary or global scale.

Subsidiarity

Subsidiarity is a term, often used by conservative Catholic political thinkers, though this idea is not exclusively Catholic. It essentially means that it is best for activities to be overseen by the lowest or most decentralized level possible. A subsidiary approach to economics, for example, would require that if an industry can performed on a local level, it should be left to smaller or local businesses rather than being the province of large corporations. In politics, it means that issues that can be handled by local or municipal governments should be left to more local governments and institutions rather than being handled by a larger federal or national government. In this way, a society will be less dependent on a large centralized government because more concerns are delegated to lower administrative levels. Therefore, a city, county, or province can act independently of a national or larger government to address issues affecting it. Subsidiarity could apply very easily to a global government. It would only require a couple of levels above the national government. In addition to the global government, this might also include continent-level governments that are intermediate between national governments and the global government. In this way, national governments could be retained and they would be responsible for issues pertaining specifically to their specific nations. Their powers would be restricted. For example, they might not have the power to declare war and they might be subject to supranational laws regarding environmental protection and human rights, but they would essentially still be national governments.

In addition to preserving national governments, it would also help to preserve national distinctions and traditions. Countries would still be able to have laws and institutions which reflect their own language, values, customs, and cultural heritage and would not need to be absorbed into a global monoculture.

Although countries that already have a strong sense of national identity, for example, France or Japan, should be preserved, it is possible that less stable countries within this global regime could be allowed to modify their borders. Many countries that are former European colonies have borders that were originally drawn without any concern for the indigenous cultural and political divisions that already existed. This has resulted in conflict and instability because of factions within these countries that are not interested in being part of the same nation-state. Although countries that want to remain together should be allowed to remain so, it could be made easier for some countries to dissolve or redraw their borders to create a more peaceable situation if possible.

Ecological Civilization

I have already discussed the scientific and technical side of building a sustainable civilization. The political side is also important as well. Ecological civilization is the idea of building a civilization that is oriented towards working with nature. Many aspects of our current civilization seem to be designed so that they work against nature. One way to develop a political system that works more with nature is to create political divisions that are based on ecological and cultural divisions. self-governing Bio-cultural regions could be created that are defined by common climate, flora, and fauna. These regions would also need to take into account cultures that exist in the area, whether they are indigenous or urban societies. For example, the Amazon rainforest could be a bio-cultural region incorporating the rainforest flora and fauna as well as the indigenous cultures and the farmers and city-dwellers that live within it. Each bio-cultural region would be encouraged to develop its economy to fit in with its environment and be as self-sufficient and self-contained as possible.

For example, a region like Japan, might depend more on geothermal energy, whereas a Saharan bio-cultural region would rely much more on solar power in order to satisfy its energy needs. The goal of this approach would be to encourage each region to rely as much as possible on sources of energy and resources that are locally available. Relying on oil transported from the other side of the world is not the most sustainable way to support a region’s long-term energy needs, for example. An economy that stays within the ecological and resource limits of its geographic region will likely be more sustainable in the long-term. These bio-cultural regions would still be connected to the rest of the planet though, so that if the economy collapsed in one region, other regions not affected could provide assistance. In this way, a diversity of local economies based in specific ecological and geographic regimes would provide more resilience. It would also provide more political impetus to preserve vital native ecosystems, habitats, and climates, since national and regional economies would depend on them more directly. This could lead to political systems centered around ecology, such as eco-democracy.

In addition to the physical and ecological environment, polities would also need to adapt to the cultural environments of their bio-cultural regions. For example, a political ideology in a hypothetical Saharan bio-cultural region would need to take into account the Islamic and Christian beliefs of the population. Thus, a Saharan ecological civilization would also need to be an Islamic and Christian ecological civilization. A South American ecological civilization would need to be a Catholic ecological civilization, as well as an ecological civilization that accommodated Protestant and indigenous spiritual beliefs. Polities within the bio-cultural regions would also need to take into account the lifestyles of the cultures within them, including their home economies and family structures. Are cultures within these regions primarily urban or rural, sedentary or nomadic? These also have to be taken into account to develop a successful political system for each bio-cultural region. This is why these self-governing regions would be bio-cultural regions and not just bio-regions.

Global solidarity

In order for the planet to be truly united, there must be a common symbol or identity around which all nations and all people of Earth can unite. The goal of this global identity would not be to replace pre-existing identities but merely add another layer over national, ethnic, and religious identities.

This could be a common ideology, and indeed political ideologies have shown themselves to unite people across ethnic and religious lines. This can be seen in the rise of a global right and a global left, where people from different cultural and religious backgrounds find more common ground with people who share their political ideology than their own countryfolk.

What ideology could create lasting global solidarity? It would need to be an ideology that emphasizes that borders are artificial and that emphasizes our interconnectedness. It would need to emphasize that we all live on one planet and are all dependent on the same biosphere. It would also need to emphasize that we are also all the same species and have many of the same hopes, dreams, and aspirations. It also needs to be emphasized that this fundamental unity in the human species is true despite human diversity and that human diversity is a good thing that gives us strength. We do not need assimilate into one gigantic monoculture. This is not to espouse the tendency on the left to emphasize “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” but simply to say that people do not necessarily have to abandon their cultural heritage and their cherished values to recognize their role as global citizens. All people, whether Muslim or Christian, Chinese or British, can be citizens of Earth. These sentiments have existed for centuries. A modern catalyst for them though comes from space exploration. Many astronauts who go into orbit and look back at Earth experience what is called the Overview Effect. This gives them a heightened sense of well-being and a feeling of being connected to Earth and to each other. They also often note that national borders are not visible from space. They come away from the experience with the sense that we are one planet and we are all interconnected. An ideology based on the impulses inspired by the Overview Effect could act as the stepping stone for launching a movement supporting the formation of a world government. It is arguably also one of the most valuable social benefits of space exploration. Space exploration will not bring world peace necessarily, but space exploration does have a way of uniting people from different cultural and national backgrounds to make the best of their skills for a peaceful cause that benefits all humanity.

The problem with this approach of course is that people are going to have different political ideologies just as they are going to have different religious views. Creating a sense global unity through common political ideology will likely not work out any better than creating global unity through a common religion.

One idea, which also a controversial idea, would be to create a sense of identity through a common ruler. The journalist Matthew Walther makes a rather interesting case for this scenario. This is also a controversial idea since many people , especially in the first world are critical of monarchy, but the idea has its merits. The way that having a designated common leader unites people can be seen in many contexts. In a non-political context, Catholics around the world for example, even though they may come from very different cultural backgrounds and have very different political and theological views are more unified because they all have the Pope than the Protestant church which is relatively divided and continues to splinter. The British commonwealth also has a sense of unity because all the nations within the commonwealth have British monarch as their head of state.

Having a head of state for a global Earth government who is the ceremonial leader of the world and a symbol of the cultural heritage of all nations is a romantic idea, but it has been shown to work in history. During the Middle Ages, for example, many people in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa of different religions and cultures were unified under their kings, caliphs, and emperors. There is something about having a person to represent your common identity and cultural heritage that may resonate with people more than unity over abstract ideologies or moral codes. This hypothetical global monarchy need not be a traditional monarchy. It could be a constitutional monarchy akin to the U.K. or Sweden. The monarch could be given limited powers and simply have the role to represent the people of Earth and perhaps veto unpopular decisions made by the global government, which is technically one of the responsibilities of the British monarch.

It may not be a common ruler that unifies that planet, but it will need to be something powerful enough to overcome national, ethnic, cultural, and especially ideological divisions. While this is not an argument for a global monarchy, it is notable that monarchs have been shown to be able to accomplish this feat. Progressives and conservatives alike support the British monarch. In the same way, Conservative Catholics and Progressive Catholics alike listen to Pope Francis II, though they may skip out on the teachings that contradict their respective political views.

Role of science, technology, and cultural tradition

In keeping with the theme of this blog, it also important to consider the role of science and technology in a global government regime. We have drawn upon the past by looking at ideas like subsidiarity and monarchism. Now we must look at the role that will be played by technological innovation and future scientific developments. Technology will actually play a rather important role. Many of the global issues that humans are facing tend to be slightly beyond the human ability to comprehend them or deal with the amount of data. Having machine learning algorithms and expert systems advise national and global leaders would definitely be helpful. Furthermore, a global government would be responsible for issues that truly are global, such as managing the climate, deflecting incoming asteroids, and making the global economy run smoothly. These issues will require scientists, engineers, economists and other social scientists, and programmers to play an important role in guiding government policy. In addition to scientists and engineers, a global government will also need to rely on cultural experts and figures including historians, anthropologists, philosophers, religious leaders, indigenous elders, and artists. This is because humans are more than just biological machines or rational economic calculators. Humans are also social and spiritual beings. Any global government that does not take into account this part of human nature will likely fail in the long run to maintain a peaceful and prosperous civilization for eons to come.

In light of this fact, an extinction-proof civilization does not just rely on a stable political system, but an ideology and worldview that is conducive to survival and universal human flourishing. The spiritual and ideological dimension of creating an extinction-proof civilization is probably the hardest to achieve and may be more important than of the other layers discussed. That will be the subject of the next article.