The Next 50 Years - One Earth

Last updated March 7, 1997

Another year has arrived on our doorstep and soon the new century, the new millennium. The years they walk towards us, out of darkness, into the glare of consciousness. Then they pass, fading into the gentle glow of recollection and later still, the candle flame of history.

I stand on this rolling ball, gazing into the future and what do I see? The single most important change that I see coming is the end of the nation state. Yes, for the good of mankind, the mighty nation state must give way to something new: the Government of Earth. The nation states have had a good run, lasting nearly 300 years in some countries. For a time, they ruled the world, but now things have changed to such a degree that the nation state is standing in the way of important changes that need to occur if humanity is going to survive the next hundred years.

Before I get started I'd like to say that I like the country in which I was born and the state in which I live. I have no great desire to see the United States disappear, nor do I think it needs to. But something greater than the United States must be created. There are problems facing us that as a nation, we cannot solve.

What has changed?

The following great changes have occurred: the shrunken earth, the triumph of democratic-capitalism, the dominance of man

Changes: The Shrunken Earth

It has become such a widely repeated phrase that I wonder how many people really think about what it means? There was a time in the not too distant past when regions of the earth were completely isolated from each other. The fall of the Ming dynasty in China had almost no impact on most of the world. This is no longer true.

Nations used to have great autonomy, they could do what they pleased and the rest of the world was not greatly effected. Now, what nations do, both internally and externally, has great impact on everyone else. Refugees spill across the world from one war in Vietnam or Bosnia. If two nations go to war, the "weapons of mass destruction" might be used, effecting countries nearby, or even around the world (in the case of nuclear bombs). There was a time when two countries going to war didn't effect the rest of the world, now it does.

Changes: The Triumph of Democratic-Capitalism

It is now clear that of the various political and economic systems that have been tried over the last 1000 years, democratic-capitalism is the most successful and effective. By no means do I think it is great system, it has many glaring flaws. But I do assert that it is better than any other system that has been tried.

Fascism: the rule by a single leader through a select "party" of supporters, tried in Russia, Italy, Germany, and China, tends towards massive internal abuse of people and tends towards military action without any moral grounds. I hardly need to defend this position, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, all are examples of fascism in action. It is not a system of government and economics worth emulating.

Socialism is the other great experiment in human government. There is much to be said in favor of socialism, certainly its problems are nothing like the problems with fascism. However, I think it is fair to say that socialism is too restrictive of humans, both emotionally and economically.

So why is the triumph of democratic-capitalism a bad thing for the nation-state? The main reason is that the growth of democratic-capitalism has allowed the creation of markets in all types of goods and services that are truly international in scope. And with these markets have emerged entities that transcend the nation-states. Obviously, I am referring to the multi-national corporations. These super corporations no longer play by the same rules as the old national corporations. In many ways they stand above the nations of the world, able to play one nation off against the other in exchange for the various things the multi-national corporations control: money, capital, jobs, and skills. These entities are effectively global and the old nation-states are not able to effectively deal with or control them.

Changes: The Dominance of Man

In the recent past, man was largely at the mercy of "nature". This cut both ways, not only was man subject to various natural disasters, but man had very limited means of effecting nature. Now, this has changed. Not only are we able to predict many natural "disasters" but we can avoid many and can minimize nearly all of them. At the same time our ability to damage the world has grown vastly. The cutting down of forests is just the most obvious way we can destroy our ecosystem.

Again, why is this a bad thing for the nation-state? Again, the answer is similar, the world is larger than the nation-state. If all the rain forests are chopped down and the oxygen supply in the Earth's atmosphere declines, who's responsibility is it? Simply, the problem is bigger than the nation-states. The problem is global, the solution needs to be global also.

The Great Problems

As I see it there are several great challenges that face us: population, environment, multi-national corporations, protection of human rights.

Problems: The Environment

This is the single most important problem we face. We seem to have the power to wreak the environment. Possibly to the extent of rendering the world uninhabitable by humans, certainly to the extent of killing off 90% of the human race (through global warming causing rising ocean levels that flood 90% of the world's arable land). Right now, and for the next 100 years, we have nowhere else to go. If we manage to destroy important parts of the Earth's ecosystem, we put at risk human civilization and possibly even human life. It is hard to be too concerned with this prospect. We don't have any fall back options. We can't live on any other planet or moon in our solar system.

In our current age of nation-states and essentially uncontrolled multi-national corporations, the environment is suffering from the well known "tragedy of the commons". Simply speaking, everyone has an incentive to exploit the "free" resources represented by the commons, and no one has any incentive to protect it. The end result is that the commons are made into a desert and everyone is worse off. If the commons weren't free, if there was a rational market place, the disaster wouldn't occur. But there lies a deep problem: no one nation owns the sea, or the air of this planet. Without ownership, there is no lawful way to protect the air and sea. Without legal authority, there is no way to create a rational market for the air and sea.

Capitalism just loves to exploit any imbalance between real costs and monetary costs. In fact, that is the key to success, find something that you can sell for more than it costs to produce. When production costs are "free", it is a lot easier to make a successful sale. Hence we see the giant factory fishing ships that have lead to the destruction of nearly every single commercial fish species. Hence we have seen the pollution of the Earth's atmosphere because there are no "costs" to such pollution. The result is "acid rain", the gradual destruction of the ozone layer, and terrible air pollution over many of the cities in the world.

The solution to this exploitation of global resources is global ownership of the resources. In the same way that the United States (and most other nations) claim to "own" the land that defines the country, we need a global authority that "owns" the sea and air and other global resources. Perhaps even the land on which the nation states rest, in the same way that California must live within Federal regulations.

The Multi-National Corporations

Lest I be unfairly accused of opinions that I do not hold, I would like to say that I don't think corporations are inherently evil or even bad. There are many good corporations and on balance corporations have been a positive force in human society. However, due to changes in the world, the international corporations are now very powerful and without much control. This is a recipe for abuse and evil practices and that is what we are seeing today.

Taxes: One of the great benefits to becoming a multi-national corporation is the avoidance of taxation. There are lots of ways in which they can perform this trick but it is not hard to imagine how it happens. By taking advantage of tax laws in small countries, by shifting money making operations out of large nations (like the United States), by shifting assets from the control of one company to another company, and by a hundred more schemes known only to the top corporate accountants, modern corporations end up paying little to no taxes to any country. Coupled with their massive assets and wealth, this has lead to an increasing disparity in the balance of power between nation state and corporation.

Legal Blackmail: We see this happen all the time yet no one seems to care. Take the recent case where Intel solicited bids for where they would locate their next "fab" plant. A number of states and cities were in competition for this plant and the winning "bid" was such a deal for Intel. The highlight of the deal was Intel would pay no local taxes for 10 years. Considering that the average "fab" plant is obsolete in five years, this means Intel will pay no taxes at all on the plant. The fact that Intel is based here in Silicon valley was of little to no consequence to Intel. The "deal" offered by San Jose was just not as good as the deal offered by Arizona. Should Intel be forced to build its plants near its headquarters? I think not. Should Intel be free to locate in the "best" possible location for its plants? I should think so. But I don't think Intel should be able to play various governments off against each other to get the best possible deal.

Now consider another "deal" made by a maker of widgets. They say to their workers: we will move this plant to Mexico/Malaysia/Korea unless you agree to the following concessions: more work for less pay. Due to the free flow of capital and the lowering of trade barriers, companies can relocate very easily. What power does an individual have in relation to these concerns? Almost none.

Protection of Human Rights

Problems: Human Population

The United Nations

Up until this point I have not mentioned this institution. Like the League of Nations before it, the U.N. is a deeply flawed organization. It has no military forces, no power to pass binding laws, no courts, no elected representatives, no citizens. The name really says it all: united nations. Its purpose is to provide a forum for discussion by the nation states of the world, largely as an attempt to avoid a third world war. The U.N. does not exist to protect individuals within states, in fact such protection is explicitly ruled out in the charter of the U.N. The fact that the Red Cross, Greenpeace, AFL-CIO all have no representatives in the U.N. should be a clear tip-off that the U.N. is not the organization which will be able to solve the great problems of the future.

There are so many possible links from this page, I need to spend more time and collect the good ones for this essay. Here are just two:

The 21st Century Project. This organization is working within communities on the impact of technology.

City of Bits. Speculation on the impact of the digital world. Related to ideas espoused by Nicholas Negroponte at the Media Lab.