2
$\begingroup$

Assume the following "template" world (I'm saying it because it depicts an idea of mine, but can be derived to others' worlds too):

  • Fantasy landscape, under the control of one god.
  • God has direct influence, meaning that inhabitants are universally aware of its existence. In short, they know it exactly as it exists.
  • Inhabitants know much enough about God to form an identical and true image of it. Thus, every religion has a common base.
  • Magic is based on the same fundamental and universal principles and often used in a similar manner, providing strong transparency between techniques.
  • Two or more human kingdoms exist and wage war on each other. All these consist of white people, eliminating chance for major racism, but giving place to minor one.
  • There are other intelligent species, varying between hostile and allied ones.

Conclusion: at the very least, human race itself has common:

  • place of origin (-> race in both terms)
  • knowledge of magic (in basic terms)
  • belief in the same deity,

leaving place to only differences in culture & ideology.

My question is: in a world, where so many other threats exist, is there anything that can prevent human race to unify, and go on their own ways instead?

$\endgroup$

closed as too broad by CAgrippa, Hohmannfan, JDługosz, clem steredenn, Jasper Mar 21 '16 at 7:09

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This seems rather broad. Humans being what they are, everything from political ideology to family feuds to availability of resources to the victor of a contested sporting event could all cause major discord. $\endgroup$ – Frostfyre Mar 21 '16 at 3:43
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Well, WWI, WWII, and the American Civil War for the US; the Korean War for Koreans; etc. I can think of an awful lot of easy examples from the real world to show that this question is unanswerable. $\endgroup$ – CAgrippa Mar 21 '16 at 4:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I still say it's much too broad. @bilbo_pingouin made a point that could have been put in reverse, so I'll try. Based on actual human history, it appears that pretty much nothing can prevent people going to war with one another despite agreement and continuity about most anything and everything. You've eliminated a small number of bugaboos, but the fact remains that people go to war all the time anyway. This question seems to assume that if everyone's white, Christian, and Knows The Truth, they won't go to war. Try "European History." "American History." Etc. etc. $\endgroup$ – CAgrippa Mar 21 '16 at 8:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @bilbo_pingouin But the only possible answer, if you take it as actually yes/no, is "yes -- e.g. all of human history." That's silly. Seems to me the better question is this: "is there anything that could prompt people to unify and not have wars, given this setup?" And the answer is, "Too Broad / Idea Generation." I'm trying to prompt the OP to refine the question so it can be answered and not be trivial. $\endgroup$ – CAgrippa Mar 21 '16 at 8:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ZoltánSchmidt would you consider your question answered with a yes, backed up with one single example from our history were religion and "race" weren't the determining factor? If so, please consider being straight forward about that in your question. $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Mar 21 '16 at 9:11
3
$\begingroup$

Ideology, one kingdom is administered as a Communist Kingdom where the leader is and elects their King through a nontransparent council of the People's Commissars. Another kingdom believes is a Constitutional Monarchy that is primarily administrated by elected ministers in a democratic fashion. The last kingdom identifies as a National Socialist country administered by a series of Royal offices that serve the King's will. Each state uses their ideology and the difference between their neighbors to agitate war for territorial gain.

With each neighbor sharing a border there is a mix of Communists, Constitutional Monarchists and National Socialists in each country. With each group agitating for their own ideology, tensions arise as the government has to step in an stunt the growth of opposing movements.

Each government soon employs a political stance of "Not in my backyard" to drive support for a conflict that will end what they believe terrestrial gain for their Kingdom. As evidenced by history, each kingdom is successful in making their people hate the opposing ideologies and thus the people attached to them. A war breaks out with public support for 'Freeing' the other sides from their misguided ideologies.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Wait just a minute. You differentiated between fascism and communism. That is a distinction without a difference, as communism is merely a form of fascism. Also, untainted democracy is merely organized mob rule. After all, in a true democracy the majority of the people make all decisions, and do what they think is right, regardless of the consequences on the few/individuals. Just thought I'd get your definitions straight. Anyway, I pity that group of countries. And it sounds like a couple might be in for revolutions, and a third for a reforming of its government. $\endgroup$ – Xandar The Zenon Mar 21 '16 at 3:57
  • $\begingroup$ @XandarTheZenon What about these terms is not distinct in the context of the question? $\endgroup$ – FiringSquadWitness Mar 21 '16 at 4:01
  • $\begingroup$ Well, while this does work as an answer, I'm simply pointing out that two of the nations believe in nearly the same ideologies and the other one is free in the truest sense, mob rule. Although I understand that you are going for connotations and not denotations. In other words, you mean a nation with elected officials and a constitution, a communist state, and a socialist state. I think. $\endgroup$ – Xandar The Zenon Mar 21 '16 at 4:05
  • $\begingroup$ Righto I'll edit that in. $\endgroup$ – FiringSquadWitness Mar 21 '16 at 4:11
2
$\begingroup$

One group (A) happens to live in a location that is slightly more fertile than the other (X).

A major drought effects both civilizations, with groups A's extra fertility allowing them to barely feed their people, though not even the leadership is eating well.

Group X's population sees starvation as eminent. They demand food (at any price), but Group A has none to share.

Group X invades and/or Group A preemptively strikes to feed their peoples.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Times when humans fought each other for no good reason...

*WWI: Some kingdoms were angry at each other for a long time(competing over resources?) suddenly one king is assassinated. War begins.

*WWII: Some evil king tries to take over the world...

*WWIII: Some kingdom used a forbidden weapon. Other kingdom does the same in response. Soon everyone is fighting.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I heard the "take over the world" idea was related to WWI too. $\endgroup$ – Katamori Mar 21 '16 at 6:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ True... But I couldn't just say the same thing twice XD $\endgroup$ – Aarthew III Mar 21 '16 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ The answer: Yes. It happens in the real world all the time. $\endgroup$ – Everett Steed Mar 21 '16 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Everett agreed! $\endgroup$ – Aarthew III Mar 21 '16 at 19:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.