# Is it realistic to assume that globalization and technology could cause a united earth government in the far future? [closed]

Context

I was creating a description/backstory for my custom human empire in the 4x game Stellaris. I wanted it to be as believable and realistic as possible. However, every time I started to write it, I would end up using tons of scifi cliches and it just didn't sound great, I was also worried the custom empire I was making for my friends and I just wasn't very realistic, so I decided to post here and get some varied opinions.

I also plan to use this info for a forum RP game.

Question

Could Globalization and Improving technology result in an eventual United Earth Government? Or is national sovereignty considered too important?

Wishlist:

• The United Earth Government is Democratic in nature

• It formed sometime after the year 2100

• Most of the world has become inderdependent on each other

• There were events leading to this outcome in the past century

Thanks in advance for any answers. I hope there are some ways this could realisticly happen. I need it for my story to work but I just dont see it happening plausibly, which is important to me.

Please also keep in mind the wishlist is optional.

Thanks,

Shift

• Welcome to WorldBuilding. This is a site where we like to answer questions, not a forum where to endless discuss options. Please narrow down your question to a specific problem, and try to avoid opinion based question. Else your question is likely to be closed. – L.Dutch - Reinstate Monica Aug 24 '17 at 6:46
• Welcome to WorldBuilding! If you have a moment please take the tour and visit the help center to learn more about the site, especially What topics can I ask about here? and What types of questions should I avoid asking?. Please try to edit your question to something where answers can be somewhat objectively rated against each other. Have fun! – Secespitus Aug 24 '17 at 6:53
• we can never form global govt, yr best bet is machines... – user6760 Aug 24 '17 at 7:39

Utopian way: humans mature and realize that wars and fighting are creating more bad than good outcomes and decide do unite to liquidate health, food and standards of living differences.

Dystopia: Due to daunting resources countries fight war with each other while one that have access to space travel have no problem in surviving and dominating other by weapon or economic means.

Middle way: countries unite into different unions. American one, European, African, Asian. On the discovery and development of star explorations they unite (in different alliances) to build and use ships together. As people realize that politics between humans are pointless the government is made of corporations elected by people. Between them they decide to hire or train people acting as politicians in dealings with other species.

• I think I will use middle way, thanks! :-) – Shift Aug 24 '17 at 12:49

A popular one in a lot of military sci-fi:

The Discovery of a Hostile Alien Race

I don't necessarily know how realistic it is (we're a fractious bunch) but generally in science fiction (and some fantasy works), the thing that unites us all is someone else threatening us.

If nothing else, it makes diplomacy more expedient. Small nations threatening to ignite regional conflicts would likely have their bluffs called by superpowers as part of the knitting-together of global military forces to oppose the enemy. Any nation not doing its part doesn't get its interstellar convoys protected by the United Earth fleet. And a variety of other carrots and sticks.

On a more philosophical level, some authors offer the concept that because mankind is a fractious bunch, we need someone to fight. Lacking an external target, we fight each other. Given an external target, we get to fight that instead!

Global Catastrope

This one's popular too - something happens that threatens the entire Earth. Maybe it's a zombie outbreak, maybe it's an incoming meteor, maybe someone blew up the moon - the Earth is threatened, but not by aliens.

The whole world's resources are needed to fight the threat, and so the foundation for a world government is forged out of necessity. When it successfully saves the planet, momentum keeps it around.

Alternately, the bad thing can already have happened. Major nuclear war, plague outbreak, warring genetic supermen - cities lie in ruins, and only one major world power emerges in any sort of good condition. Hegemony, in the name of rebuilding the planet, quickly follows. This is generally not a utopian one-world-government, but a world under a dictator is still a one-world government. Some time after its founding, a genuinely benevolent dictator sets the stage for a transition to elected officials replacing the hereditary positions established by his predecessors.

• I think the first scenario would lead us to a global NATO, while the second is far more probable to end in microfragmentation than in unification. – Rekesoft Aug 24 '17 at 9:59

An AI will control all of us under one rule - whoever disobeys will be killed by AI robots.

This AI can track every human on earth, wherever there they are... everybody is under one rule and follows the rules laid by the AI.

The simple rules of the AI are for our own benefits of the human society, for example rules like:

• stop using fossil fuels.
• unique currency all over the world.
• Single OS used by all devices.
• Nobody is rich or poor and everybody gets food until they fill their stomach.
• No harm to nature.
• Death is the only punishment.
• Colossus, the Corbyn Project is a prime example – Richard Aug 24 '17 at 12:00
• "Single OS" is definitely the most important point in this list :D – Secespitus Aug 24 '17 at 12:23
• Oh, hello communism. The thing that works only when you cross out the humans from equation :D – Antoine Hejlík Aug 24 '17 at 12:43

I think it's highly improbable that one event, or even several ones, are enough to bring all the countries in the world to unite. This kind of things are more the result of forces (economical, social, political, probably all of them at once) applied for a very long time. In any case, there's only to ways to do it:

• Top-bottom: One country conquers the rest, some time after, it goes democratic. The former countries don't drift apart since they have used to be one.
• Bottom-up: Political alliances make for ever increasing international entities, like the EU, until they manage to include every single country in the world.

I think the second approach is both more probable and more stable in the long term, even if it looks more complicated. Think of an ever-expanding European Union until every country in the world joins the community.

• Hey there, I just saw that you used html tags in your markdown. It's recommended to use the normal markdown in posts so that the design on the site is coherent. For example the usage of <li> makes the bullet points appear left of the normal text inside the place that is reserved for the voting buttons. Paragraphs are also not necessary - just use two linebreaks. I replaced your html tags with markdown, you can have a look at the revision history to see what I changed. – Secespitus Aug 24 '17 at 7:56
• @Secespitus Ok, I'll give it a try, but every time I've tried to use the built-in markdown I've failed to produce the output I desired. The dialog box offers some buttons to format the text, but it's rules aren't clear - links stopped working after adding another paragraph, bold text has weird blank space behaviours, etc... – Rekesoft Aug 24 '17 at 8:01
• For lists and bold text you can see what I did in your post. Links are posted like [This is formatted text](/here/goes/the/link). If you feel there is something unclear do not hesitate to ask or to look at other peoples post. By clicking on the edit button you can see their markdown. Do you have any answer where you remember having problems? I can have a look and change your html to markdown so that you can take a look. – Secespitus Aug 24 '17 at 8:03
• I hadn't realized I could edit and see other people's content! Thank you, that's a useful tool. I've had problems with links frequently, since I always use normal markdown to put the links, and apparently mixing html and forum markdown breaks the latter. – Rekesoft Aug 24 '17 at 8:08
• Clicking on the "edit" link allows to edit other peoples content. As you have more than 2k rep already you can instantly edit them, otherwise you would need to wait for 2 people to approve the edit suggestion in the review queue for people with more than 2k rep. You would still have to suggest edits to tag wikis though. Mixing html and markdown is probably not a good idea, though I haven't done this and can't really say anything about this. As you haven't seen the edit button until now - do you know about flagging and reviewing? – Secespitus Aug 24 '17 at 8:20