No, fundamentally the problem is that you're claiming to fight segregation by institutionalizing segregation.Originally Posted by Viking
Don't think in terms of individual countries, but in terms of the larger world.I think globalisation is much better at assimilation than mass-immigration.
Think of it in terms of migration rather than immigration, in other words. Now, why would you want to prevent or mitigate (stable*) migration?
*I'm obviously not talking about things like hordes of millions of refugees converging in a single region after a big disaster
First, you answer this question. How are your aims coherent and achievable? How do they or would they contribute to "stability"?I say "where do you want to go with this?".
I want stability as well, but my aim is to simply change human nature, rather than ignoring it entirely and attempting to hold it at arms reach through the power of the state. This can only lead to failure in cycle.
Not really. Obviously governance would be heavily de-centralized, with the overarching global central government merely retaining the right to intervene wherever and however it wishes, while actively responsible for such things as:Good luck agreeing on the laws for this state without first making major differences between the cultures vanish.
*Migration and movement - of course there would be no national boundaries to worry about any longer
*Monetary and macroeconomic management, e.g. single currency with regional variance, regulation and taxation of multiregional corporations, etc.
*High-technology investment and development (e.g. economic development of extraterrestrial space, applied neuroscience and genomics)
*Global Support Forces for development of infrastructure, mitigation of environmental damage, etc.
Bookmarks