Countries are just SO pre-Internet. For various historical reasons*, the world is split into tiny fractions called nations. Since, the world has only gotten smaller, but the number of borders is not decreasing to scale. We no longer need to fear the neighboring tribe, we communicate and trade across the globe as easily as with the neighboring town. Borders are weaker than they used to, but persist. At some point we will need to call them obsolete.
one world, one web.
USA realized ages ago that unions are stronger; I doubt there had been a global superpower over there if it had been over 50 single countries, each prioritizing their own local issues first. Regional unions seem to be the way to tackle our globalized world – or even better, one world-spanning nation under the sun?
Imagine what a joint force of humanity could do, for development, for the environment, for science.
After all, we have learned we are all equal. Still, our brains are wired to think in terms of differences rather than similarities. We relate to new things by comparing them to known things and identify the distinguishing traits, even when said things have more in common than what separates them.
Sadly, there are several issues concerning the available union in my part of the world, the European Union. The smaller countries feel that they are losing a lot of sovereignty without getting any significant influence in the EU, and environmentally conscious people have a hard time getting by the founding principle of always putting corporate interests first. Can there be another way to do this?
Today’s issue of the Guardian offers a thought-feeding account on a Nordic federation of Scandinavia, Finland, and Iceland:
Interestingly, 42% of the inhabitants of the Nordic five support the idea. Ironically, the proposal has even been welcomed by many of the anti-EU movements in the Nordic states. Many of them might see the Nordic state as an alternative to the EU, but Wetterberg actually argues that it should be one of the main pillars within the EU.
These countries are so similar, people from elsewhere have a hard time holding them apart (re. the common misconception that Norway is the capital of Sweden). Differences in culture and language are no bigger between than within the countries (with a possible exception for Finland for the language part).
If this proposed nordic union can, as one commenter formulated, protect truly democratic principles alongside the welfare state a strong civil society and a heavy emphasise on equality, I am all for it.
The more I see of the world, the less of a patriot I become. Oil funds for all!
* I’ve noticed that “historical reasons” is the nice correct way to say “no logical reason”.
Me and hubs have said this many times. A Nordic union would be self sufficient in almost every way. They should have thought of that in stead of the EU.