Existential Threats and the Need for a One World Government

Narrated Version:

Source Video:

@ 34:18 "𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐀𝐈 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐩 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐤𝐢𝐝𝐬, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲’𝐬, 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲. 𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 - 𝐢𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. 𝐖𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐮𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐀𝐈 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐮𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞, 𝐢𝐟 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲, 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲, 𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐚𝐲, 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐬, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭? 𝐒𝐨 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞'𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐚 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐬𝐩𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐮𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦, 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐝𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐝𝐨 𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬, 𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐮𝐩 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐟𝐭. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐞."

The natural Darwinian forces of the universe are slowly guiding us towards destruction. Evolution has shown that the main way to escape fierce competition is to evolve cooperative behaviors. In a one to one scenario, the more violently powerful succeed. In a one to many scenario, the violently powerful can be classified as "evil" and the less powerful can unite to wipe them out. So, evolution might guide us to ride the line between competitive and cooperative, trying to get the advantages of excess ability without going too far and being classified as "evil".

Human society has evolved ever greater tribes. Intertribal psychology can mimic the psychology at the level of competing individuals. Each nation can be competitive, yet not so competitive that they become tyrannously abusive and inspire other nations to unite against them under the righteous banner of justice.

Yet, the power scaling of nations is different from the power scaling of individuals. Our power scaling is now on planetary destruction levels. One mistake at the individual level can be fixed by iterations of evolution. One mistake at our current global level is not acceptable anymore. We must rigorously anticipate disasters before they occur, because we cannot afford to rely on Darwinism to fix our international policies.

Long ago I realized that the path of human social evolution was necessarily going towards an ever increasing scope of tribal identity. How did individuals outcompete other individuals? Some unite into families, but then perhaps the family-less unite into gangs and challenge the families. Then perhaps the families unify into tribes to outcompete the gangs. Then religions evolve to unite tribes across larger distances forming a super-tribe to outcompete the regular tribes. Then those super-tribes unite into states, and states into nations. Religions then evolve parochial organization so that they can create unity that transcends nations. If national structures collapse, it wouldn't be surprising to find humans revert to lower forms of social organization. Religion might become the most powerful unifier at that point. But assuming we don't annihilate the planet, eventually those humans will reorganize into nations. Yet, nations are not a satisfying endpoint for our social evolution - for as long as there are competing nations, there are competing interests, and as long as there are competing interests the "finite" aspects of the planet might become areas of contention.

Our evolutionary history is full of bloody selfish war for resources. It seems obvious that, absent a reliable path to ever increasing access to resources, scarcity will eventually trigger the violent psychology of our biological inheritance. Yet, evolution has also taught us the secret to overcoming this violent instinct. If we believe that other people are not within our tribe, we have less resistance to developing a violent psychology against them. But if we believe that they are within our tribe, their interests become our interests and it becomes less about competition and more about cooperation.

The value of a nation was to unite all its people in cooperation. Yet assuming a nation was successful in this goal, it must still compete with other nations.

Some of the things that have helped us maintain the last 70+ years of peace 1. The threat of mutually assured destruction 2. Power bipolarity that evolved into a unipolarity 3. Massive increase in technology that increased access to resources globally 4. Increase in communication 5. Increase in moral philosophy

Daniel so eloquently explains why some of the things that have been protecting us are falling apart -

@22:40 "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐩𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝟐, 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐫, 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐚𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐚 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐚. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛, 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐤. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨-𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐖𝐚𝐫 𝟐 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐝𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐥𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐝. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐧 𝐖𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 '𝐎𝐤𝐚𝐲, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡 𝐬𝐨 𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐢𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐫' 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐩 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐚 𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐮𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐖𝐮𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐮𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐬𝐨 𝐦𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬. 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐨𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐝𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐖𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐳𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐫. 𝐌𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐚, 𝐬𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐲 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐠𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭?"

Daniel then pushes for the following solution -

@1:50:55 "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐩𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐞𝐬𝐭 - 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧. 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 - 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐥𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮'𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 - 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐟 𝐈'𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈'𝐦 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐈'𝐦 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐮𝐧. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 - 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐈 𝐧𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐛𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐦𝐞. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐈 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐤 𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐨𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐝-𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞'𝐬 𝐚 𝐦𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐖𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐬, 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞-𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐢𝐬𝐧'𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐒𝐨, 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐚𝐬 𝐈'𝐦 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝."

But Daniel and Bret both agree that this is a very idealistic multigenerational approach that might not save us in time.

I think Bret has already explored a more immediate solution to America's cultural crisis - the Unity2020 movement. A psychology of unity is needed to bring America back from the brink of polarization. Unity might require things like trust and common values. Every individual is going to need to reassess their relationship with the other political tribe. Isolating yourself away from the other tribe is a good way to stop understanding them. We need more cross-the-isle interactions so individuals will realize the other political tribe isn't the scary monster your media told you that they are. Only after that barrier is busted will common ground be possible to discover.

But even if we succeed in American unity, we still face the Darwinian problem of international competition. How do we ensure that Thucydides’ trap doesn't inevitably ensnare us into a war with China? How do we ensure that resource scarcity doesn't trigger war with the Middle East?

The solution seems glaringly obvious - we need a higher order of unity. We need order at the level of a global hegemony. Once every human on the planet feels like they are a part of the same global human tribe, then we can finally turn off our warmongering psychology for good.

Yet, there is a huge inconspicuously semi-dormant obstacle to our main solution for world peace - Christianity.

In my youth, I was a vigorous student of the Bible. I became obsessed with prophecy about the future. The Book of Revelation produces a phantasmagorically horrific view of the future that revolves around a tyrannical global hegemony lead by the Antichrist himself, wielding all the powers of the devil to manipulate man into following his ways. The Bible frames a future global order as "evil", "Satan-inspired", and necessarily requiring Christian opposition as it basically states that anyone who follows this global leader will be unable to enter heaven, but rather is destined for hell.

Jordan Peterson talks about the value of religion over ideology because religion has more evolutionary complexity and usually produces a variety of archetypes that balance each other out. For example, the Bible may include the archetype of an evil king, but it also includes an archetype of a good king, so the followers of the Bible will not become overly biased against the concept of kings in general. Ideologies are often less balanced, for example, in Marxism - the rich are evil. There is no archetype of the good rich man within Marxism. So, the followers of Marxism end up killing the rich as a consequence of an unbalanced perspective.

Within Christianity, there is no balanced concept of a good emergent global order. There is only one example of an emergent global order, and it is condemned as evil. The only offset to this archetype is the return of Christ. Until Christ appears in the sky, dogmatic Christians will be unable to accept the idea of a good emergent global order because of the unbalanced nature of the global order archetype in the Bible.

I know Christians who are legitimately worried about the eminent fulfilment of the prophecy of the Antichrist's global deep state taking over. I have observed that there is a temptation within them to want to fight back violently against the deep state, because they truly believe that there is a lurking evil coming to get them. The extreme nature of the narrative produces the desire for and justification of violence as a response.

Within the prophecy there is a dragon that gives power to the global hegemony. It may be easy for Christian's to fear this dragon. But as Jordan Peterson says - the path of the hero is to voluntarily face your fears, confront the dragon, and in doing so, you obtain the gold - that which you both desire and need. Facing the dragon doesn't necessarily mean using violence against him. Perhaps in understanding the dragon, you will realize that the power of the dragon, while being worthy of fear, is exactly what you need. A global hegemony is a scary idea. It has been dramatized in many stories as the archetype of an evil empire. We should be cautious about creating any global order that contains power, because power can be misused. But if power is used correctly, it can make the world a better place.

@𝟏:𝟏𝟎:𝟏𝟏 “𝐖𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬, 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 - 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚 𝐭𝐨𝐩-𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐭𝐨𝐩-𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 - 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐛𝐨𝐝𝐲 𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐳𝐞, 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐚𝐥 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐩𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. 𝐒𝐨 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐞𝐞𝐩 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐒 𝐢𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐬 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐫. 𝐑𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭? 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡-𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐚 𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲. 𝐒𝐨 𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝟐𝟏𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐨𝐭𝐡 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐬. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐨𝐬? 𝐎𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐡𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫. 𝐀 𝐡𝐮𝐠𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐨𝐧𝐲𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐞𝐫𝐚 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 - 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐚 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐭𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 - 𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜 - 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫'𝐬 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐚 𝐬𝐲𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐒𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐢𝐬 - 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐞 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞. 𝐈𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐲𝐞𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬. 𝐀𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 - 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞, 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐜𝐚𝐧'𝐭 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞.”

If we fail to act, perhaps China will fill in the void for our failures. Perhaps our refusal to create unity at the global level will lead to China becoming the global tyranny that the Christians were fearing in the first place. I don't think we can afford inaction.

https://youtu.be/YPJug0s2u4w

• Microsoft Word - THE EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO.doc

• The direction of evolution: The rise of cooperative organization - ScienceDirect

• Materials and Practices for Higher Capacities (evolutionarymanifesto.com)

• FUTURE EVOLUTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS (evolutionarymanifesto.com)