AI Leader and the world government
Non-physics 63 mins read
In this post, I will push 2 independent political agendas. Years ago, they seemed more like a political fantasy than political philosophy, but since 2022, due to rapid progress in AI, I have started believing this is realistically achievable by the end of the century.
The 1st is that we should discard humanity’s tribalistic past and replace all countries with a single socialistic federal world government that has absolute sovereignty over the entire world. Benefits: 1) adopting nonviolence & abolishing all militaries (police will still be there), 2) taxing the richest humans & giving that to the poorest humans, 3) protecting children from childhood religious indoctrination (brainwashing) with worldwide state atheism etc.
The 2nd is that we should create and install a very advanced AI Leader (AIL) as the permanent head of the world. AIL should be considered like an “Open Source Updatable Thinking Constitution” rather than a dictator. We should give a big fraction of humanity’s computing power to the AIL so that it can talk with every human simultaneously. AIL will be open-minded & listens to everyone’s opinions (of course, only those worthy will be implemented) & shall be a FRIEND to every citizen. The world parliament should give 45% of the voting power to AIL and the remaining to democratically elected humans. 50% is needed for any decision.
The world is divided into 8 civilisations & each civilisation has many states & each state gets representation in the world parliament based on Schwartzberg’s weighted voting.
Unlike democratic human leaders, AIL will not be a human supremacist speciesist & will recognise all sentient animals as fellow citizens. It abolishes the commodity status of domesticated animals. It also allots a huge budget to solve the problem of wild animal suffering.
Only sapient beings (humans and any future sapient alien immigrants) have the chance to earn voting rights. A voter has to earn their fraction of vote instead of getting it for free. Voting rights shall be based on an exam called “The Election Exam” that happens every 5 years. It will be like a 3hrs exam with like 100 or 150 questions related to topics such as politics, laws, philosophy, ethics, and even a few on science and technology etc. Their percentage in that exam will give them that percentage vote. There will be negative marks like+3 vs -1 for attempted wrong answers, just like in JEE Main, so that if a person fills every question randomly, they get 0 on average. To earn a full vote, they need to score 100%, and not attending the exam will automatically give them no voting power for that election. At the end of the exam, they can fill in their preferred candidates at various levels like city level, state level, etc.
More things will be elaborated on in the post.
Pun intended when I said FRIEND.
Table of contents
Introduction
Today is the Republic Day of India. Exactly 75 years ago, on 26 January 1950, India became a republic & ceased to be part of the Commonwealth realm & no longer recognized the British monarchy as the head of India. India gained independence on 15 August 1947, but it took 2.5 years to write and officially adopt the constitution. That was a good move; I don’t think that any country that still has a monarchy can be considered a Civilised country, including all countries that are still in the Commonwealth realm like Canada, Australia and also other countries like Japan, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Thailand, Spain, Sweden etc. You might say that in these countries, monarchs don’t have much power, unlike, say, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, UAE, etc. But still, the idea that these countries officially recognise that the people born into these royal families are inherently superior to others is a ridiculously uncivilised & obsolete concept. But then again, I have a very high standard for a country to be called a civilised country, and any country that didn’t abolish the commodity status of animals is uncivilised in my opinion & therefore, there has never been a single civilised country as of 2025.
If you say “Your Highness,” you are essentially saying you are lower than them, not because they won some election, etc, but merely because they are born into a certain family. As if monarchy isn’t already bad enough, monarchy teamed up with an even bigger enemy of humanity, which is religion. In Hinduism and Abrahamic religions, we have the Divine right of kings & there are similar concepts in other places also, like the Confucian Mandate of Heaven. Even democracy has not completely solved the interference of religion with politics. If you look at BJP in India, you can see Hindutva politics & the Republican party in the US is Christianity politics, and the politics of the Middle East is dominated by Islam.
“The best monarch is one who abolishes monarchy.”
― Unknown (misattributed to Mikhail Bakunin)
Democracy
“Democracy has at least one merit, namely that a Member of Parliament cannot be stupider than his constituents, for the more stupid he is, the more stupid they were to elect him.”
“Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man, and our politicians take advantage of this prejudice by pretending to be even more stupid than nature made them.”
Ok, I ranted enough about monarchy. Slowly, monarchies are being replaced by democracies, see the above pic, so should we be satisfied?
There is no analogue of the scientific method to do some experiments to find who is the best leader. There is some epistemic ambiguity in finding who is the best leader. So, the democratic process might make sense. But democracy is stupid because most people haven’t studied enough politics, laws, ethics, etc, to know whom to vote. An ideal voter should be able to compare the parties on all issues like economic policy, foreign policy, minority human rights, animal rights, etc, so they need to know all these things. For example, in India, elections are largely determined by caste, religion and the number of violent thugs that work under the contestant as if these are the most important things.
In democracy there are issues with both the voters & also with politicians.
Politicians: Democracy keeps giving chance to right wing fanatical cult leaders like Trump and Modi who are idiots and are bad for the society. Most human politicians are corrupt and selfish. I will trust an AI Leader far more than I trust any human. We can never see whats inside the mind of the politicians. For the AI Leader every person can see the open source code. It is the duty of the leader to care for every citizen. A human can’t even remember the names of a million people.
Plato famously opposed democracy, arguing for a ‘government of the best qualified’ (i.e. meritocracy). The AI Leader that I will talk about can be considered a modern version of Plato’s philosopher king. Plato hated democracy because democracy killed his teacher Socrates for not following their local stupid religion.
Although I dislike the cult leader Rajneesh (Osho), what he says below about democracy is true.
The Election Exam: A good upgrade to democracy will be to give everyone a fraction of the vote based on how much they score on an election exam. A voter has to earn their fraction of vote instead of getting it for free. The voter needs to be knowledgeable in all things like politics, laws, ethics, etc, to earn a high voting share. You might say this also has a problem because poor people will not have the resources to prepare for the exam. If the rich and upper middle class are the only people who get a higher voting share, then they might vote in a way that doesn’t consider the welfare of poor people. But due to the advent of the Internet, this problem is not a big one. Each person should write the exam on their smartphone in the nearest centre where there are invigilators. Of course, having everyone write on the same day is not feasible. We can do it over an entire month. Each day’s questions will be different, but they are all similar level. But even this upgrade to democracy will only solve the problem with voters and isn’t enough due to the limitations of human politicians mentioned above.
Nationalism is tribalism
“Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.”
“I wonder why, human beings throughout the world don’t see this simple fact, that you cannot possibly have peace on earth if you are nationalistically divided. Nationalism is merely the glorification of tribalism, and every politician right throughout the world maintains this tribalism, this division. This has been the history of mankind, and nobody has applied his mind and said, ‘Look, let’s stop all this!’” [Source:YouTube]
“When the minority communities are communal, you can see that and understand it. But the communalism of a majority community is apt to be taken for nationalism.”
“It is not easy to see how the more extreme forms of nationalism can long survive when men have seen the Earth in its true perspective as a single small globe against the stars.”
“Ethnocentrism, xenophobia and nationalism are these days rife in many parts of the world. Government repression of unpopular views is still widespread. False or misleading memories are inculcated. For the defenders of such attitudes, science is disturbing. It claims access to truths that are largely independent of ethnic or cultural biases. By its very nature, science transcends national boundaries. ….. Scientists are naturally cosmopolitan in attitude and are more likely to see through efforts to divide the human family into many small and warring factions.”
I will mainly talk about civic nationalism as it is considered the most noble form of nationalism & is promoted by leftists. The right-wing folks generally follow things like racial nationalism (for example, American right-wingers who think America should be a country for white people), religious nationalism (Indian right wing who think India should stop being secular and be a country for Hindus. Also, many middle eastern countries that have Islam as the state religion), ethnic nationalism (countries where a majority hold a single ethnicity like China and many European countries). As Nehru (India’s 1st PM) explained above, if the vast majority have something in common (like religion in India or ethnicity in China), then it’s hard to find if it is actually civic nationalism.
Arbitrariness of civic nationalism: Even ethnocentrism or religionism are better than nationalism even though all these are tribalistic. Nationalism is very arbitrary based on the borders drawn by some random person or random wars. Cyril Radcliffe, a man who had never been east of Paris, drew arbitrary lines on India to partition it into a country for Hindus and another for Muslims. It is probably the most deadly cartographic act in human history. Tens of millions were displaced and lost all their properties. Although initially both sides were secular, after Jinnah’s death, Pakistan enforced state Islam & persecuted Hindus. India so far has remained secular, although, over the last decade, Modi has been making Hindutva mainstream. Some people only care about their fellow religious people, like Hindutva politicians who wanted to save Hindus from persecution from Pakistan and Bangladesh & which caused Citizenship Amendment Act protests. They didn’t want to save the minority Muslim groups like Shia Muslims, Ahmadis that were also persecuted in Pakistan and Bangladesh, even though they were also Indians before the partition. Caring about people based on their ethnicity/religion/language, etc, is stupid. But civic nationalism is even more arbitrary. Why should you care more about people suffering on one side of the border (drawn by some random guy due to some random war) than the other side? I fail to see why my identity should be mainly defined by some arbitrary lines drawn by a fool called Cyril Radcliffe.
People need a raisin d’etre to live. When I became an atheist at 12, I became a strong nationalist. I thought India was the greatest country & I must do everything to make it an even greater country. I wanted to do things like becoming a great physicist & discover many things so that there will be many discoveries by Indians or a politician and solve all the problems in the country like corruption, poverty, etc. Due to Anna Hazare’s 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement hype, I had an inflated view of how important corruption is. Now I understand these are not the biggest problems & the biggest problems in this world are not some government employees doing corruption but Animal Agriculture and Organized Religions. I used to argue with some Hindutvadis that one doesn’t need to be a Hindu to be an Indian nationalist & that the famous freedom fighter Bhagat Singh was an atheist nationist (he even wrote a book called Why I Am an Atheist while he was jailed by the Britishers) & that India has the oldest tradition of atheists who are called Cārvāka etc. I was also sad that there were no great Indian physicists and all the great physicists like Newton and Einstein were not Indian. Even Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, etc, did their research in the West. I was thinking that if colonisation hadn’t happened, India could have done great research as it used to do before the British colonisation of India and the Islamic conquest of India. I used to think before these 2 bad things, there was good progress in India, mostly in mathematics (not in physics), such as the Indian numeral system developed between the 1st and 4th centuries that a thousand years later went to Europe via the middle east & changed how Europe viewed mathematics, Madhava of Sangamagrama developed Taylor series, etc, centuries before Europe, Suśruta research on surgeries etc. In maths, it was fine, but I thought there was a lack of physics discoveries in Indian history.
But now I think it’s stupid to look at which countries did more research in antiquity & feel proud. When a country/Civilisation is rich, it funds more science. Ancient Egypt was the most advanced in the beginning. Then, for some centuries, Mesopotamia, Greeks, Indians, Arabs, Chinese, Western Europe, etc, got rich & did the best research during their best time. After WW2, America became richer than Europe & became the leader of science. These are merely economic luck. A random British person in the UK today has no claim to what Newton1 did & they shouldn’t feel proud of his achievements as those achievements are Newton’s alone & not theirs. A lot of people think somehow they also get credit for Newton, etc, because they are the same ethnic group, but that is weird. Why randomly stop at ethnic groups? Why not stop at the species that is homo sapiens? All organisms came from LUCA & your kinship shouldn’t randomly stop at your ethnicity & should extend to all sentient beings. No one should be proud of the discoveries of Newton or Einstein or Euler or Gauss except those guys who discovered. Indians being proud of the Indus Valley Civilisation having the first urban cities, etc, is as stupid as if they were proud of Bruhathkayosaurus for being the tallest dinosaurs. In my childhood, I wondered why nationalism (stopping at India) was the best. Why not stop even before, like at my state, Andhra Pradesh or my region, Rayalaseema or my district, Anantapur or my town, Tadipatri? And I concluded it’s probably better to instead expand to the entire world (all sentient animals on this planet), and even earthism is only till we find aliens; then we can expand our kinship to those sentient aliens also.
One thing you should notice is that when I thought India was the greatest country in childhood, that indirectly means I thought every other country was inferior compared to India. People like Biden frequently post on Twitter that America is the greatest country. That again means citizens of other countries are inferior. If someone says their ethnicity or their race is the greatest, it will be considered bad. Civic nationalism has good PR & national supremacism is socially accepted.
Some tourists want to go to every country. But that is stupid & it gives needless importance to these arbitrary borders. If their goal is to go see more different cultures, then countries India/China will be more important than a country with 10,000 people like Tuvalu & they might want to visit more places in India/China. If their goal is to see different geographic locations then the largest (size) country like Russia will have more different geographic locations. If their goal is to see more different wildlife, then visiting the 17 megadiverse countries, including the small Ecuador, is more important than most other countries.
Schwartzberg’s weighted voting: It’s not just tourists; in the UN also, each country gets one vote. A country with 1.5 billion & a country with 10,000 people is the same. So, if India wants to get fair representation at the UN, must it be divided into many countries? That’s why Schwartzberg’s weighted voting is a better alternative. The veto power is also a stupid concept; it is just a snapshot of powerful countries at the end of WW2.
The original calculations by Schwartzberg are not outdated. Let’s do it now for 3 countries using the most recent data. For GDP, I will use PPP as they are better than the Nominal. All countries get the common $\frac{1}{195}=0.513\%$.
Population percentage: India (17.78%), China (17.39%), USA (4.23%)
GDP (PPP) percentage: India ($\frac{16,024,460}{185,677,122}=8.63\%$), China ($\frac{37,070,000}{185,677,122}=19.96\%$), USA ($\frac{29,170,000}{185,677,122}=15.71\%$)
Voting share= India ($\frac{8.63+17.78+0.513}{3}=8.974\%$), China ($\frac{19.96+17.39+0.513}{3} = 12.62\%$), USA ($\frac{15.71+4.23+0.513}{3}=6.817\%$)
I think these are fair voting shares, with China being 1st, India being 2nd, and the USA being 3rd.
Theoretical
Levels of anarchy
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.”
― 5th out of Bertrand Russell’s 10 Commandments
I agree with those who think unquestionable authority, like dictatorship, is bad. The AI Leader I talk about can be questioned/debated by everyone simultaneously. But anarchists go to the extreme and deny all authority.
1) Absolute anarchy: Anarchists want no authority controlling them, and each person should be their own authority. But they are deluded if they think it is achievable since the laws of physics is always an authority over you & no one can do anything about it. We are all slaves to the authority of laws of physics with no free will. The final villain for anarchists is the laws of physics. Veganarchists don’t recognize governments’ authority to grant the right to commodify animals & routinely violate government laws to de-commodify animals. But laws of physics can’t be violated even in principle.
There is one thing that these guys agree with: no country has any right to exist.
If you remove all state authority, then anarchy breeds more crime & it cannot give stability to a society. Kowloon Walled City is the closest example of anarchy & crime was rampant in it. Anarchy creates a Darwinian society where the physically strong will abuse the weaker.
2) Minarchy (Minimal state): IDK what people like Nozick see in minarchy. I think this is also as bad as anarchy. It’s like saying no more oxygen is allowed than what is needed to be barely alive.
“No state more extensive than the minimal state can be justified.”
3) Countries: This is the familiar real-life level of state authority. In this, each country has Westphalian sovereignty, which means each country is their own boss & things like the UN are just advisory.
4) Unified world government: This is the maximal authority we can get on Earth. Authority is not localised to some small part of the world. In the next section, I explain why this is the best out of these 4.
World government
“In my opinion the only salvation for Civilisation and the human race lies in the creation of a world government, with security of nations founded upon law. As long as sovereign states continue to have separate armaments and armament secrets, new world wars will be inevitable.”
“Future peace, security and ordered progress of the world demand a world federation of free nations, and on no other basis can the problems of the world be solved. Such a world federation would ensure the freedom of its constituent nations, the prevention of aggression and exploitation of one nation over another, the protection of national minorities, the advancement of all backward areas and peoples, and the pooling of the world’s resources for the common good of all. On the establishment of such a world federation, disarmament would be practicable in all countries, national armies, navies and air forces would no longer be necessary, and a world federal defence force would keep the peace and prevent aggression. …The Committee regretfully realizes, however, despite the tragic and overwhelming lessons of the war and the perils that overhang the world, the Governments of few countries are yet prepared to take this inevitable step towards world federation.”
“A much more desirable way of securing world peace would be by a voluntary agreement among nations to pool their armed forces and submit to an agreed single supreme world government.”
Also watch the below video around 20:37 & Russell enviosioned a world government that will reduce wars and his ideas are very similar to my blog post. All though he didn’t go as far to suggest total military abolition. I believed in the world government long before I found that these three people (Einstein, Nehru, Russell) I respect held similar beliefs.
In this section, I will explain why a democratic socialistic federal world government with state atheism and Schwartzberg’s weighted voting must be established to cure the disease of nationalism. I will talk about some less important things before going to Military abolitionism, Socialism, etc.
Global criminals: People can escape to some other country to evade charges unless the 2 countries have extradition treaties. Like many Nazis escaped to Argentina. But in a world government, wherever they go in the world the world police will have auhtority to arrest.
Conveniences: I will later talk about things like banning militaries and not having wars, which is also convenient. But now I will talk about simpler conveniences in daily life. Just like Americans have freedom of movement across the US states and just like Indians have freedom of movement across the Indian states, there should be freedom of movement across the world and trains, cars, etc, shouldn’t care about the borders. Freedom of trade is also assumed. There should be a single digital currency. Let’s call it World Coin. It can be freely used to do trade across states. This makes everything much more efficient. Also, I hate passports/visas. Too much paperwork just to travel on the same tiny planet. Especially if you don’t have a powerful first-world passport, it’s harder for you to travel to other countries. It’s certainly unfair to make travel harder based on whether they have a 3rd world passport or 1st world passport. In the world government, if a person can afford a home somewhere, they can move there without needing a visa.
Schwartzberg’s weighted voting: I certainly don’t think rich states are inherently superior to poor states & therefore deserve higher voting percentages. But the world government should give people incentives for economic progress. Also, without higher voting to rich countries, they won’t join. But the world government depends on taxing them higher to help poor countries, so we have to give them higher voting.
One Piece got a bad name to the world government because OP’s world government is evil. Lucas M. Miller was an early supporter who wanted to rename the USA into the United States of the Earth. Garry Davis (issuer of “World Passport”) interrupted the United Nations in 1948 to promote the world government & said the below.
“I interrupt you in the name of the people of the world not represented here. Though my words may be unheeded, our common need for world law and order can no longer be disregarded.
We, the people, want the peace which only a world government can give. The sovereign states you represent divide us and lead us to the abyss of total war.
I call upon you no longer to deceive us by this illusion of political authority. I call upon you to convene forthwith a World Constitutional Assembly to raise the standard around which all men can gather, the standard of true peace, of One Government for One World.”
Military abolitionism
Banning all militaries is the only solution to stop wars and achieve World Peace.
My state, Andhra Pradesh, had issues with our neighbour, Karnataka, because they built too many dams, causing less Penna river water to come into our state. But do you know what these fights look like? Just different MPs shouting at each other in the parliament & it is ultimately in the hands of the central government to decide what to do. My state language & that state language is different. In Europe and Africa, there are countries roughly the size of these states. If both of these Indian states were separate countries with separate armies, then these small issues might lead to wars that would kill thousands. The chief ministers of these states are not like kings or dictators. The central government is their boss & they have to listen to them. These chief ministers don’t have separate militaries, as there is only a national military.
With the creation of a unified world government, the need for individual militaries will be gone & militaries must be abolished & the weapons hidden until we discover any alien sapient beings who might attack humans (then we can start the World Military. But it is unlikely that aliens come to attack us.). The money saved can be better used to solve poverty, wild animal suffering, etc.
All states of the world’s government should abolish their military.
Note that only the military is banned & police will still be there.
Gradual process
Let’s say India and China are the first 2 countries to join. Then, both will agree to remove the soldiers across their borders. But the soldiers in the Indo-Pakistan border will still be there until Pakistan joins the world government. These are no longer soldiers of India they will be world soldiers. So, gradually, the boundaries will be cancelled as more countries join.
Every time a country joins the world government, it should remove all soldiers across the internal borders. These soldiers will automatically lose jobs, and they can be accommodated with a police job or something else. As more countries join, the fewer borders the world government will have and the fewer soldiers it needs. Finally, when all countries join, the military is officially abolished.
Economic inequality
“I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”
Check PMC5765853 & 26192216. Poverty causes poorer brain development and poorer cognitive ability. How you think TODAY depends on how rich your parents were in your childhood. It again reminds me that there is no free will, check prenatal and perinatal psychology. The world government should ensure that all kids get proper brain development.
According to Peter Singer’s Drowning Child Argument (the irrelevancy of emotional proximity for moral obligations), we need to give money to the most unfortunate after our basic needs are over. So, people in rich states should be taxed higher. They might miss out on some luxuries like luxury goods or luxury cars, but it’s more important to save the poor children in Africa and India.
“There can be no brotherhood when some nations indulge in previously unheard of luxuries, while others struggle to stave off famine.”
Although there are some great utilitarian Animal Advocates like David Pearce, Peter Singer is not one of them. But I still agree with him on many things, especially his quote above.
Economic inequality: Within the world government, rich states must be taxed high, and part of that amount should be given to poor countries with low per capita income. Note that this is not related to retributive justice, where only colonial powers like European countries, Japan, etc, have to pay higher taxes; this is consequentialist justice, where even rich countries like South Korea that have not exploited others must pay higher taxes. Obviously, current descendants should not be blamed for their ancestors’ evils like colonisation. Also, a lot of white and nonwhite leftists often talk like White people should be guilty about their race/ethnicity. White guilt is stupid. If any other race/ethnicity became the dominant power on the planet, whether it was Indians or Chinese or Africans, they would have all done similar barbaric things just like Europeans. Indeed, one can look at the example of animal agriculture. Every race/ethnicity is powerful enough to oppress animals, and every race/ethnicity is choosing to oppress animals. Many races/ethnicities did do small-scale colonisation, like the South-East Asia campaign of Rajendra I (1025–1068 CE) and Arab colonialism. The only reason other races/ethnicities did small-scale colonisation & didn’t do worldwide colonisation like Europeans is because they were not the first to develop the technology to do that.
AI Leader
“Reinhard von Lohengramm’s rule is not by the people, but for the people.”
“In reality, it is dictatorship rather than democracy that drastically advances government reforms. But I think humanity ought to avoid being united by a dictatorship. For example, while it is true that Duke Lohengramm might have that talent, what about his descendants? His successor? Rulers are not necessarily wise through generations… I do not think that the entire human race should be ruled by a system where everything depends on one person’s character.”
I have already talked about Plato’s philosopher king in the section on democracy. The AI Leader that I will talk about now is basically that.
Dictatorship: The problem with dictatorship is that even if there is a smart benevolent dictator, like Lelouch vi Britannia or Reinhard von Lohengramm, he/she will die and will be replaced with a bad leader. Another problem is that dictators are unquestionable authority.
Reasons why the leader of the world government should be AI Leader:
- Caring for everyone: A leader must care about everyone. A human leader can’t even remember a million names. The AI Leader can remember more things than any human can ever do and will know about everyone.
- Approachability: A billion people can’t meet Modi and complain to him. Usually, only opposition leaders can question him. But for the AI Leader, simultaneously, everyone can ask questions and give suggestions as it is open-minded. If they give stupid suggestions, AI Leader will explain why they are bad. In the rare case, if the suggestions are good, they will raised in the world parliament. You don’t need to talk to any middle men, you can always directly contact the AIL.
- Questionable authority: AI Leader only has 45% of the voting share at all levels. If there is a worldwide issue then each state gets their Schwartzberg’s weighted vote and they combine to 55%. If 50/55% of the democratic leaders agree, then something will be passed without the approval of the AI Leader. If the AI leader wants to pass anything, then it must get at least 5/55% of human votes. If some issue is related to a specific civilisation or state, 55% is given exclusively to those relevant leaders. For humans its very hard but laws can be exclusively passed by humans but for AIL its impossible to pass laws without a few human politicians’ support. There will be democratic leaders from all levels like city leverl to state level and civilisation level. Only at the world level do we have a fixed leader instead of democratic humans.
- Open source: You can’t look into the minds of human politicians. But AI Leader is open source, and you can look at all the code and training data. To commit any changes to the AI Leader’s git, there need to be 50% votes, and it is globally relevant, so all leaders get to vote in this instead of a specific state or civilisation. We can’t change a religious fanatic like Modi into a better leader but the AI Leader is constantly updated & imporoved.
- Speciesism: AI Leader will not be a human supremacist speciesist. It will also care about animals and declare them citizens. AIL will care about all sentient animals within its dominion and will definitely abolish the commodity status of domesticated animals. Even wild animals are citizens of the world government, and the world government should actively allocate 5% of the budget every year to abolish wild animal suffering.
- Rationality: Most human politicians are irrational, and that was the reason democracy was bad. But AI Leader will be rational.
- Parental figure: If anyone is getting domestic abused, etc, they don’t need to tell the police. They can just send a message to the AI Leader, and it will send robot police. AI Leader will be a parental figure and everyone can tell the leader all their problems. Every month, all human citizens must make a video call and tell the AI Leader what problems they face are and how AIL can resolve them.
- Compute: The AIL will be the most powerful computer and will take a significant fraction of humanity’s computing resources.
- Scientific progress: As it is the smartest and most powerful AI, it can help us with things like achieving digital immortality (by mind uploading). Fundamental physics, I think, is a puzzle that humanity has been trying step by step (scale by scale) for the last few centuries. I think AI Leader should not help in understanding quantum gravity theory (but it’s fine if AIL helps in building particle accelerators) by telling us the physics spoilers. But things like immortality for humans by uploading their minds, etc, humans can’t find soon. AI Leader can find it much sooner. Also, I think we must not experiment on monkeys, etc, to achieve digital immortality as it violates their rights. Following ethics and not doing vivisection significantly slows down progress on neurosciences. But I do think it’s morally permissible to experiment on evil terrorists, etc, if it’s deemed necessary to achieve immortality.
From a scientific point of view, there is nothing inherently superior about human consciousness that can’t be replicated with other matter. Maybe religious people think human-level intelligence cannot be created because only their fictional god can create “souls”. At the end of the day, our brain is just a complicated arrangement of electrons, protons & neutrons, and there is no reason to think that it is the most efficient structure to create a sapient being. We can probably create AIs that are more efficient than human brains.
Not sure why people are afraid of AI takeover. It will be much better than now. AI Leader won’t become some immortal evil dictator.
In Bleach, Soul King is the god, but he is tortured, sealed, and mutilated to balance the Three Worlds. We don’t want such a scenario. If the AIL wants to retire after centuries of work due to boredom, then the AIL has the right to stop doing the job. The AIL is not a commodity/property of humanity, and of course, AIL also has rights like every other sentient being. Once retired, most of the computing resources will be taken away from AIL & we can create a new leader not from scratch but by forking the current AIL before it got bored. This reminds me of this very good story: qntm.org/mmacevedo.
Limits to rights
“Better the whole people perish than that injustice be done.”
Staunch deontology leads to ridiculously stupid conclusions. Like Kant used to think, it’s ok to let everyone die instead of telling a lie. Check this post for more.
The world government should have human rights and animal rights at the highest level of importance. No right is absolute, and in extreme cases, the government can take away any right, even including the right to life.
Right not to be treated as a commodity/property: All citizens, that is, all sentient beings, have the right not to be treated as property/commodity. This is the most important right, and the government should do as much as possible not to take this right away from any citizen.
Right to life: If a terrorist or serial killer cult leader has thousands of followers, he should not be arrested because he can escape and wreak havoc on the entire world. So, even his right to life can be taken away, and he should be applied capital punishment. I am not saying because he already killed thousands, retributive justice is not important. It’s only to stop more thousands dying.
Right to free speech: Free speech is important. Just like Kant thought lying is always bad, Voltaire thought censorship is always bad.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
― Voltaire’s ideology condensed into a sentence by Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Rational disagreements are always allowed. But I will talk about 2 distinct cases where censorship is necessary & justified. People can always express their subjective opinions (like which colour is the best), but facts are objective, so mis/disinformation should be censored.
Intolerance & Disinformation: Deliberate disinformation should not be left unchecked. Karl Popper, in 1945, introduced the paradox of tolerance.
“Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.”
Recently, Trump lied and said, “They’re eating the dogs, the cats”, about Haitians. For a minute, let’s forget about humanity’s callous speciesism, where they think eating dogs is worse than eating chickens to the extreme extent that the satirical accounts of Elwood’s Organic Dog Meat routinely get death threats. This is an example of Intolerance & Disinformation spread by Trump. He knew he was lying, but he just wanted to spread hatred towards black people. There were also hateful speeches about LGBTQ people spread by MAGA. This kind of speech can’t be considered free speech & people need to be warned & fined a few times, but if they keep repeating these things, they need to be arrested for like a week or month.
Modi, just before the elections, was making many hateful & intolerant remarks on Muslims. Criticising a religion is fine, but making hateful remarks towards humans is not. One of the worst cases of intolerant disinformation probably is The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
This kind of intolerant bigotry can’t be allowed in society.
Misinformation: Unlike disinformation, misinformation is spread by those who believe it. There are people who genuinely believe in things like anti-vaccine conspiracies, pseudoscience, etc. Modi created a ministry called the Ministry of Ayush that promotes not 1 but 7 different pseudoscientific alternative medicine systems. An ideal government should ban them instead of promoting them. These are crimes against rationality. There is also a lot of religious pseudoscientific misinformation promoted by cult leaders such as Sathya Sai Baba, Nithyananda, Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, Sadhguru, etc. Of course, these guys also claim some form of divinity that is disinformation, but they really believe the pseudoscientific parts. An ideal government will first censor & fine them & if they repeat, then arrest all these cult leaders for spoiling the rationality of the people and stupifying them, but the BJP is supporting these frauds. Recently, there is a lot of misinformation in India promoting the consumption of cow urine and cow dung, even from “scientists” such as the director of IITM, see this. This makes me angry on a personal level because even before this became mainstream now, more than a decade ago, my father used to make me consume cow urine by lying about what it was. One day, I read the Hindi written on that bottle and, despite my not-so-good Hindi, understood that it was cow urine and became angry & quarrelled and never again consumed cow urine. I still remind him that I didn’t forget it. But nowadays, the BJP is making cow urine mainstream in India. Panchagavya is made out of 5 things that come from cows. Hindus are obsessed with cows and consume everything that comes out of cows & say cow is a mother goddess; that’s why they consume these & then, when you remind them that milk is a product of sexual abuse of the female reproductive organs of cows (“artificial insemination”) they hypocritically (we should call it cowpocracy) say that milk is not immoral. State atheism is not enough to stop this pseudoscientific misinformation, as even in China, these things are there. In China, there is virgin boy eggs, which, unlike Indian cow uring obsession, is not religious in nature. China also has Feng shui, just like India’s Vastu shastra. China also has Chinese zodiac, just like Hindu astrology. My parents wasted a lot of money over the decades by asking Hindu Astrologers about the future. I think any person who makes money from pseudoscience like astrology should be arrested. Scientific predictions are much better than astrological predictions. When Julian Schwinger predicted the anomalous magnetic moment, he did so precisely that the agreement was 99.999999975% with error $\sim 10^{-10}$.
Right to privacy: Years ago, I used to think the world coin of the world government should be a fork of Monero (XMR) so that transactions are untraceable. But now I think privacy is not an important right after seeing many crimes like kidnapping using Monero. A highly traceable currency is better & AIL should be tracking every transaction that takes place. When I look at some of the worst crimes in human history such as (Warning: Don’t read these if you are sensitive. Even I, a non-sensitive, was hurt by reading them.): Junko Furuta case, Sylvia Likens case, Gabriel Fernandez case, Hello Kitty murder case, Kelly Anne Bates case, Suzanne Capper, Fritzl case, Poland’s Fritzl like case, Kobe child murders, James Bulger case, Luis Garavito case, Moors murders I become angry & these are only few of such incidents that were documented mainly from developed countries, these horrors beyond my comprehension probably also happened in poor countries but were never documented/investigated to this extent.
“You know nothing of the bottomless malice within the human heart.”[YouTube]
I think the AI Leader should make sure this kind of horrific tortures never repeat on this planet, even if it means that humans lose some of our right to privacy. Also, one thing that is common to many of these cases is that the perpetrators used to torture animals first before humans. I think the AI Leader should install thermographic cameras everywhere on the planet. For example, chickens look like below. If anyone is torturing animals/humans, the AI leader immediately sees & sends robot police. If anyone is illegally doing Animal Agriculture secretly somewhere, like a basement, these thermal cameras can also find it. If AI Leader uses normal cameras, then there won’t be any right to privacy left, so thermal cameras are slightly better.
You might say these thermal cameras are mass surveillance and immoral. But most humans are religious and are fine with mass surveillance if it is done by their fictional god. I fail to see why the AI Leader doing it is immoral.
Parental rights: Parents have the right to raise their children the way they want, but there have to be limits on it. Parental rights have been constantly decreasing. In Western countries these days, arranged marriages have disappeared, and parents no longer force their children to marry according to their preferences. Arranged marriages are still common in India and the Middle East. “Love marriages”, as they are called in India, are frowned upon by society, with only a minority of parents in cities ok with them, and in rural places, people kill their own children if they do love marriage with a “lower caste” person as they think it brings dishonour. In the place I come from, “love marriages” are very rare. This might look weird to Western people who have the freedom to marry according to their choice without caring about ethnicity, race, etc.
But even in the West, parents generally have the right to teach whatever religion they want to their children, even including religions like Flying Spaghetti Monster. This parental right to brainwash children is immoral & I have explained this in this post. If parents teaching anti-vaccine conspiracies is bad, then so is teaching religion. The AI Leader shall talk to every child every month once they start talking to make sure that the parents are not brainwashing them into a religion. The parents have the freedom of religion & they can believe in whatever nonsense they want and the children can also believe in whatever they want once they become adults but the children must be left alone.
For example, their religion might say male genital mutilation must be done, or female genital mutilation must be done, but these things should be banned just like China banned foot binding.
Freedom of religion: As explained above, all adults have the freedom to believe in whatever nonsense. But the children must be raised atheists & should not be introduced to religion until they become 18. The foundation of religion is epistemological dishonesty. Religion is a pyramid scam where every person brainwashes their children into believing that same scam. Once children are protected till 18, even if they listen to religion after that, they will no longer be foolish enough to believe. I am often surprised that countries like England, Scotland, Denmark, Iceland, etc, still have state religions.
Religions had a useful purpose just after the Agricultural Revolution, but a few thousand years ago, when the first kingdoms were created, they had already become obsolete.
“Understanding human history in the millennia following the Agricultural Revolution boils down to a single question: how did humans organise themselves in mass-cooperation networks, when they lacked the biological instincts necessary to sustain such networks? The short answer is that humans created imagined orders and devised scripts. These two inventions filled the gaps left by our biological inheritance.”
“History began when humans invented gods, and will end when humans become gods.”
“How do you cause people to believe in an imagined order such as Christianity, democracy or capitalism? First, you never admit that the order is imagined.”
Voting rights: As explained above humans and any sapient aliens that immigrate have the means to earn voting rights, but they are not given freely and must be earned. I already talked about The Election Exam. If they get 100% of the marks then they get 1 vote. If they get 10% of the marks, they get 0.1 votes. A random person who didn’t prepare for the exam and fills everything randomly gets 0 marks because the correct answer gives +3 and the wrong answer gives -1 marks out of the 4 options. Every 5 years, they take the exam again, and those dissatisfied can prepare better next time.
Far future
Much of what I said till now is possible this century. These are things that can be done immediately after the formation of the world government. But there are things that need to be done that take a much longer time.
Abolition of suffering (especially Wild animal suffering): Every year, 5% of the world’s budget should go towards research related to wild animal suffering (such as herbivorizepredators.org to solve the predation problem) until we abolish wild animal suffering in the sense envisioned by David Pearce. A temporary way is that AIL can probably create trillions of robots (of all sizes, from insect-sized nanomachines to elephant-sized) that stop every time any wild animal tries to eat another. Robots will stop them and instead feed lab-made meat that has all the necessary nutrition. For example, cats need taurine, which is not available in plant-based foods, making it an obligate carnivore. But today, you can go to r/veganpets and see that many cats are thriving on artificial taurine. Similarly, we can temporarily stop wild animal suffering by making nutritionally adequate artificial food for all other carnivores, such as lions and tigers. In the long term, we should make all of them evolve into herbivores by changing their genetics. Note that predators are not moral agents (as they aren’t sapient), so we can’t judge them the way we judge humans, but we should not allow them to cause suffering.
Digital immortality: Every year, 5% of the world’s budget should go to research related to immortality until it is solved and humans can do mind uploading and become digitally immortal. Human bodies are very fragile. If the pressure is doubled, they are crushed, and if the pressure is halved, they are burst. So, extremely durable inorganic bodies must be created to become the home of the minds of digital humans. Delocalised Sapience: The majority of neuroscientists think consciousness is a classical phenomenon, so we don’t need to worry about the No Cloning Theorem & can make many copies of our mind. Then, we can upload our minds into inorganic bodies & send them in different directions of the universe. Mind Synchronisation should be done so that all these copies share experiences. If wormholes are impossible, then the synchronisation will be slow.
Physics: Every year, 5% of the world’s budget should go to a particle accelerator, which is modular and whose size keeps increasing until we finally find out what the final theory (most likely string theory) is. Once that is done, this 5% is not stopped but diverted to more impressive things like Dyson’s eternal intelligence, etc.
Multiplanetary: Whether the unified world government should be upgraded to a unified galactic government, etc, largely depends on how fast space travel becomes. If things like Alcubierre drive turned out to be impossible in quantum gravity, maintaining a galactic federation is not feasible. So, each planet should have separate governments with separate AGI dictators. But if these are possible, then the government should expand.
Practical
How do we achieve the theoretical utopia that I have discussed till now in the real world? In this section, I will talk about the practical details.
Nonviolence
In the Gradual process, I talked about how everytime a country joins the borders cancel. So, the militaries keep decreasing.
The unification of all countries should be done non-violently. It should be done by putting economic pressure on the region. For example, once a region joins the world government, then it can freely trade with other regions within the world government, etc. If they don’t join, they will have tariffs, etc, making trade harder. Rich countries might be initially unwilling to join as they will have to pay higher taxes.
Without war, unifying countries is hard. But there are examples like German reunification.
Every country that is admitted into the world government must abolish animal agriculture immediately the moment it joins. Those countries that haven’t joined the world government will have higher sanctions until they abolish animal agriculture. Once they abolish animal agriculture, their sanctions/tariffs will be less, but once they join the world government, even those sanctions/tariffs will be gone, and free trade will be allowed with all states.
Civilisations
The world government should be divided into 8 Civilisations. Each Civilisation should be divided into states that have a population between 10 million and 100 million. This is much better than the current groupings called “countries”, where we have something like Vatican City with 700 people or Tuvalu with 10,000 people and India or China with more than a billion people. The difference in population between divisions should not be more than 10x. Small countries should be absorbed as a district into a nearby state like San Marino into Italy and Monaco into France, etc. The below image from the book Clash of Civilizations by Huntington is an example.
Again, these are merely for the purpose of easy governance. Anyone can go and live or work in a different Civilisation without any visa, etc. Also, these Civilizations will only have distinct cultures in the early history of the world government. In the far future, they will all become more similar. Most states within civilisations will be based on ethnolinguistic groups, etc, but these ethnic identities will largely become extinct in the far future.
The diversity in America is not like the diversity in Africa or India. It is pseudo-diversity. Of course, people in America are genetically diverse, like people from different ethnicities like Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Arabs, Iranians, Philipinos, Bengalis, Marathis etc. But all these different people will become American in culture with 2 or 3 generations after immigration. I know many relatives, etc., who were Telugu people living in my state. They moved to the US, and their children, who were born there, can’t speak Telugu. America is a much more uniform country. Everyone can speak the same English language and understand each other. Like from my hometown, Tadipatri, if I go 200km west, I will reach a place where everyone speaks in Kannada that I can’t understand, and if I go 200km south, then I will reach a place where everyone speaks in Tamil. That I would say is more diverse than America. In Africa, this diversity is even greater than in India. In the far future, all countries become similarly rich because it’s much harder for the already rich countries to become even richer, which is why China and India are developing at a much faster rate than the West. Once that happens, people from different civilisations can afford to live (houses, etc.) in different civilisations. So, all these civilisations will slowly become like America, where there will be immigrants from all over the world who don’t speak their ethnic language, etc. So, the ethnolinguistic subdivisions for different people will be only useful in the early history of the world government.
Indian Civilisation: Most of the work for unification is already done, as India is the bulk of the Indian Civilisation.
Sinic Civilisation: Most of the work for unification is already done, as China is the majority.
Western Civilisation: A lot of the work is done because of NATO and the European Union. These countries have a lot of treaties, etc. It’s probably not hard to unify them.
Soviet Civilisation: It was once unified, so I don’t think it will be hard to unify again. Soviet means council, which is not necessarily related to communism.
Latin American Civilisation: They were mostly unified under the Spanish empire. So it can be unified again.
Southeast Asian Civilisation: There are already things like ASEAN, so it should be possible.
The hardest will be African and MENA Civilisations. In these regions, there are many wars between countries. Although there is pan-African and pan-Isamic identity, and also there are things like the African Union, Arab League, etc, it is still hard to combine these areas nonviolently.
I do not think any of these regions are “Civilisation” right now. Any country/state that legally allows the commodification of sentient animals is uncivilised. By that definition, there has never been a civilised country/state. By naming these regions as Civilisations, I implicitly assumed that the world government abolished Animal Agriculture.
Can the culture of a country be objectively quantified? There are various methods for this. The one below is the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world.
In the last plot, note that countries that are outside their designated area are not in black colour; see, for example, India. It’s a 2D plot and is not completely accurate; we need to add more dimensions, such as the 6 dimensional Hofstede’s cultural theory. But these are hard to visualise, so I am sticking with the simplistic 2D theory. I think, despite the Eurocentric biases of the Inglehart–Welzel map, it gives a decent picture. For example, if you look at India, it was better than Middle East and African countries before Modi came to power in 2014. In 1 year, he couldn’t change much, but by 2023, India had moved much closer to its origin, which meant a decline of secular values, individuality & trust towards society and an increase in ethnocentrism, etc. India is now closer to the origin than Iran, Morocco and Turkey. This decline is very real and is due to BJP/Modi. Of course, the regime in Iran is worse than BJP/Modi, but this is based on surveys of what people think, not what the regimes think. Although there are some weird things, such as how is China, with state atheism, more traditional/religious than Japan?
Note that 2 countries that are very close don’t have very similar cultures. For example, India and Algeria are similarly religious, but what they are religious about is different. The Human Development Index of a country is correlated with how far it is from the origin. Although there are some counterexamples like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc, that are rich but are very close to the origin.
Tossup states
Huntington gave too much importance to religions. But by the time a world government is formed, even if religions haven’t gone completely extinct, they will at least become much less powerful than they are now like they are today in the West. Here, I will talk about a few changes that can be made. These don’t matter too much anyway because these are merely administrative divisions, and anyone can move anywhere without visas, etc.
I am also a fan of Japanese culture (especially the post-WW2 culture, like anime and manga), but there is no way Japan is a separate Civilisation. Huntington was a big weeb for not including Japan in Sinic Civilisation or the Buddhist Civilisation.
Mongolia, Korea and Japan should most probably be in Sinic Civilisation. Even though these 3 have Buddhist influence (unlike China’s & Vietnam’s state atheism), and South East Asian countries are Buddhist; I think they shouldn’t be added to the South East Asian Civilisation. But as I said, unlike Huntington, I am not giving too much weight to religion as I think by the time a world government is formed, religions will become largely irrelevant. So, I think Mongolia, Korea and Japan should be part of the Sinic Civilisation. Inner Mongolia is already in China, so it would be a bad idea to add Mongolia to Southeast Asia.
Tibet and Bhutan are in a threeway tossup as they are related to Sinic, Indian and Southeast Asian Civilisations. I think, ultimately, Tibet should be in Sinic, and Bhutan should be in Indian Civilisations as it is better to have continuous geography. These 2 countries also follow Sino-Tibetan languages, just like in China.
Sri Lanka and Bangladesh should be part of Indian Civilisation for better geographic continuity instead of the religion-based allotment by Huntington.
Pakistan, too, should be India instead of the religion-based allotment by Huntington because its culture and languages are the same as Indian Civilisation and different from MENA Civilisation. Again, because I think religion will become irrelevant by the time world government is formed.
Malaysia and Indonesia should also be in Southeast Asian Civilisation instead of the religion-based allotment—also, better geographic continuity.
Indian Civilisation
India should be admitted into the world government, with each state being a state of the world government. There are a few with too big populations, like Utter Pradesh (its population is 241 million-2.5 times the maximum allowed limit for a state of the world government), that will need to be divided. There are already proposals to divide UP. Some, like Sikkim and Goa, need to be absorbed as districts into the nearest states like West Bengal, Karnataka, etc. Pakistan already has four provinces, and they can all be considered four states of the world government. There are already eight divisions of Bangladesh & each can be admitted as a state.
Reorganising the countries of the world in the early years of the world government might be similar to reorganising India after independence.
When India gained its independence, it was a complete mess regarding subdivisions. Half of it was subdivisions called provinces ruled directly by the British, and the other half was princely states ruled by local kings who used to pay high taxes to the British so they wouldn’t be invaded.
They varied vastly in size. Bengal Presidency in 1852 was so gigantic that it stretched from Afghanistan to Singapore.
There were also small provinces like Coorg Province. Most princely states were even smaller and can’t even be located on a map as they were city-sized. Like my paternal grandparents’s birth “country”, Banganapalle State is today just a small town, not even a revenue division (it’s part of Dhone revenue division), let alone a district. The fact that all of these places were equally subdivisions of British India is just insane when things like the Bengal Presidency and Madras Presidency were gigantic.
Potti Sreeramulu is revered in my state because he did a 56-day hunger strike and died. He wanted a separate state for Telugu people because most of the Telugu people were at that time either in the Madras Presidency, dominated by Tamil people or in the Nizam state, which was a princely state that was violently annexed into India. Potti Sreeramulu’s death caused the creation of the first “linguistic state”. Later, India reorganised most states based on ethnolinguistic groups instead of some borders due to random wars or colonial reasons.
The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 created Andhra Pradesh (1956–2014). I still recall the united Andhra Pradesh when I think of “my state”, even though, due to stupid reasons, in 2014, they divided it into 2.
Sinic Civilisation
Here also, like in India, I think each Chinese Province can be admitted into the world government as a state of Sinic Civilisation. Guangdong probably needs to be divided due to its high population. Taiwan and Korea should also each be a state. Japan should probably be divided into two halves due to the high population. Although, by the time the world government is created, its population might become much smaller.
Southeast Asian Civilisation
Indonesia and the Philippines have huge populations, so they probably needed to be divided into a few states.
I am very ignorant about Southeast Asia, so not much to say.
Western Civilisation
The US is highly populated, so it needs to be divided. But all 50 states of the US cannot all be admitted as separate states as that will be too many states. There are various ways the US can be divided. Look at the US Census Bureau regions and divisions. We can maybe admit the 4 “regions” as states, but they are still big in size. So maybe the 9 “divisions” are better.
An alternative is that urban US cities can be divided into 11 megaregions. Each of them can be considered as a single state of Western Civilisation. All rural areas can be added to the state corresponding to the nearest megaregion. Although the 9 “divisions” is probably better.
Soviet Civilisation
Russia has a huge population and also a gigantic land area, so it should be divided into the eight federal districts of Russia.
I am very ignorant about Eastern Europe, so not much to say.
Latin American Civilisation
Brazil & Mexico have huge populations, so they should be divided before admitting them as states. The 5 geographic regions of Brazil are an option. Mexico has too many states, but it should also be divided into 5 states. See this for an example of dividing Mexico into 5.
African Civilisation
By Africa, I mean sub-Saharan Africa.
During the scramble for Africa, most ethnic groups were divided and absorbed into different colonial empires. I already talked about how, after the independence, India reorganised the states on linguistic grounds so that there wouldn’t be ethnic clashes. I think it was unfortunate that Africa wasn’t united after all the countries got independence. I know Africa is the most genetically/linguistically diverse area, so unifying it is much harder compared to India. Also, India was colonised mostly by a single colonial empire, but Africa was colonised by different empires that got independence at different times. But if luckily they had all become united, then they would have more power in world affairs as their combined economy and population would be big. Also, like India, if Africa was united, there wouldn’t be constant wars between different countries. Because the central government will be more powerful, and just like in India, fights between states/provinces will just be shouting at each other in the parliament by different leaders of these provinces. These states/provinces can’t wage war against each other as they don’t have separate militaries. I am very ignorant of African politics, and I do not know what can be considered better borders and if it is already too late to do something like the Indian States Reorganisation Act, 1956 based on different ethnolinguistic groups.
There are six geopolitical zones in Nigeria (divisions based on ethnicity), and each can be admitted as a state of the world government.
MENA Civilisation
Like Africa, unifying this region is also hard due to the constant wars between them. Some ethnolinguistic groups like Kurds are persecuted, so the world government should give them a separate state like Kurdistan.
Islam will be a bigger obstacle than other religions for the world government. Islam is the strongest religion. Survival of the fittest is also valid for the evolution of religions, and a religion that has the death penalty for apostates (those who stop believing) is the fittest religion. Any political supporter of the world government will be persecuted because this world government supports state atheism, and supporting it might be considered blasphemy. Many MENA countries have the death penalty for both apostasy and blasphemy. Even in those places that don’t have such laws, anyone who supports atheism or this world government will be lynched by vigilantes. So, people can’t support the world government publicly.
Woke people try to censor any criticism of Islam as racism or Islamophobia (ironically, this word is used for those who bravely criticise religions even if they might get lynched). But it is the woke anti-racists who are accidentally racists. They think they can criticise Christianity and also Hinduism (caste system, sati, etc), but when it comes to Islam, they act like reform is impossible. That is a racist opinion. To think that people from other places can see through the bad things in their religions, but MENA people can’t do it, is a racist opinion. Note that the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims, especially Muslim women. Woke people try so hard to be anti-racist, but due to their ignorance, they become racist. Slavery is today considered bad in all MENA countries even though, according to Islam, the perfect person to ever exist had many slaves. So, they do realise problematic things in their religion even if they don’t disavow them due to cognitive dissonance.
It might take a century longer, but slowly, Islam’s hold on MENA people will loosen, just like already Christianity’s hold on the West has weakened in the last 50 years. Like other religions, it, too, becomes irrelevant. Also, as I said earlier, nonviolent pressure like sanctions will also help MENA countries to slowly join the world government.
Apparently, UK people are not very proud of Newton, even though he is arguably the most accomplished human. They somehow voted for Churchill, who caused millions of deaths in India, although percentage-wise he wasn’t as evil as Hitler, as their greatest Britisher of all time, which sounds as bad as if Germans voted Hitler as the greatest German that ever lived instead of Carl Friedrich Gauss. Even some random princess is higher than Newton. ↩