Report 'Evernomics and Nations United' by rate3 at 16 Apr 2022
Evernomics and Nations United Source
I wonder does anyone know how many 'unions' of all types do we have in the world? I mean, including commercial, labor, ideological, governmental / non-governmental etc.
Not surprisingly, it is difficult to find the answer to this question. Because of its too general character and because there are too many of them, I guess. For instance, even if you narrow your inquisition down to a more specific inquiries, f.e. 'How many 'labor unions' are there in the world?', you won't be substantially gratified by those efforts too.
Definitely, someone, who had more keen interest in that particular topic than I do, has, probably, already come out with a vetted list of all registered labor unions in each country, but I didn't find this one yet. So, I reduce myself to a grossly uneducated generalization by stating that there must be no less than several thousands of largest trade / labor unions existing out there. Subsequently, the total number of 'unions' of all colors and shapes must be enumerated in hundred thousands if not in millions.
At this intellectually highly unsatisfactory juncture I have to leave a "unions' non-countability issue" to switch to our main topic - the, so-called, 'supranational organizations'. Here are some of them (as taken from the Wikepedia 'Supranational union' article):
African Union (AU), Arab League, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Benelux, Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Central American Integration System (SICA), Community for Democracy and Rights of Nations, Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (Gulf Cooperation council) (GCC), Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), East African Community, Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), Islands Forum, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Union of South American Nations (USAN), Turkic Council (TurkKon), Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI), Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), Pacific Alliance, Pacific Eurasian Union.
Now, would you, please, provide (in the comments section to this post) your answer to the following question: "What are the main achievements of those unions, which you can recognize by name from this list?"
Before I start to ponder over your answers and we launch a hot-headed polemic about such issues as 'Whether deploying seven thousands peacekeepers in Sudan during the Darfur conflict had really served this stratagem's initial purposes?' or "Did signing in 2017 CARICOM-Cuba Trade and Economic Cooperation Agreement really facilitate 'closer trade ties'?", I voluntarily degrees from those upcoming debates to fully recognize the validity and the purposefulness of all those unions.
Naturally, so due to, as some of you might know, my affiliation with the Evernomics, which main postulate can be simplified to the following theses 'to the Unity we are drawn onward by the Eternity'.
Yes, yes, you might say, but, practically speaking, are we drawn to this 'unity' by what, specifically? The answer is very trivial - by our emotions, of course.
You see, the trick is that we are all too, what they call, 'anthropocentric', which means we are incapable to digest the simply truth although subconsciously we know its too well. It is that from a high-above-the-atmosphere point of view the way our civilization goes is similar to what's happening to a bacteria biome in the Petri dishes. We grow, we eat and we decay.
Because of that bias and despite to all contrary facts we keep denying our 'organizations' inclusion into the natural birth-expansion-stagnation-decay cycle. We, also, keep repeating to ourself that although an individual human being is driven by the fundamental set of emotions but our 'civilization' is not and can not be, because it is too 'deterministic' and we believe in the 'freedom of choice', aren't we?
However, facts are just keep coming and all those facts are against what we proudly think who we are. Those facts are telling us that our emotions, which we love to 'scientifically' disregard, are, basically, preprogrammed functions set to eternalize our species depending on the surrounding environmental conditions.
Now, we all know very well that those 'environmental conditions' are strikingly different for different geographical areas. Consequently, different humans living under different environmental conditions would emotionalize / feel differently and, consequently, can not really agree (or 'unite') with humans from other geographical areas.
Those are facts everyone knows, but I bet that most of my readers do not want to accept those facts because that is not how we have been brought by our surrounding societies, which, remember, strive for the 'unity' by definition.
Here we have, at last, clarified that tragic contradiction, which I was driving you too in this post.
We are compelled to be united but, we can not and, consequently, we must not to be united.
That is a hell of a thesis to stay behind in our days, when what you hear almost every day emanating from our, so-called, 'leaders' are urgent calls to 'the unity' against or for some or other new cause.
We have been trying to achieve that global 'unity' (under different names of 'kingdoms of heavens', 'celestial empires', 'the sun never sets on it', 'thousand-year reich' - etc, you name it) during the last five thousands years, at least. However, this 'unity' has never come to us despite absolutely catastrophic expenditures of human lives and properties. That is the another fact for us to digest.
So, my question is: Might it be the right time for us to stop trying before this new, shiny 'united nations' (and its brothering) of ours will turn to be just another unforeseen, good-intentional catastrophe?
Well, what is the solution then? I've glad you asked :)
When followers of Evernomics (together, of course, with the fast-growing number of other 'disillusioned in unity' human-beings) call for the global decentralization, what we mean is not 'anarchy' or 'chaos' or 'multi-polar world' by any means. It means the world without a state or 'stateless world' in a purely technical sense, where 'state' is defined as a 'leaving session state'.
Other saying, we propose to self-organize based not on the old concept of 'leviathan-state'. We want to implement the new principle - the decentralized consensus protocol - according to which 'every request (f.e. for changes in our social order) can be understood in isolation (means, according to changing environmental conditions), that is without reference to previous session state (or to bureaucratic always outdated rules).'
I know, that many of you are not 'technical' and prefer 'the plain English'. However, technological achievements of last century are exactly what gives us hope to bootstrap ourselves from this 'unity trap' by, paradoxically, multiplying a number of 'unities' making them smaller and smaller, by that rendering them more versatile towards environment, more inventive to meet internal crisis and, most importantly, less dangerous to each other.
Every engineer knows that largely distributed, decentralized, linear systems / constructs are more stable than hierarchical, centralized, single-point-of-rapture ones. We need to apply that safe-engineering to our societies governance systems design, urgently.
Would it make our planet the peaceful one? No, it would not, of course. Instead, it will increase the number of small-scale wars allowing to release a tension inevitable between different human-species immediately without letting its to grow into the catastrophic, world-scale disaster by hibernating those pressures until its explodes like the super-volcano.
Also, those local micro-wars will allow our future, smaller communities to self-learn from those painful experiences much faster and to adopt another, less bloody ways to resolve among-humans conflicts.
Sure, you have all rights to be appalled by this micro-wars apology. However, what we have now as 'a conflicts resolution' is much worser. Our 'rulers' use our bodies for their own pleasures as a proprietorial gun-meat in their war-games claiming it to be 'politics' of some sort. Them playing those 'games' will bring to us the nuclear extinction event sooner rather than later. Are you still so naive to not recognizing this fact too?
If you are grown-up enough so ask yourself: Might it be just better for all of us to start playing our own small war-games hoping it will occasionally avert the inevitable disaster?
What have we to loose anyway?