A last stand<\/h3>\n
My answer to the question posed was that I believe that these populist social developments are in fact the beginning of the end of nations.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/wp-content\/uploads\/Fotolia_121817677_S.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
That people would slowly realize that social infrastructure is no longer taking place in geographically defined areas. And that this loss of structures to which people can orient themselves is leading to stronger calls for these structures. <\/p>\n
Nation state – It’s over<\/h3>\n
I believe that sooner or later we will form a single or at least a few communities on this planet. And that these are not bound to geographical territories. <\/p>\n
That sounds totally strange at first. How is that supposed to work? A world without borders is completely unimaginable for most people. We’ve all grown up with the concept of the “home turf” to such an extent that we can’t imagine living without it. <\/p>\n
If we look at why the nation state exists, it used to have a very logical justification: By occupying a piece of land and declaring it as theirs, a group of people could benefit from its resources.<\/p>\n
In an underdeveloped economy, and all countries were formed in underdeveloped economies, the primary sector is the dominant sector. It made a lot of sense back then to mark out a territory, organize it and defend it. And it was also more than logical for a separate culture, a separate sociological climate, to emerge within this demarcated territory. <\/p>\n
In highly developed economies, on the other hand, the primary sector is becoming much less important. And with it the occupied territory. I believe it is no coincidence that we have seen an increasing irrelevance of borders, politics and countries in recent years. <\/p>\n
At the same time, the tertiary sector, i.e. the service and therefore knowledge sector, is growing strongly. And knowledge, i.e. data, is only territorially tangible to a very limited extent. On the contrary. To a certain extent, knowledge spreads independently and without limits. <\/p>\n
Data is the new oil<\/span> Cereals<\/h3>\nSo if knowledge is one of the “main sources” from which we generate our added value, we also follow knowledge socially. And if there is no economic compulsion to protect this knowledge within a territory, we also give up this very territory. Not consciously, mind you, but gradually. <\/p>\n
And these borders and all the administrative restrictions that come with them are increasingly just extremely cumbersome. What used to be perceived as protection is increasingly just ballast. For the economy, for legislation and above all for ordinary citizens. We would like limitless possibilities. In the proverbial sense. <\/p>\n
The Internet has a greatly accelerating effect in this development, as it expands our social radius of action enormously. And it doesn’t stop at national borders either. <\/p>\n
Mergers<\/h3>\n
The logical reaction to these underlying drivers and developments is that more and more countries are growing together. This is nothing new. On the contrary. Most countries were themselves created by the merger of various smaller countries. I expect this trend to continue. In the EU, for example, we can see very clearly how things have been moving ever closer together over the years. Don’t be distracted by the political accident that is Brexit. The “United States of Europe” is closer than ever. <\/p>\n
Who will build the social infrastructure of the 22nd century?<\/h3>\n
When we talk about these issues, we must not be under the illusion that the “concept of the nation state” will be replaced in our lifetime. I believe these changes will take a long time. Over generations, we will probably get used to the fact that the definition of nationality will become less and less important. If we compare the attitudes of people today with those of, say, 100 years ago, we can already see that nationality plays less of a role for today’s young people. <\/p>\n
This effect will only increase with increasing mobility. I also see the disenchantment with politics as a corresponding sign. It is not at all the case that people no longer care about communities. Rather, it is the case that many nationally oriented policies seem slightly out of touch in today’s context. The conversion of politics to de facto professional politics has intensified this effect. <\/p>\n
Organization of the future<\/h3>\n
The question remains: What will take the place of nations? Obviously, “virtual territories” will be marked out in the future. But who will say where they are? How will they be controlled? Will they be controlled at all? Who defines them? <\/p>\n
From today’s perspective, it is obvious that future organizations will again form around the control of resources. If knowledge and know-how based on data become one of the most important resources, it is quite conceivable that the Internet infrastructure will become the new “territory”. <\/p>\n
If we move all the components that we need as a community, i.e. laws\/rules of coexistence, value management and value exchange and the generation of added value, to the Internet, and it looks more likely than ever that we will, then the Internet will be the “territory” that I will have to control as the future “state”.<\/p>\n
The Sky is the limit<\/h3>\n
When you hear Internet now, you probably think of transatlantic cables and cable modems. But the Internet of tomorrow will be in the sky. Various organizations are in the process of building a global Internet. First and foremost SpaceX, Facebook and Google. They are thus escaping territorial ties. Whether they will also become organizations that take over state functions in the long term is not automatically a given. But it cannot be ruled out either. <\/p>\n
“What is your nationality? I’m a Googler.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt is interesting to imagine that there could be several simultaneous (geographical) layers of such “states”. That nationality is then no longer tied to a geographical location. I think this is much more in line with a globalized world of the future than the model we have today. <\/p>\n
Millions of small communities – and individual nationality<\/h3>\n
And small local communities can still exist and local resources can be managed locally. This has advantages. If we look at today’s large states, we have to recognize that the larger they become, the more difficult it is to act efficiently and meaningfully on behalf of their citizens. Smaller states often function much better. Quite simply because the administration of small states is less complicated. <\/p>\n
If access to basic “real-life” resources is increasingly available, and this is what we see globally, even if there are still many people who are starving and living in precarious conditions, then these can also be managed very easily locally.<\/p>\n
Crystal ball<\/h3>\n
It’s easy to start fantasizing and speculating. It is not really clear in which direction we will develop in detail. But one thing is foreseeable: Sooner or later, the territorially defined nation state will not be the dominant form of organization in the human world order. It cannot. And what we are seeing today, I conclude, are the first signs of an upheaval that will completely change the world. <\/p>\n
Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>
“What is your nationality? I’m a Googler.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is interesting to imagine that there could be several simultaneous (geographical) layers of such “states”. That nationality is then no longer tied to a geographical location. I think this is much more in line with a globalized world of the future than the model we have today. <\/p>\n And small local communities can still exist and local resources can be managed locally. This has advantages. If we look at today’s large states, we have to recognize that the larger they become, the more difficult it is to act efficiently and meaningfully on behalf of their citizens. Smaller states often function much better. Quite simply because the administration of small states is less complicated. <\/p>\n If access to basic “real-life” resources is increasingly available, and this is what we see globally, even if there are still many people who are starving and living in precarious conditions, then these can also be managed very easily locally.<\/p>\n It’s easy to start fantasizing and speculating. It is not really clear in which direction we will develop in detail. But one thing is foreseeable: Sooner or later, the territorially defined nation state will not be the dominant form of organization in the human world order. It cannot. And what we are seeing today, I conclude, are the first signs of an upheaval that will completely change the world. <\/p>\n Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>Millions of small communities – and individual nationality<\/h3>\n
Crystal ball<\/h3>\n