> Either because it failed to colonize before being wiped out by disease, because it nuked itself, or because it implemented AI in a way that got itself killed.

If the probability of a kind of disaster is sufficient to blow up Earth, it is likely that the same kind of disaster will blow up all the handful of colonies we can hope to build. At astronomic scale, the speed of light is quite slow.

Potentially. I think the possibility of quarantine is much higher between planets, though.

If you're so worried about the world destroying itself with its own weapons, how are you going to enforce your weapons ban without using weapons?

But if all the guns were gone we wouldn't need any anymore, ergo world peace, cats and dogs living together, and mcdonalds becomes vegan. /s

The same way Japan "enforces" around violent and petty crime - by removing the need for it, and establishing a culture opposed to it.

It's not nearly as easy as that but that's the basic summation of my philosophy around the idea.

I worry that culture doesnt help at the top of leadership.

Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you.

Dictators dont care if war is unpopular as long as its beneficial.

I think nukes may be obsolete because war is no longer beneficial, but leadership of a company may be 100% set on finding AI by any means necessary.

Can you clarify your second line, "Once you get to the top of an organization, only a few people need to listen to you. As long as you keep their paychecks and power, they will listen to you." Are you saying that everyone has to do what you say because you pay them? If so, I don't think that point applies to this situation - we're talking Google engineers, they shouldn't be hard pressed to pick up their things and find a job elsewhere that aligns better with their values.

Capital interests wont go away quietly, but I hope you're right.

I doubt they will go away peacefully, either. I cannot think of an instance in history where they have though I’d love to be wrong.

I honestly cling to the hope daily that the internet has changed what people's reactions to power will be in the future. It's the one of the few deep things that's changed.

there's a dead post from @Ataturk who nails my arguments against your point, but doesn't do so very nicely.

history should be a guid here.

presuming penis-size conversation is anything more than an intentional dig by a chauvinist powermonger, probably isn't helpful here.

I don't see the dead post, though I've looked. I'm happy to hear the points.

after removing insulting remarks, ataturk's comments looks like this (which i personally agree with):

Globalism == lack of agency, the end of voting and elections.

Universal education == total indoctrination and ideological consistency of the collectivistic variety.

Universal healthcare == the end of individual choice, individual responsibility, all new extensive taxing regimes, the destruction of the individual on many levels.

Gun Control == People control. Then total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force. Which, by the way, has never worked out well for any citizen anywhere.

Thank you for taking the time to find and share the points. I'd like to rebuke :

>Globalism == lack of agency, end of voting and elections

If federalism didn't lead to this, why would globalism? What even is globalism? I am skeptical of this because "globalism" seems to be used as a catch-all alt-right bogeyman lately.

>universal education == total indoctrination, ideological consistency

Universal access to education doesn't have to mean homogeneous curriculum. It doesn't have to mean lack of education choices. It doesn't even have to mean requirement to receive education.

Another thing I find curious - the very people I find rejecting education "collectivism" are often people who wouldn't blink before forcing their own "indoctrination" upon others. We fight this fight in Texas far too often - should schools teach facts (evolution), or give "fair credence" to falsehoods (intelligent design) because of religion? Woops, out goes falsehoods as soon as the satanists get involved and also flex their constitutional rights, never mind, we'll take evolution!

>universal healthcare == the end of individual choice

I don't see why this has to be true, it isn't in any of the current implementations of universal healthcare.

>end of individual responsibility

Are you presently responsible for your water being clean? Are you presently responsible for the quality of your roadways? Are you presently responsible for the guarantee that your medication contains advertised active ingredients that do as it says on the label?

>Extensive taxing regimes

Shift military funding, close ultra-rich tax loopholes.

>destruction of the individual

Fail to see how this is true. Unsupported by argument.

>gun control == people control

False equivalence.

>then, total domination by the state and a monopoly on the use of force

Currently working just fine in countries with gun control laws, which, by the way, completely nullifies the false "has never worked out well" absolute you ended with. Furthermore, the USA has right now a monopoly on the use of force. The US and its laws have sovereign control over whether you are allowed to use force or not. You have almost no say in the matter. Furthermore, this isn't 1776. The gap in armament between civilians and a martial state is so large as to be hilarious. Were the need to arise, US combined armed forces could drone strike, Tomahawk, artillery, AC130, or just door to door ground and pound any organized militia to dust. Or, you know, nuke it.

Are you, private US citizen, allowed to build a nuke?

I see this kind of response a lot to "the globalist threat."

What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines? Is there a fear that the "wrong" culture will persist into the future?

Not the author of the dead post, and definitely not a fan of the alt-right, but the term globalism immediately resonated with me when I first heard it:

> What's the end game, for people that believe these things? Endless culture war? A galaxy-spanning human civilization that still has their "I'm an American and you're Chinese" safe little lines?

If we didn't have several superpowers on this planet, but only one unified government instead, what would whistleblowers do? Right now Snowden can fly to Russia, and Chinese dissidents can voice their opinions in the West. In a truly globalized world, there'd be nowhere to run.

We try to maximize competition and avoid monopolies and cartels in our economy. Why should we aim straight for the opposite when it comes to our governments?