What do you think of the idea of redistributing human populations based on how individuals think and prefer to live, rather than constant bickering?

[Anonymous]

Basically nations created by common opinion. So everyone in your nation agrees with you about how the nation should be ran, and if a person is born in a nation they don't align with, they can just switch to one that they do align with via a UN agreement to placing people with likeminded people and considering them as "born in" the new country legally speaking. So effectively treating nations likes states with immigration, all you need is the new nation ID and you're good.

Its an interesting idea that comes with its own set of issues and inconveniences.

I think there would be a lot more nations if that happened, lower populations in each, and a lot more job automation in each, but wars would be less, laws would be more stable, and people would generally be happier.

[Gummy_Cluster]

In the US, they call it "the national divorce." Although I don't see it happening, I love the idea. My side of the country would enforce illegal immigration. My side would have tons more cops and prisons. My side would create American made products, and not give a dime to China. My side would have cops in subways, and if anyone gets thrown in front of a train car, it would be the criminals. My side would not be giving out free heroin. My side wouldn't give a fuck about your personal pronouns. lol My side would require voter ID.

[Asker]

Under this Idea, all existing countries would no longer exist, so there wouldn't be an america or china, they would all be micro countries the size of cities, and international trade would be required for any of them to function, which would prevent wars by creating profitable trade dependancies, while still allowing local communities to self govern their respective areas.

[Asker]

It would be imossible to create large countries with this idea because people are too different in opinons and views.

[Asker]

impossible*

[Gummy_Cluster]

You're talking about globalism, and that won't happen until another planet attacks us. I was just talking about your idea on a smaller scale.

[Asker]

Another planet won't attack us, the distance between us an the nearest habitable world is too large, so only a peaceful species would survive the long trip here, any other would go mad and kill eachother before reaching us, unless they were able to just survive in space, which is likely impossible, but if possible, our planet would be useless to them so its moot.

[Asker]

and*

[Gummy_Cluster]

Unlike you, I've only been to one planet. So I don't know about the rest.

[Asker]

Plus if that advanced they would be terraforming their own system, not roaming interstellar space in hopes that a nearby world is compatible with their biology. Watch war of the worlds, our microbes would likely kill aliens outright.

[Asker]

You don't need to visit other planets to know anything I just said, you just need telescopes, physics, and math.

[Lowiu]

Like it would only work one generation unless you redistribute children too

[Asker]

That is correct, it would require redistributing them upon reaching adulthood for that to work.
The idea is that as people become adults, instead of having to vote and hope they get the kind of society and laws they want out of it, they simply pick their prefered version from the list of micro countries after learning about all of them.

[KostasKouvalis]

We already tried that in the US and Africa and there was STILL conflict because a bunch of self-proclaimed social justice warriors didn't like the idea. A bunch of countries in Europe tried it and eitheey ended up in war or were basically forced to diversify.

The Yugoslav Wars and the current Ukraine war and the Kurdish genocide were the result of people wanting to separate when others wanted to keep them together. People say multiculturalism doesn't work, but then start wars when a specific group of individuals tries to either form their own nation or become part of an existing one.

[Asker]

Multicultiralism doesn't work, it creates endless war, resource and territory motivated ones.

[Anonymous]

Ummm... maybe. But I am not sure it would work in practice. Like all white Catholic Republicans in one area. All atheist libertarians in another. All socialist Jews in another. All Orthodox Jews in another. All Hispanic Trump supporters in another. All Protestant Democrats in another. All nationalists white people in another. All Democrat atheists in another. All Republican atheists in another. All diehard environmentalists in another. All devout Muslims in another. We have not even gotten to Asians yet. And what about gender differences? Obviously you can't have all male or female societies.

[purplepoppy]

You need a mix of ideas to keep people in check. Never underestimate the power of mass stupidity.

[Asker]

Mass stupidity is already rampant the way things are. This change would keep it in check for some places, but not others (Currently it is in check nowhere).

Keeping stupid around smart people just results in the stupid people trampling on us with their "we can only go as slow as the dumbest person" mentality. Every time a smart person invents something or figures something out thats useful, a stupid person uses it maliciously, or just incorrectly.

I'd rather live in a society of just nice geniuses tbh, progress in good directions is either too slow, or opposed by the majority nearly everywhere.

[Gummy_Cluster]

Yes, and a mixture of stupidity is much better

[KostasKouvalis]

If they all agree with each other though, what's there to keep in check? North Korea is keeping its people in check without a mixture of ideas

[Cormac995]

Last time America did that we had a civil war. Oh wait... shit...

[Cormac995]

@Harris_Lover WTF where did that come from jack ass? I was making a joke about Trump, but you liberals are as crazy as MAGA so you hear something interpret it how YOU want to and get mad. By the way I voted for Harris not because I had any faith in her but because I had even less in trump. For God sakes this attitude and your bitchy behavior was better propaganda for Trumps campaign than anything the republican party drummed up. You want to know why we lost? Look in the fucking mirror. Ignorant retch.

[Keishio]

Terrible idea. Just huge echo Chambers that completely disagree with their neighbours. Recipe for disaster

[Asker]

Societal disaster usually comes from confrontation, not harmony. You get more confrontation living with people who disagree with you. Not from seperating from them.

[Keishio]

But by splitting people into nations with people who only agree with them what's to stop them becoming hostile to the neighbouring nation with different view points? As I see it right now I live around countless people who have different views to me but we still coexist and those differing opinions challenge me to rethink my stance on certain topics aswell

[Asker]

Not having to be around those people will stop it.

Usually what happens is people start wars because a few rich people IN their OWN country profit from it.

Do you even know what most people in another country are doing right now? No, you don't, and neither do I. There is no legitimate reason for starting a war.

[Asker]

Mixed viewpoints within countries are why hostile neighboring countries are all this planet has ever experienced.

[Asker]

No one starts a war when they are happy and surrounded by those who appreciate them.

[Keishio]

I know that wars don't start over differing opinions. Usually its for resource and/or territory. So me in my nation who all agree with eachother want a better quality of life so we decide to invade you in your nation who we don't like because of your opinions so we can take what you have for ourselves and there's no one in my nation to oppose that decision because we all just agree with eachother

[Asker]

Thats not how it works.

[Asker]

If a nation was full of nothing but people who wanted to invade purely for resources or territory, that nation would be obliterated in any attempt to do so, because if you are hurting that badly on resources, you can't produce an army, you can't produce technology, you can't fund your war. Everyone would be too busy struggling to fight, let alone win.

[Asker]

If every smart person went to an only smart person country, the stupid people wouldn't be able to use their inventions for war. And the smart people wouldn't want to use them for war.

[Asker]

Also disagreements on how anything should get done tends to be why no one prevents wars, too busy debating, by the time they settle on a resolution, the war is either over, or took such a large toll that it might as well be.

[Keishio]

Nations don't wait until their resources are low to invade. But let's say this was to go ahead, what is the basis of agreement you're splitting people up into? People won't agree on every topic. If they agree politically they might not on religion, healthcare, education, lifestyle. What basis should people be broken up into?

[Asker]

Every topic, like I said, it would be a lot more nations with much smaller populations.

[Asker]

I imagine nations would probably be small city sized at best, and international trade would be too high to create resource issues.

[Keishio]

How would people get the resource they need? a lot of lamb where I live comes from New Zealand, why would they send us that resource if they didn't like us? That goes for any resource be it food, lumber, construction materials, etc because not every area will be abundant in everything they need for their population

[Asker]

I just said how, international trade, the same way a city in a state would get products shipped from a city in the same state. nothing would be different except local laws, local architecture, local culture, etc. would be more in line with the people living there.

[Asker]

Also thats like saying you need to be friends with ever store owner, store clerk, farmer, craftsmen, etc, to buy their products. Money is why, money is always why.

[Asker]

every*

[Keishio]

Yeah but my point is if you have people split up into groups that all disagree with eachother it might be hard to get them to agree to trade deals that would benefit the people they don't like. Ultimately you'd have nations putt9ng differences aside and allying up to do over other nations and you've basically recreated tribal cultures of the past

[SaoirseS]

No thanks, I’ll pass.

[Wise4myage]

That's freaking scary.

[Asker]

Why?

[Asker]

I personally find it scary being surrounded by people I don't agree with. Why would more allied minds closer to me be more scary, instead of less scary?

[Guy13]

wake up.

[Asker]

From what?

[Asker]

Do you actually think constantly changing the rules in a given country because people can't agree on anything, or having a dictator that decides everything for you, are better solutions? Because they aren't.

[Asker]

People either can sit there arguing/fighting over what is or isn't the right way to do things, or they can go their separate ways and live in peace.

[Guy13]

There is no Platonic Utopia on this earth. Fantasy land is where you are residing no life without confrontation. Wake up. Plenty of Putin staking Mao Biden and Hitler’s out there.

[Asker]

When you live in a society where people generally agree with you on life impactful topics, you don't produce those types of people. confrontation would still exist, but not to the extent of starting wars.

[Asker]

Or at least far less wars anyway,

[LiamJHayden]

Totalitarian Dreamscape.

[Asker]

How? Thats not possible on scales that small.

[KrakenAttackin]

Than the war for resources would begin.

[Asker]

The war for resources began a very long time ago, and continues to this day, this would end them.

[Asker]

it would do so because no nation would be big enough to generate every resource it needed, simply because no nation would have a large enough population, so international trade on a mass scale would be the life support of every nation. Rather like how it is for US states.

[Asker]

Also, in having only the likeminded, national production would be niches, as personalities effect job capability and preferences.