Cosmopolitanism, and other (utopian) alternatives

With the advent of the digital world, states can no longer operate as information processing silos, fortified informational castles or closed gardens, as was the case in the past (see also §12.00.10). They can no longer rely on bilateral, unarbitrated (unless they voluntarily submit to international arbitration mechanisms, which are themselves voluntary—and thus effectively unarbitrated) relationships, within which each party must on every occasion first convince the other bilaterally of its existence: the formation of informational archipelagos is thus the only way forward. Before, however, elaborating upon informational archipelagos, one ought first to examine possible alternatives. What about humans having only one state—could only one state exist on the planet (i.e. following the concept of cosmopolitanism)? Discussions about a single-state planet are certainly not new; however, nothing of the sort has come to fruition—or is ever likely to do so. This is because it is unnatural, in the sense that it is contrary to the nature of the state itself: a state has always been defined through its juxtaposition with another, a necessary other. Individuals belong to one state (and, for that matter, family, see also §02.00.09) and not to another (neighbouring one), this is how they self-identify. In technical terms, in a single-state planet one of the two basic components of identity (citizenship) would be abolished (there cannot be a group or a category, as in Aristotelian categorisation, if only one group exists overall). Therefore another individualisation mechanism would have to be discovered to replace it, a mere name not being nearly enough (hence today, long after surnames, parental names and other characteristics are also added, see also §08.01.02). While this may sound technically feasible, one ought not forget the tremendous change the introduction of any such (necessarily invented and artificial) mechanism for identification (unlike states, which are natural to humans) would bring—reversing the human way of thinking since we first set foot on the planet (or in any event acquired self-consciousness). (This also accounts for why there can be no two states for the same individual—no two digital and analogue world citizenships: what happens in practice is that the second, or additional, states take the identification information from the state of birth; see also §08.00.06.) The same would be the case for archipelagos: why not have one state individualisation mechanism on the planet, perhaps using the EU as its blueprint? This, however, would also not appear to be a viable option, even taking into account the transitory stage (towards archipelago formation) that humanity is living in. This is because, similar to states, archipelagos are defined through their juxtaposition with other archipelagos and, more importantly, with the ocean. An archipelago, such as the EU, will always be defined through its juxtaposition with other archipelagos (and any remaining states)—otherwise, a new way to define it, and the states that are individualised through it, would have to be invented, which would, as above, most probably be an invention too many for humans to bear.

Navigate: ← §19.00.09.00 · Corpus · §19.00.11.00 →