Whenever someone presents an idea for a form of global government that requires the entire world to change to fit the narrative, I always wonder how it can be tested.
The biggest problem with global ideas is that they cannot be tested without being implemented. How can you test the real effects globalism and an unspecified timeline will have on an idea if you only apply it to a small percentage of the globe for a very short time?¹
You can’t. Not really.
“To test this, we must first change everything”
What if it fails?
What about that time someone did something similar?
“They didn’t do it right”
— Every ideologue ever.
How convenient is it that your idea isn’t testable and that all the closest things to it didn’t work due to the incompetence of those who implemented it?
Very convenient. It takes away the opportunity and perceived need for any critical thinking, and propagates an ideology. All those who oppose your idea are suddenly the bad guy and the reason your idea needs to be pushed through even harder.
“It’s better because it’s better”
Untestable ideas are awful ideas
If your idea is untestable in an exact copy of the environment² it will be implemented in and with zero consequences³, consider it an awful idea and start again with something else. Think smaller this time, there are plenty of problems to solve at your doorstep without getting immediately global.
On your next idea, spend a lot more time considering implementation details, as these will make up about 99% of any idea.
But if you’re a true ideologue, you will bend this story around and view the person pointing out your mistakes as someone you dislike — a troll — and likely even have a way of handling trolls in your ideology when you’re in charge.
“I would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for you meddling k̶i̶d̶s̶ trolls”
If your ideas are untestable and you refuse/aren’t able to think critically, you won’t be able to see what you’re doing, and you will either fail at implementing(hopefully) or implement an awful idea with terrible consequences.
It’s OK for ideas to be flawed, everything is flawed(if you don’t see flaws in something, you haven’t even started thinking about it yet, red flags just look like flags if you’re wearing pink glasses).
When it comes to global ideology, you have to tread carefully. The world we have is already flawed enough, don’t replace it with something that is even less battle-tested and ignores all we’ve learned so far. Make small incremental changes to what you see is wrong, and don’t assume that because X worked in Y, X will also work in Z. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, feel free to apply it to things that aren’t politics and when people’s lives aren’t at stake.
¹Cultures differ wildly, resources of different countries also differ. We’re not all the same — that perceived homogeneity only occurs when you’re in an echo-chamber.
²Testing something in a village in India for 2 years might work(depending on your criteria), but when that same thing is applied to the entire world and with an unconstrained timeline and other unknown criteria, many other forces will be at play that you didn’t take into account(or don’t care because you’re just that careless. Are you?).
³If you can only think of positive consequences, you haven’t spent enough time critically looking at your idea, or you currently lack actual critical thinking skills(regardless of whether or not you had this class in college).
You could argue that true zero-consequence tests are impossible, and you’d be right, so let’s say near-zero. But take into account that these consequences could take lives(but surely, you wouldn’t mind if some lives were taken, right? Those damn trolls).