Migrations and One World utopia

What is behind migrations?

I have already explained why migrations provoke such a harsh rejections all around the world. As soon as we understand that we are not only genetic, but also memetic creatures, that each of us by definition of being alive tend to protect his or her identity, it becomes clear we are much more inclined to protect our memetic than our genetic heritage. We intuitively know that genetic mixture results do not bring a threat to our identity as long as our memetic identity is secured. Even if we know nothing about memes and vast implications memes have on our lives, we intuitively know, that a child born to an ethnically diverse couple, becomes “ours” not with the colour of the skin, but with acceptance of “our” culture, meaning with acceptance of meme-complex that defines our identity.

Now, the commonly avoided question lies in the definition of what we have in mind with the largest entity holding such identity.

 

Largest entities of identity

It is quite easy to define the smallest entity: single human being. This is in fact the smallest but at the same time strictly speaking the only agent operating on a human scale dimensions. Although we know that real agents behind are genes and memes, so precisely explained by Richard Dawkins already in 1976, a man/woman is the only morally entitled agent on earth. Although branding theory says that all brands are alive, since brands have evolved only to propagate memes they consist of, we can still not put memes or brands on court for their eventual wrong-deeds. And as we clearly see from corporate world, although companies (as brands) are living creatures, there are always specific individuals that are liable in the name of such companies/brands. And same goes for larger entities like municipalities, states and also supranational bodies like United Nations or WHO.

But while it is clear that sovereignty lies only on individual level, it is true that formal social structures like corporations, states and supranational bodies exist and act. I should say that sovereignty should lie on individual only, because in reality those that represent (are liable for) such social bodies more and more mask their decisions as if those decisions would come from those bodies and not from them as individuals with their own particular interests. They mask their particular interests is if they would be common interests. Even if they do not mask their interests by intention, they can not but act like that. Because there are limits in size of what one person with particular interests can truly represent.

 

Representations unmasked

Now here we come to the crucial point: larger such organization, thicker and more perverse is such a mask. If I say something “in the name of my family”, which is a common way of expression in cases that one person speaks for certain social entity, I am by definition more plausible as the one that speaks in the name of a country and much much more if he speaks in the name of any supranational body. This truth comes not from speculation, but from simple physical fact of the size. People are not sheeps, but even a dog managing a sheep herd has a limit in how many sheeps are in one herd that this dog can still manage.

So it should be quite clear that the future of globalized Earth is not one big unified World, but highly interconnected (globalized) world of as small as possible social units (states, or whatever). Ambitions of United Nations, WHO, IMF and similar bodies to develop a highly homogenized One World is thus wrong in principle. It is not only wrong, but if they prolong with their ambitions, this One World will very soon first implode and then explode. Which is as the matter of fact happening in this very moment. How?

It should not come by surprise that mentioned supranational bodies and proponents of such ideas on national levels are the strongest force behind the support of various types of migrations taking place around the world. Should an idea of One World be possible in principle, then the support of migrations would make sense at least in principle. But since the idea of One World is impossible for the reasons explained beforehand, one should be much more precise in defining and safeguarding identities on scales that are still manageable.

 

Homonism as positive utopia

With an analogy we can say, that it would be stupid to force an eye (Bhutanese)  to become a foot (German), but within subtle cooperation of different body parts (different states, nations) the beauty of the body (the World) comes to power.

Such network type of small bodies cooperation on larger scale is not only possible, but well known as the matter of fact. Brains operate as such, and world wide web as well. Food market is another example where multinational food producers and retailers start to recognize pitfalls of globalized (homogenized) offer and begin to diversify their products aligned with smaller and smaller local identities.

The real future of this world taken from market perspective is: one customer, one market. It will come sooner or later. As will one person one state come as the solution. This is not going to be step back, as it would be without effective global interconnectivity on individual level, but a step forward into a homonism. There will still exist bodies larger than an individual for practical reasons, of course. But the sovereignty will be shifted back to where it belongs: to individual.

Andrej Drapal