You consider technological progress and the growing importance of transnational corporations as one of the main reasons for establishing a Global Union/world government. However, until now, technological development has taken place without the need for any control or supervision by the world's political center. Where does the conviction that the international center will take better care of technological development than the existing institutions come from?
– The development of key technologies has always been controlled by the greatest powers (e.g. the development of nuclear physics). Currently, the development of the highest technologies is carried out only in a dozen or so richest countries, or within the confederation (EU). Today in the world there is an incredible waste of money, energy and time to conduct parallel research in the same fields of knowledge in different parts of the world. The essence of the matter is the introduction of specialization that would allow more economical use of the resources of our planet. It is therefore about global coordination of scientific research, but not only. It is also important to control the effects of using advanced technologies. Scientific achievements in the field of artificial intelligence,
(...)
It seems that the weakest point of your concept is the assumption that the 21st century is a century without ideology. These echo Max Weber, who claimed that progressing industrialization is accompanied by secularization. While all religious studies indicate a progressive religious revival, which may falsify your assumption on which you built the entire vision of the existence of the Global Union.
– The religious revival of the late 20th and early 20th centuries is superficial, it is a response to the first wave of globalization processes and the dominance of Western civilization along with the secularization it brings. Weber's "disenchantment of the world" is in progress, but it does not lead to where the German scientist wanted it. This is a turn towards "postmodern magic". This stage is characterized by strong but marginal religious extremism and shallow adoption of new religions or return to old beliefs. In the next stages, we will deal with a process geared towards religious syncretism.
The strongest criticism of the "age of ideas without ideology" comes from people strongly attached to analyzing the sphere of politics through the prism of political thought, ideology or political systems, as well as analyzing spheres of power through the prism of the nation state. Today, it is impossible to analyze the sphere of politics without taking into account the development of modern technologies and their impact on the life of societies. The 21st century imposes thinking in global terms. In this context, a question of a meta-strategic nature (including the goal and scope of humanity's activities for the next century) should also be asked. The high level of technological development will bring a radical change in social and political relations.
The already mentioned transhumanism draws extensively not only from the natural and technical sciences, but also from social sciences. The social transformations that will take place in the future under the influence of technological development are important. Contrary to appearances, this current of thought is not only aimed at increasing the capabilities of the human mind and body, but also spiritual. In the H+ area in the world, e.g. for this purpose, research by Polish scientists, such as the late prof. Kazimierz Dąbrowski and his theory of positive disintegration transferred to the social ground.
When dealing with analyzes of the distant future, it is worth reaching for the works of such authors as Max More, Marvin Minsky, Fereidoun M. Esfandiary (known in the community as FM-2030), Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil, Daniil Medvedev, Alexey Turchin and Vladimir Shabalin. I recommend readers to read the "H+" magazine, the Singularity University website or the Extropy Institute.
May be the whole nation is under the hypnosis of western propaganda, still not seeing victory or at least visible perspectives of it? Only growing suffering. Or might it be, that from here it is easier to evaluate the situation, feel what people (having relatives there) or from the near the battlefield region think and discuss by word of mouth in the long chain of relatives, friends, colleagues etc etc...
