If we don't find a way to unify Terra for Terrans, how will we ever be ready to join The Federation?
The main problem with removing boundaries and autonomy, whether this happens on a small scale such as a family group, or on a global scale, is that the very worst actors and ideas no longer face obstacles to their influence, there is no means of escaping them, and no better alternatives by which to judge them. It creates a race to the bottom.
Today, what do you do if you don't want to join society?
More broadly, what DO you want?
The freedom to do whatever i want. Societies don't really provide freedoms, they exist to curb them. Technology on the other hand is empowering individuals
This is the recipe that gets you communism / nazism / all kinds of single-minded societies. Do people forget that millions died for the freedom from such regimes?
Whenever I have had this conversation, people say "they would not let me leave" when they mean "they will not let me leave and start damaging our common resources". I think there is a gigantic difference between these two and the first is just wrong (I agree it would be terrible if it was true) while the second is a policy I would support. Am I missing something?
TLDR: Being able to leave is of fundamental importance to freedom and it is in no way forbidden by the imaginary global government that prompted this discussion. But when you leave you should stop expecting to have the benefits of that society.
In my country you can be the custodian of a mountain hut (some of them with plenty of amenities). Again there are some minor taxes to pay (not unreasonable given that they provide for the upkeep of the road to the hut), but again, living from an RV gets around that.
I guess the RV would require insurance too. So my examples do not fulfill a fundamentalist interpretation of your requirements, but it seems to me it fullfils the most important features (being left 99% alone, with 1% minor inconveniences). As I mentioned, the fact that the government would go after you if you damage the commons (e.g. hunt endangered species) is a feature, not a bug.
Does this at least fulfill the spirit of your question?
The aspiration above seems to be assuming as a premise, without argument or evidence, that a global government is not just a necessary condition for a post-scarcity Utopia, but a guaranteed means of reaching such a goal.
Given the magnitude of such a step, and in the light of the appalling outcomes of past attempts to create world empires, along with the level of coercion and misdirection required, notably in dealing with the inevitable dissidents, I would imagine such a premise ought to be subject to very careful scrutiny before it can be simply assumed. One cannot simply reverse the burden of proof!
Sure, the EU, for instance, fails at that utopic view for now, because of how byzantine and convoluted its attempt at democracy is. But we are getting there and might even succeed, especially given that we have never before had access to today's "almost post scarcity" technology.
But yes, you are right that it is not a guarantee. But it seems like one of the worthiest goals we can have.
In fact, I'm quite curious what the connection is between global governance and post-scarcity at all. How does scarcity prevent global governance? How does abundance require it? How is it helped by abundance? Surely abundance would do the opposite: it seems to me this would amplify the desire for self-determination on ever smaller scales which seems to be at odds with global governance.
I don't even think people will like the result. Surely the end result of an abundant society is 99% of people sitting in a room with Youtube + Netflix + Caviar and alcohol from the replicator. I'm sure they'll want to go for a walk every now and then but interaction between people will die off a LOT more than it already has. I of course can't be sure but I think people living such lives will have a very bad reaction to any attempt at governance.
> I don't even think people will like the result. Surely the end result of an abundant society is 99% of people sitting in a room with Youtube + Netflix + Caviar and alcohol from the replicator
History seems to point to the exact opposite: much (not all) of scientific progress is driven by the privileged few that have their needs taken care off. Most (not all) scientists and scholars up until recently were of privileged background. Nor are the children of the rich today just living the lonely life of hedonism you suggest.
But yes, some have hobbies. 1 in 1000 or so has useful hobbies, and there have been historical time periods where that really mattered.