Chapter 7 
Nationalism and racism are obsolete
It used to be that people didnÕt move around very much. If someone knew that you were born in a certain place, they could pretty accurately guess:
¥	Your skin color and ethnicity
¥	Your religion
¥	What language you spoke
¥	What food you ate
¥	What music you listened to
¥	Whom you married
¥	Lots of other cultural things
Since all of these things depended on geography, we could package up the idea of a homogeneous group in a well-defined geographic area, and call it a ÒnationÓ. Governments were established independently in each region, because it was hard to cooperate with others if they didnÕt speak your language or understand your way of life. 
But governments intent on increasing power over their citizens discovered that the divisions between people were useful for creating the protection racket known as ÒwarÓ. Wars are not clashes between cultures; theyÕre an excuse for government leaders to extort resources from their citizens, and for the current leaders to fend off rivals to their power. (See the Real Wars and Pretend Wars section, in the Jailbreaking chapter. We examine the history that led to this state of affairs in the chapters The beginning of history, War, and War crimes.). 
Convincing the citizens that the outsiders are bad guys is an integral part of convincing the citizens that the fearless leaders are the good guys: ÒYouÕd better keep us in power if you know whatÕs good for youÓ. The first requirement to become a protection racket enforcer is to be able to easily tell the difference between outsiders and insiders. Ethnic, linguistic and cultural differences are especially useful for that. ItÕs easy to generate fear of other cultures, taking advantage of peopleÕs natural inclination to fear the unknown. 
ItÕs a small step from there, to countries and borders. Nationalism has the effect of institutionalizing racism and cultural discrimination. Israelis and Palestinians, Sunnis and Shiites, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, are not Òdifferent peoplesÓ, as you sometimes hear. There is only one kind of person: homo sapiens.
Cultural differences do not imply ÒnationalityÓ
This is not to deny that there are cultural, geographical and historical differences between groups of people. ItÕs just that you shouldnÕt divide the world into ÒusÓ and ÒthemÓ based on such aspects as language and customs. 
Languages differ from one another, and it may be easier to say some particular thing in some particular language, but all languages get the job of communicating done. 
Its tempting to think that people who donÕt speak the same language have a hard time communicating so they might have a hard time forming a coherent government. Note that India, a population of over 1 billion, has 10 languages that are spoken by over 25 million people each. We wonÕt claim that India has a great government, but language does not seem an insurmountable obstacle. Now that AI is solving natural language translation, thereÕs no reason each member of a congress couldnÕt have their own real-time language interpreter.
Geographic differences are often cited as another reason to divide people into nations. Desert vs. jungle vs. mountain climates might involve organizing agriculture or urban development differently, but thatÕs hardly a sufficient reason for different governments. Different governments do allow some experimentation with alternatives for laws, but see the discussion in the Some of Us chapter. 
In todayÕs world, cultural differences often do result in the inability of different groups to get along. But by simply dividing a country, we get international war instead of civil war, hardly an improvement. 
We should also remember that a few hundred years ago, ancestors of our own society were quite guilty of many of the violent, oppressive, intolerant and dictatorial sins we now criticize in other cultures. We Ògrew out of themÓ, as Martin Luther KingÕs belief that Òthe arc of history bends towards justiceÓ says. But others are behind the curve. Education is a better solver of such problems than fracturing a country.
United Nation
The original ÒPledge Of AllegianceÓ for the United States, written in 1892, included: Òone nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for allÓ. Its author had hoped it would be used by all nations. (http://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm) If all nations upheld the same ideals, then wouldnÕt it make sense to have just one united nation? WeÕve outlined the advantages, but wouldnÕt there be disadvantages as well? The short answer is: not enough to outweigh the advantages. 
IsnÕt the United Nations some kind of world government, thus proving that one world government canÕt work? Admittedly the UN is a kind of government ,and with over 7 decades of failure, it seems unlikely to ever succeed in fulfilling the most basic of its missions.
Its charter, signed in 1945, begins: ÒWe, the peoples (sic) of the United Nations, determined (sic) to save succeeding generations from the scourge of warÉÓ. The UN sends ineffective Òpeace keepersÓ to war zones, but, more importantly, fails to stop wars in the first place. 
Hint: itÕs not the ÒUnitedÓ part, but the ÒNationsÓ part. Nations are fundamentally about power, and power loves war. The ambassadors to the UN are sent to New York by the most powerful leaders of each country, in an attempt to gain advantage over other nations.
The Òemote and voteÓ process of the UN is the same power-based process as the governments of most of the democratic member nations. The more dictatorial, Òplea and decreeÓ governments, are even less likely to choose ambassadors that will cooperate. 
Suppose, instead of modeling the UN after conventional countries, it was modeled after our proposal for government structure in the Reasonocracy  chapter. Ambassadors would not be the emissaries of some power-based ruling elite, but rather, randomly chosen representatives of citizens. Ambassadors would not be skilled in the political art of deception to gain power, but in reason and cooperation, to achieve well being for all. The UN has failed, not because its charter has unrealistic goals, but because it doesnÕt have a process or participants that could possibly attain those goals.
American Unexceptionalism
John Perry Barlow expressed the obsolescence of nationality in his Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace [Barlow 1996]. By analogy with the US Declaration of Independence, Barlow identified the international community growing on the Net as a new kind of ÒnationÓ. His declaration proposes sloughing off the limits of conventional, physical, national boundaries. ItÕll be a while before governments give up their prerogatives to divide people. Basically, though, heÕs right. Nations are a product of a power-based privileged aristocracy. 
The USA is justifiably proud of its traditions of individual liberty, freedom of expression, commitment to justice, and economic innovation (though we express these imperfectly). But the USA as a nation doesnÕt have any patent on those ideas. The idea of ÒAmerican ExceptionalismÓ is that those ideals somehow give us a right to a dominant position in the world as a nation, and the right to enforce our ideas of government upon others ThatÕs jingoistic claptrap. It makes others think weÕre arrogant and selfish. 
Racism: A failure of science education
Racism is a failure of science education, but itÕs hardly ever talked about that way. The scientific question is:
What makes people the same, and what makes people different?
The scientific answer is: 
A hell of a lot makes them the same. 
Not a hell of a lot makes them different. 
What we call ÒraceÓ in this society has no scientific basis whatsoever [Zimmer 2017]. 
The scientific concept isnÕt race, itÕs genetics. Take so-called Òblack peopleÓ and Òwhite peopleÓ. ItÕs a well established scientific fact that humanity originated in Africa, so the original people were what we would call ÒblackÓ today. ÒWhiteÓ people are a mutation that occurred when humanity moved from Africa to Europe and Asia. 
An explanation for the prevalence of the mutation is that it trades off resistance to malaria (enjoyed by black people, who needed it in Africa) for vitamin D production in the skin (needed by white people when they moved to Sweden, and had less sunshine). End of story. Says nothing about peoplesÕ intelligence or personality characteristics.
Since skin color and ethnic features are inherited, you might think that black people are more closely genetically related to each other than they are to white people. Wrong. Genetic variation is a function of how old the lineage is. Africans have the most genetic variation because they have the longest lineage. For example, the tallest people in the world (Masai) and the shortest (Pygmy) are both Africans. White and Asian people have less genetic variation. 
And on the face of it, the whole idea of ÒraceÓ is just plain absurd. Why do we have ÒracesÓ for people based on skin color, but not hair color or eye color? WhatÕs so important about skin, just that we have lots of it and itÕs easier to see? We donÕt have races for tall people and short people, even though thatÕs another inherited characteristic thatÕs easy to see. There are thousands of inherited phenotypes.
Dissociation of culture from geography
In the modern world, people are traveling, living in different places, marrying people of differing heritage. We wonÕt get a homogenization of cultures, much as imperialist multinational corporations would like that to happen. What weÕre seeing is a dissociation of culture from geography and nationality. 
We should make obsolete the motivation to immigrate based on ßeeing war and economic hardship. Yes, solving scarcity will do that. Then, perhaps fewer people overall will emigrate, but those that do, will do so based on a desire to experience other places and cultures. 
Cultures will hybridize and experience Òhybrid vigorÓ. Communities bonded by shared cultural interests can extend throughout the world, linked by the Net. Fans of rap music in Istanbul, Dakar, Marseilles or Jakarta create and enjoy an art form born in the Bronx and Compton. 
From now on, almost every place will become multicultural. Perhaps weÕre biased, since weÕre from New York and LA, places which are already pretty much like that. With multiculturalism, we get a cornucopia of music, cuisine, and fashion. Most importantly, we get diversity of perspective and more knowledge resources to draw upon to solve problems. ThereÕs no point in fighting this trend. No point in trying to defend borders, build walls, stir up nationalistic sentiment. 
We should enjoy the cultural diversity of humanity. There are enough examples of people getting along despite marked cultural differences, that we can at least be certain itÕs possible. Diversity shouldnÕt be an obstacle to getting along. Diversity should be something to celebrate.