What Would Happen if the Project CDISARMAS Had Been Successful?
What Utopia looks like according to Chatgpt and how achievable is it?
- You could find a job in it! Yes, you! You could go abroad with a nice wage in the most prestigious organization in the world.
- Trump and the USA couldn’t bully any other country.
- Russia - Ukraine war wouldn’t be a thing!
- The Palestine - Israel issue might have been solved before 7 October 2023. So most lives would have been saved.
- You would be very happy, inflation could have started to drop in each country.
- Cancer, SMA, and other diseases could be cured, and the medical treatments related to these kinds of diseases could be more reachable by literally everyone around the world!
But how?!
Scheme:
Let’s assume that in 2020 an organization of this kind was established:
- Governments would come together and agree that this organization is superior to all political, policy, and military powers, and would agree that in the possibility of a potential war, it has the authority to control all countries.
- In the organization and in all of its units, personnel would be employed with as equal a number as possible from different continents and different countries, with an emphasis on diversity.
- All countries that are members of the organization would be equal in the Organization, and the Organization would be managed with a transparent approach and with the participation of all countries.
- The organization would have its own economic independence and, again with the participation of all nations, would have a NATO-like army.
If such an organization had been established in 2020, how would the developments that have taken place in the world until now be expected to be affected by this organization? Which developments might not have occurred?
Let’s go further back. Let’s say that in 2019, a social media movement began around the world and, with this movement remaining a trend topic for months, people led their governments to establish such an organization. Then, one by one, governments called for the establishment of this organization, and eventually, an official meeting was called in Istanbul.
Which governments could have withstood the pressure from their own peoples? And what would have happened next? I asked this question to the ChatGPT and it answered this question as like:
Reasoned about hypothetical global organization impacts for 27 secondsThe user has presented a hypothetical organization formed in 2020. It involves governments agreeing that the organization has power over political, military, and government forces, including controlling all countries in wartime. The organization includes personnel from diverse countries, ensures transparency, and treats all member states equally. It also has economic independence, and an army similar to NATO’s — again, with participation from all nations. Let me think about various aspects of this scenario!
This is an extremely creative thought experiment! If such an organization had been created in 2020, the world’s political and military developments would likely have shifted significantly. For instance, conflicts might have been prevented or controlled under this new authority. Some national rivalries could have been diluted. If a global social media movement had pressured governments since 2019, it’s interesting to think about which governments would have resisted or embraced this idea. Would countries have submitted to control, or would this usher in greater tensions? There’s a lot to consider here!
In this creative scenario, if a social media movement in 2019 pushed for a global organization to form in 2020, it would have profound impacts. Governments with democratic traditions, like those in the EU or Canada, might be more willing to give in to the pressure, while authoritarian regimes (like Russia or China) may resist relinquishing sovereignty. A global organization could have coordinated pandemic responses and mitigated tensions like US-China trade disputes. However, nationalist governments might be less willing to adopt such a system, leading to political pushback.
If such an organization emerged in 2020 after a viral social media movement in 2019, the world would look very different. It could resolve global crises like COVID-19, mitigate conflicts like trade wars, and tackle climate change with unity. Some governments, such as Russia or China, might resist due to their centralized control, but pressure from citizens could drive them toward acceptance. Democracies with strong global ties, like Canada and Scandinavian countries, would likely join early. This could redefine global politics, reduce national conflicts, and provide coordinated responses to global issues.
THE ANSWER:
How Would the Course of the World Change?
Common Approach to Crises:
Pandemic and Health: Global outbreaks like COVID-19 would have been swiftly brought under control with a centralized and transparent health management system, rather than with mixed responses overshadowed by local interests. Vaccine, treatment, and information sharing among countries would have demonstrated an example of universal solidarity.
Environment and Climate: With global economic independence and collective decision-making mechanisms, international coordination in the fight against climate change would have reached its peak, and projects for reducing the carbon footprint and sustainable development would have accelerated.
Prevention of War and Conflicts:
Since this organization, with its NATO-like structure and the authority to use its military power with the approval of the international community, could employ its military strength, regional disputes and potentially large-scale conflicts — for instance, the old Cold War tensions, intrigues in the Middle East, or even nuclear deterrence policies — could have been prevented through centralized intervention.
Economic and Technological Cooperation:
Thanks to its own economic independence, during crises, financial turmoil and trade wars would have been alleviated by globally coordinated economic packages.
Global research and technology projects would have taken giant steps by the equal distribution of resources and information, providing pioneering developments in space, artificial intelligence, and sustainable energy.
Cultural and Social Transformation:
A world view based on joint governance would emphasize a sense of global citizenship rather than nationalism, and artistic and intellectual production would be enriched with new common themes.
The equal representation of different cultures would give voice to minorities and disadvantaged groups, and the foundations of universal justice would be more firmly established.
Which Developments Might Not Have Occurred?
Wars Based on National Interests:
Regional conflicts conducted on the basis of traditional power balances, wars waged for economic interests, and even events that lit the fuse of nuclear crises could have been prevented by the pressure and effective intervention of a centralized authority.
Vaccine Nationalism and Regional Health Conflicts:
During the pandemic, the vaccine race within national borders and inequalities in health services could have been replaced by collective health policies through the establishment of global solidarity.
Tensions Created by Technological and Economic Competition:
The resource sharing and joint economic policies of the global organization could have minimized the divisions that pave the way for conflicts such as technological patent wars, trade barriers, and economic embargoes.
Which Governments Could Withstand This Pressure?
Governments that could resist the call to pursue universal cooperation by listening to the voice of their people could be evaluated along two main lines:
Traditional Democrats and Multi-party Systems:
For example, the Scandinavian countries, Germany, and Canada:
These countries, thanks to their sense of global responsibility and a long-standing tradition of international cooperation, would act more flexibly in adapting to the idealistic pressure of their people, and might even incorporate this movement into their own foreign policies.
Nationalist and Authoritarian Regimes:
For example, China, Russia, or some Middle Eastern countries:
These states would take a firmer stance on the protection of national sovereignty. However, the universality of the social media movement and the people’s longing for a modern, global world could create internal unrest for these regimes, and might even lead to them facing partial protest pressures.
In the case of China, the emphasis on media control by the central authority and on national ideology could sustain efforts to suppress the idea of universal unification, but in the long term, economic and cultural interaction would be inevitable.
States like Russia would try to protect their national interests without increasing the influence of external powers, but under the influence of the people’s desire for international solidarity, they might take the path of limited reforms to comply.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the establishment of this global organization could have heralded an alternative world order in which most of today’s crises in the political, military, and economic arenas would be replaced by solutions based on universal cooperation, and even some tensions might never have arisen. However, this transformation would create a constant tension between local identities and national sovereignty, and would also give rise to new types of conflicts and quests for adaptation in world history. Even though it would offer a model close to utopia, the complexity of human nature and the different cultural structures would always harbor uncertainties regarding how this structure would evolve in the long run.
Quick links (all free to read):
- FAQ cdisarmas 2 (the latest and one of the most important)
Stay tuned for our next #cdisarmas articles:
- Understanding the importance and logic of CDISARMAS over the example of Gotham City (an imaginary city known for its corruption from DC COMICS)
- A detailed look at the meanings in the illustration of CDISARMAS
- Why we need Cdisarmas 2 (One of the most important, upcoming)
