Vitalik Buterin pfp
Vitalik Buterin
@vitalik.eth
It seems to be a common viewpoint that it's "obviously" naive to think that the same political institutions could work for everyone around the world. But lots of day-to-day-life things (city structures, school systems, increasingly even food...) seem to globalize quickly just fine. Why the difference?
25 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Varun Srinivasan pfp
Varun Srinivasan
@v
interestingly, there is probably more disagreement on some of those ideals within cities in a single country than in cities across countries. e..g viewpoints in bangalore and san francisco are probably more aligned than san francisco and baton rouge, for example
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
payton ↑ pfp
payton ↑
@payton
Seems like a good time to bring back our friend, Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The day-to-day life "things" fulfil physiological and sometimes safety needs. Most political institutions support them. The difference is that political institutions also reach above the foundations of the hierarchy.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Joe Blau 🎩 pfp
Joe Blau 🎩
@joeblau
There is an inverse relationship between the quality of those "day-to-day" life things and how globalized they are. I grew up all over the world as the son of a diplomat and the best cities, best schools, best food were all in places that were less globalized.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nicholas Charriere pfp
Nicholas Charriere
@pushix
Having lived in France and America: there is way too much of a disparity on what people think the governments role is. Europeans expect healthcare and education, Americans expect a lot more cash and less involvement. Idk how that could work culturally (and that’s just the two I know!)
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Garrett pfp
Garrett
@garrett
What day-to-day institutions are well functioning in your opinion?
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Wilson Cusack pfp
Wilson Cusack
@wilsoncusack
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that governments have to be socially legitimized in their context and this requires a process that leads to idiosyncratic outcomes
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nick T pfp
Nick T
@nt
If one institution was running nutrition or education around the world it would quickly become political
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
DBKW🦉🎩 pfp
DBKW🦉🎩
@drinkbeerkillwar.eth
Complexity vs Complicated The more local, the less complexity. The more likely similar complicated solutions can work. The less local, the greater complexity. The less likely similar complicated solutions can work. https://i.imgur.com/bKZZqhl.jpg
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Ben 🟪 pfp
Ben 🟪
@benersing
Building on @v’s point (which I agree with), most current globalization constructs have the nation-state as an artificial assumption. Remove that (which the internet is good but not perfect at), and a truly global distribution could make sense at the individual human level.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Syed Shah🏴‍☠️🌊 pfp
Syed Shah🏴‍☠️🌊
@syed
Makes me think of Socrates’ ideal state where political systems would arise as needed for situations as they arise. In which case they would globalize as quickly as anything else. In which case I’ll defer to Socrates and say democracy is trash and not the ideal and so obviously doesn’t work globally. Ideal state
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
coachcoale.eth 🎩 pfp
coachcoale.eth 🎩
@coachcoale
Good q. My gut is that politics is more systemic: A country’s origin story, histories, and cultures make it harder to borrow from another political institution. Importing a version of gov’t is much harder than an education system or things like food, music.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Tony D’Addeo pfp
Tony D’Addeo
@deodad
seems like can scale but only by re-making the world as they see it a form of colonization maybe the viewpoint assumes "without homogenizing the diverse sets of values and ways of life of people around the world"
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Rani pfp
Rani
@4484
in most 3rd world countries, local politics are sectarian and entrench within society over long periods of time. they are not affected by globalization becuz they pretend to be existential to the community that supports them. these ideas do not apply to modern western societies.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
🎩 MxVoid 🎩 pfp
🎩 MxVoid 🎩
@mxvoid
Huh, that’s an interesting point… I guess the difference might be that physical/concrete things have their own “thingness” that stands on their own and anchor consensus reality when experiencing them. Abstractions, however, are highly filtered by perception and experience. Less anchoring, more room for interpr
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
chaseadam17 pfp
chaseadam17
@chaseadam17
Maybe people confuse political systems not working with people requiring more time to adjust.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Stas pfp
Stas
@stas
Imho the two have very different rooting. First requires an interoperability with well established, western (and for many foreign) _frameworks_, where the later doesn't (it developed organically). Restricting what's allowed to eat and restricting what schools teach, these carry different weights in such frameworks.
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction