I discovered science fiction at a very young age, getting hooked on TV shows like Star Trek, Doctor Who, Captain Scarlet. My parents were always keen to get me reading and though dad didn't think much of Doctor Who ("like tea from China" was his stock dismissal) whenever I came back from the library with science fiction books he seemed pleased that I was reading something to do with science. I spent my teenage years in the company of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke and other classic SF writers.
A feature of the stories of that era was that there would, one day, be a world government. I took it for granted that nation states would soon give way to a rational system that would not allow arbitrary borders to prevent solutions to problems being found. I don't think it was a fringe opinion: there might have been doubt about how that future would be organised, but I think many people shared my assumption.
I'm not sure exactly how or when it happened but these days "One World Government" is only talked about in the rantings of right-wing conspiracy-theorists. The assumption seems to be that national borders are our only defence against tyranny. One World Government is a threat, not a promise.
Yet so many of of the world's problems can only be solved by concerted action and international co-operation. The most obvious example is climate change: greenhouse emissions obviously are not constrained by borders. For as long as national (and private corporate) economic interests are considered more important than the collective good of humanity, it is very difficult to see how the challenge of climate change can be met.
So I find myself wondering what happened to the optimism that saw a future of a united humanity as a prospect to be welcomed? And how do we get it back?
---
richard <AT> deckzero <DOT> uk