Readers reply: Will humans ever outgrow the nation state?
Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.
Assuming that the entire recorded history of the human race represents a bit of a rough patch, there's every reason to suppose so. EddieChorepost
I asked an AI app and got the reply: 'Sorry, I faced some issues … please try again.' HistoricalArtefact
People need a sense of belonging. At the start of the first world war, there were many who thought that the proletariats of all nations would realise their common humanity and refuse to go to war; that lasted about 10 minutes until the French working class went to war for France, the Germans for Germany, etc.
There are, in every country, groups whose tribal, clan or religious affiliation override allegiance to the nation state and whole nation states where these divisions may cause rupture– Belgium comes to mind. But even if it splits apart those parts will become their own nations. bodfishbiker
Humans will be evolved into digital states. Apple and Amazon are the first two in the new atlas of digital states where allegiance will be measured real time with neural link-type implants; it is the natural progression from loyalty cardship, which is the natural progression from passportery. confusedofengland
Nation states are already being eroded or usurped by a global corporatocracy that:
influences elections and owns our political class;
prevents action beneficial to humans if it affects the bottom line;
controls wealth and employment;
breeds social disconnection and hyper-consumerism.
Democracy as we know it is looking less and less viable as its flaws are weaponised by technology and scientific advances.
It's more and more likely that if we survive the next few thousand years, we will become passengers, observers, or even servants to an artificial intelligence network with ideas, goals, and motivations that have nothing to do with what nations or people might want or need. Ivymantled
Only if people outgrow the 'us & them' mentality. There is no 'them', we are all 'us'. tonimoroni1
Nationalism is sold to us as a thing that we should be happy about and defend and often even get angry about, even to the point where you will kill. But it only serves defending those who have the money and the power in your country. If everyone who doesn't (but really does) have a stake in this, stood up and said 'nope', what happens then?
That's what this question is about. AlGreenie
Initially I thought 'nay way', but then I got to thinking about my mate Lee Chesterstreet and his prize leeks. The size of his alliums are something to behold. I think it unlikely that a nation state could outgrow him. LeCorbeau
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
21 minutes ago
- Reuters
Ukraine's allies, after fears of sellout, signal hope for Trump-Putin talks
BERLIN/KYIV, Aug 13 (Reuters) - Ukraine and its European allies on Wednesday signalled hope that U.S. President Donald Trump would push for a ceasefire at talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin without selling out Ukraine's interests or proposing to carve up its territory. European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy met Trump in a last-ditch videoconference to lay out red lines ahead of a meeting between Trump and the Russian president in Alaska late on Friday. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump agreed that Ukraine must be involved in any discussions about ceding land while Zelenskiy said Trump had supported the idea of security guarantees in a post-war settlement. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said Trump - and Europe - were willing to crank up the pressure on Russia if Friday's talks proved fruitless. The U.S. president said he rated the meeting "a 10", and his apparent willingness to take his allies' concerns on board, if confirmed, could bring a measure of relief after fears that he and Putin could reach a deal over Europe's head at Ukraine's expense. However, Russia is likely to resist Europe's demands strongly. "President Trump was very clear that the United States wanted to achieve a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska," Macron said. "The second point on which things were very clear, as expressed by President Trump, is that territories belonging to Ukraine cannot be negotiated and will only be negotiated by the Ukrainian president." Merz, who hosted the virtual meeting, said the principle that borders cannot be changed by force must continue to apply. "If there is no movement on the Russian side in Alaska, then the United States and we Europeans should ... increase the pressure," he said. "President Trump knows this position, he shares it very extensively and therefore I can say: We have had a really exceptionally constructive and good conversation with each other." Trump and Putin are due to discuss how to end the three-and-a-half-year-old conflict, the biggest in Europe since World War Two. Trump has previously said both sides will have to swap land to end fighting that has cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions. On a day of intense diplomacy, Zelenskiy flew into Berlin for German-hosted virtual meetings with European leaders and then with Trump. He and the Europeans worry that a land swap could leave Russia with almost a fifth of Ukraine, rewarding it for almost 11 years of efforts to seize Ukrainian land, the last three in all-out war, and embolden Putin to expand further west in the future. Russian forces have made a sharp thrust into eastern Ukraine in recent days in what may be an attempt to increase the pressure on Kyiv to give up land. Zelenskiy said there should be a three-way meeting between himself, Putin and Trump. "I told the U.S. president and all our European colleagues that Putin is bluffing (about his stated wish to end the war). He is trying to apply pressure before the meeting in Alaska along all parts of the Ukrainian front. Russia is trying to show that it can occupy all of Ukraine .." A source familiar with the matter said the call with Trump discussed possible cities that could host a three-way meeting, depending on the outcome of the talks in Alaska. Since announcing the Alaska summit, Trump has played down expectations, saying it would be a "feel-out" meeting. Wary of angering Trump, European leaders have repeatedly said they welcome his efforts while stressing that there should be no deal about Ukraine without Ukraine's participation. Trump's agreement last week to the summit was an abrupt shift after weeks of voicing frustration with Putin for resisting the U.S. peace initiative. Trump said his envoy had made "great progress" at talks in Moscow. A Gallup poll released last week found that 69% of Ukrainians favour a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. But polls also indicate Ukrainians do not want peace at any cost if that means crushing concessions. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexei Fadeev earlier said Moscow's stance had not changed since it was set out by Putin in June 2024. As preconditions for a ceasefire and the start of talks, the Kremlin leader had demanded that Ukraine withdraw its forces from four regions that Russia has claimed as its own but does not fully control, and formally renounce its plans to join NATO. Kyiv swiftly rejected the conditions as tantamount to surrender.
Reuters
4 hours ago
- Reuters
France, Germany, UK willing to reinstate sanctions on Iran
PARIS, Aug 13 (Reuters) - France, Germany and Britain have written to the United Nations to say they are ready to reinstate sanctions on Iran if it does not return to negotiations with the international community over its nuclear programme. The foreign ministers of the so-called E3 group wrote to the U.N. on Tuesday to raise the possibility of "snapback" sanctions unless Iran takes action, according to a letter shared by the French foreign ministry. The letter was first reported by the Financial Times and France's Le Monde newspaper. "We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, E3 are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism," the ministers said in the letter. They added that they had offered Iran a limited expansion to allow for direct negotiations between the United States and Iran, but that the offer had remained unanswered by Iran so far. The three European countries, along with China and Russia, are the remaining parties to a 2015 nuclear deal reached with Iran - from which the United States withdrew in 2018 - that lifted sanctions on the Middle Eastern country in return for restrictions on its nuclear programme. The E3's warning comes after "serious, frank and detailed" talks with Iran in Istanbul last month, the first face-to-face meeting since Israeli and U.S. strikes on the country's nuclear sites in June. Iranian lawmaker Manouchehr Mottaki, who served as foreign minister from 2005 to 2010, said Iran's parliament "has its finger on the trigger to withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" if international sanctions were reimposed after any E3 invocation of the snapback mechanism. Mottaki told Iran's semi-official Defa Press that parliament would approve a bill to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal within 24 hours if the E3 invoked the snapback mechanism. During its 12-day war with Israel in June, Tehran said its lawmakers were preparing a bill that could push it towards exiting the treaty, ratified by Tehran in 1970. The treaty guarantees countries the right to pursue civilian nuclear power in return for requiring them to forego atomic weapons and cooperate with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the IAEA.
Spectator
4 hours ago
- Spectator
The small boats crisis is getting worse. What's Labour's plan?
How long it seems since the then Home Secretary Sajid Javid declared a 'major incident' in the Channel on account of the numbers of migrants attempting to cross. In fact, it was December 2018. Javid expressed his deepening concern that 250 people had been intercepted in the Channel between January and November 2018. And the migrants kept coming in the last week of that year. Nine landed near Sandgate in Kent on 26 December and eight more were spotted in a small boat the following day. Yvette Cooper, then the chair of the Commons home affairs select committee, demanded action. 'There is a real risk of tragedy if urgent action isn't taken,' she said. 'The British and French authorities have known for some time about the risks posed by criminal gangs of people smugglers along the coast…much more coordinated French and British action is needed to tackle them.' Six and a half years later, Cooper is the Home Secretary in a government that is breaking records for illegal arrivals. 50,000 have crossed the Channel in small boats in the 13 months since Keir Starmer took office. More than 27,000 migrants have crossed the Channel so far this year, up from 18,342 for the same period in 2024. According to the figures from Frontex, the EU's border agency, 41,800 'attempts' to reach England were made in the first seven months of 2025, a leap of 26 per cent on the previous year. In other words, about 14,000 'attempts' to cross the Channel have failed for various reasons. Not that this will deter the migrants. The countries most heavily represented in the arrivals in England are Afghanistan, Somalia and Eritrea. These people aren't going to give up and head home to their war-torn countries. They will keep on trying. The cynic might reflect that the determination of the migrants to reach England is in inverse proportion to the determination of the British government to keep them out. This determination to cross the Channel is becoming ever more ferocious. Police reinforcements have been sent to the Channel town of Gravelines between Calais and Dunkirk after a weekend of violent disorder. According to the French press, 'groups of migrants threw stones at parked and moving vehicles in the middle of the night, as well as at homes and even the fire and police vehicles.' A report on the situation in a local newspaper on Tuesday quoted a resident saying: People are fed up. We are starting to hear talk of [vigilante] militias being formed. The population is tense. We can't let this continue. The response of the British government to the news that it has passed the 50,000 migrant mark in just 13 months was to blame the criminal gangs. Baroness Smith of Malvern, Labour's education minister, said it was not Labour's fault but rather the gangs who had 'got an absolute foothold in the tragic trafficking of people across the Channel'. But these are the same gangs Yvette Cooper was talking about in 2018. Shouldn't she have prepared a plan of action to 'smash the gangs' years ago in expectation of coming to power? As if to underline the ineffectiveness of this Labour government, Frontex also released figures for other popular migrant routes into Europe. Most show a marked decrease in the number of irregular entries. The Eastern Mediterranean passage is down 16 per cent for the first seven months of 2025 compared to the previous year; in the Western Balkans it has dropped by 47 per cent and the Western Africa route is down by 46 per cent. Migrants entering via the Central and Western Mediterranean have increased slightly (9 and 11 per cent respectively) but they are small in comparison to the 26 per cent rise in Channel crossings. Frontex attributed the Channel increase to good weather and the use of 'taxi boats' that pick people up from various spots on the French coast to avoid detection by police and coast guards. Furthermore, the gangs who run this taxi service are filling their boats with more migrants, sometimes as many as 100 in one small vessel. Frontex concluded that 'smuggling networks remain active and agile'. In other words, the only thing that changed since 2018 is the numbers. If Sajid Javid called a couple of hundred migrants a 'major incident', one wonders how Yvette Cooper would describe 50,000?
