I hope I don’t really need all of these words to convince you. Anyone who has felt the urge to travel the world already instinctively knows the construct of nations is contrary to human desire.

Considering that humanity spans at least five thousand years (yes, I’m being inclusive for the moment), the social changes we’ve seen in the last two hundred years are remarkable. The changes over the last five decades are even more remarkable. Culture has seen the status quo shift from generally intolerant to generally tolerant. Slavery has shifted from commonplace to anathema. Women have been released from the farm and often dominate in business and academics. Where gays and lesbians were once forced to remain in the closet, those who disapprove are now apt to keep their hate in the closet. Racism has been transformed from rallying cry to a pejorative breeding instant defensiveness.

There are exceptions to everything I’m writing here. None of these things are “solved”. Some of the exceptions are glaring and grotesque. Some places are better than others. Some people are better than others. However, the topic of discussion is the way things are talked about and looked at by society in general, not whether or not things happen. Excepting brute force, things don’t change until society changes. During significant shifts, the behavior of a culture may lag behind the sentiment of the culture, but it will follow. Disclaimers aside, behavior has improved significantly as well. Religious tolerance is still problematic in practice, but public discrimination along religious lines is less tolerated.

For all the progress culture has made in its subjugation of racism, sexism, religious division, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, one bastion of bigotry remains. Nationalism (or its romanticized twin patriotism) is the only remaining source of comfortable revelry for bigotry in culture. Not only does nationalism get a pass in its foment of hatred and discrimination, it is championed. Patriotism is cultivated and worn as badge of honor. Why does nationalism get away with its openly divisive tendencies? Why is it’s negative influence blindly accepted? Why is there no discourse aimed at abolishing the scourge of patriotism? Does the construct of nations provide an inherent benefit that warrants saving it?

Why Do We Have Nations?

All of the Isms and related discriminations are rooted in division. The conflict ultimately lies in the distinction between the self and the other. The need to belong isn’t obvious when we’re limited to consideration of only ourselves. Have you ever been walking a path alone in a remote location and happened upon someone walking toward you from the opposite direction? If you have, you have felt a twinge of evolutionary instinct kick into gear. The mind immediately kicks into an evaluation of the situation and an evaluation of the other…. “If I’m attacked in this location, nobody will be able to assist me. Not only will nobody assist me, but nobody will witness the event. There is a high likelihood that the other person could kill me and completely get away with it. What is this person doing here? What is the intent of the other? How do I proceed?” Of course, these thoughts are jumbled together at lightning speed and accelerate as the distance closes. But without more information, we can’t make an informed decision.

The scenario above is some insight into the root of division. It does not fully explain it, but it is an insight. As we increase the number of people in the scenario, the dynamic changes. How do we proceed if there are three of us walking toward one person. How do I respond if there are three others walking toward me? How do we respond if there are three of us and three of them?

I don’t want to make this into an academic treatise on describing human behavior. I simply want to illustrate how culture has evolved to the point where nationalism is pervasive, accepted, and encouraged.

What we see historically is that groups initially form to solve the problem of survival. The smallest group we see is that of the family. The family unit is inherently familiar. If we see our mother walking towards us on the path, our thought process is completely different than the scenarios above. This group structure is so deeply rooted that the family is often considered sacred and immune to questioning. At the same time, nepotism is frowned upon culturally, so this assumption is not as clean as it may appear.

Increases in population density result in the family unit being absorbed by clan or tribe structures. The group is still arranged around familiarity for the purpose of survival in an unknown world. History shows that battles between groups scale with the size of the groups. The individual survival instinct is expanded to the family survival instinct which is expanded to the tribal survival instinct which is expanded to the city survival instinct which is expanded to the state survival instinct which is expanded to the national survival instinct. In all of these groups, conflict with other groups is rooted in survival. It’s reinforced by familiarity and lines are drawn between us and the others.

The terms we use to describe these groups are reflective of our true feelings of them. The “family unit” and the military “unit” are quite similar. Our “circle of friends” and “social circle” illustrate the closed nature of the groups.

Nationalism embodies the largest groups possible until the aliens attack. City-states did not  envelop the entire planet. Huge gaps could be found between them. Unclaimed territory was abundant. Unlike cities and states, if the nations we have were all absorbed into two nations, the construct would look similar.

Not only were there gaps in territorial rule, there were huge gaps in knowledge before the rise of nations. Before every inch of earth was claimed, maps were incomplete. Groups had no idea how many people were over the river or mountains or ocean. This distinction is important because the unknown is difficult to plan for. In instances where two tribes were in close proximity, they could jointly reason that they should join together because there might be a larger group just over the horizon. The rise of nations in parallel with the expansion of human knowledge allowed nations to take undue credit for advantages brought by knowledge.

The entire surface of the earth has now been mapped. We know to a high degree of certainty how many people make up any number of groups. The rationale of two groups joining together to prepare for an unknown group no longer exists. The only real variable in terms of numbers is whether or not alliances will form. However, this question of group dynamics occurs in all groups regardless of size, so it can’t be said that the nation construct solves this problem.

The other rationale for group distinctions is in terms of survival. Up until this point, I have only mentioned conflict with others as the thrust of survival. However, survival in the face of weather, predatory animals, nourishment, et cetera are all just as important.

Relevance of Nations

The purpose of the group structure can be roughly summed up as follows:

1. Survival against aggressive “others”
2. Survival against the unknown
3. Survival against nature

How does the construct of nations fit within the group structure in terms of necessity?

1. Survival against aggressive other. Nations FAIL! Now that society has determined distinctions against other races, religions, and the myriad of other groups to be unethical and detrimental, nations themselves are the only remaining line of distinction. That’s right, the argument for nations from a defense standpoint is circular because it relies on the existence of national distinction to maintain relevance.
2. Survival against the unknown. Nations FAIL! Since there is nothing unknown on the planet that is better challenged as individual nations, the national construct has zero relevance.
3. Survival against nature. Nations FAIL! Even if we discount the absolutely massive amount of resources squandered on the circular argument of defense, we have enough resources to feed and protect everyone on earth. Nations actually make matters worse by preventing the distribution of resources as needed. Nations are the only thing preventing us from ending starvation and other maladies.

Just because the concept of nations is irrelevant, that doesn’t mean it’s bad, right? Yes, relevance is not a requirement for existence. However, if something is not relevant, and is also harmful, it should be dismantled.

Negative Impact of Nations

From an efficiency (or business) standpoint, the existence of nations ensures bureaucratic redundancies on many levels. The administration of the government itself is duplicated in every nation. The administration of government provided programs is duplicated in every nation. The internal judiciary system is duplicated in every nation. The legal system surrounding international interaction is duplicated in every nation. The administrative costs of health care, fire departments, police, military, education, et cetera are all duplicated and are all very resource intensive. Not only are the administrative and management functions of all of these duplicated in a redundant manner, the mechanisms determining which systems should exist and how they should operate are also redundant.

Nations ensure astronomical military expenditures. All of these resources could be freed up for positive use in the absence of the national construct.

Nations ensure taxation for international exchange negatively impact purchasing power. All of these resources could be freed up for positive use in the absence of the national construct.

Nations restrict the flow of resources including food, water, medicine, and resources from locations of abundance to locations of shortage.

Nations restrict the ability of people to freely travel and enjoy all of this planet.

Nationalism Is Bigotry

Some bigots are drawn to nationalism as an outlet for their bigoted tendencies. It’s very easy to hide religious intolerance and racism under the thin veil of nationalism. It’s also quite possible to hide the bigotry of sexism, intolerance toward sexual orientation, and any number of other social issues under the guise of nationalism. Just as turning the social current against bigotry in these other forms has diminished the discrimination resulting from them, turning the social current against nationalism can have similar effects on the harms nationalism causes.

Don’t get hung up on potential underlying prejudices that may present as nationalism. Nationalism is not a determining factor in diagnosing any other prejudice. Nationalism is bigotry in and of itself. There are economic excuses that explain the continued existence of nationalism. Aside from that, it’s amazing that something so arbitrary is so pervasive, so destructive, and yet so wholly unquestioned. Think about it. Seriously. Does the geographic location of your birth have anything to do with you as a person? Nationalism has the thinnest foundation of nearly any prejudice, yet it remains a monolithic stalwart.

Nations are irrelevant and do exponentially more harm than good. The construct should be dismantled immediately. Hurry please. Renewing passports, visas, border crossings, and customs are all annoying.