In a singularityhub.com piece, Peter Diamandis asks "Besides your passport, what really defines your nationality these days?"
Is it where you were live? Where you work? The language you speak? The currency you use?
If it is, then we may see the idea of “nationality” quickly dissolve in the decades ahead. Language, currency and residency are rapidly being disrupted and de-materialized by technology.
Increasingly, technological developments will allow us to live and work almost anywhere on the planet… (and even beyond).
It isn't a long piece, but it does provoke thought. So what do fellow Soylentils think the future will bring that will either strengthen our national ties or result in increased 'nationality mobility' in the near future?
My own bet is that we will always be tied most strongly to the country to which we are obliged to pay our taxes — and I hope that loss of national identity will not result in having to pay taxes to several countries at once!
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:21AM
Is there any country other than America that does this?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:28PM
To which fiefdom are you enserfed?
Flags are for burning, to keep warm.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by chucky on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:08AM
Where I'm from, the passport doesn't define nationality, it defines citizenship. Nationality and citizenship are separate items even on legal documents. Nationality is who you feel to be. And neither of these two have anything to do with taxes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:32AM
I am guessing that it is in the USA, but why? The technology needed to live somewhere else is there already -- the author has it. Why not live in somewhere like the Bahamas? Or parts of the USA that have fantastic scenery? Why do any wealthy people live in a big cities?
People like to live near home, near friends, near the things they grew up with, near their hobbies. Yes, work for a company anywhere, but don't move there.
Also, this isn't really a 2-way street. Not many people want to move to India and then use telepresence systems to "work" in the USA.
Yeah, if you are wealthy, citizenship doesn't mean much. Wealthy people can always get permits to live in their country of choice and they don't care about government benefits like social security or medicare. However, for the other 95% of the population, citizenship has much more significance. I speak as someone who has 2 passports and has been employed in 4 countries.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by CRCulver on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:57AM
Have you actually been to India (or Thailand or Asia)? You'll constantly encounter Westerners who have become "digital nomads" and live cheaply on the beaches of Asia while doing all their work for US or European clients at a decent salary.
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:06AM
Sorry, that should have read "or Thailand or Malaysia".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:45PM
Yes, I've been to both. India is a filthy, stinking shit-hole except for the wealthy enclaves, and living nicely in Pattaya or Bangkok isn't all that cheap.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Wednesday December 31 2014, @03:56PM
That's why I wrote "Not many people", not "No one".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @02:20PM
> I am guessing that it is in the USA, but why?
Peter is the creater of the X-Prize foundation and other non-profits that have profited him greatly. So he's all about rubbing shoulders with the rich in order to keep those organizations thriving. Apropos of nothing, my ex-wife is friends with his wife and Anousheh Ansari (the Ansari in the Ansari X-Prize).
(Score: 4, Interesting) by keplr on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:37AM
Most Europeans don't seem to know this in my experience, but the vast majority of US citizens don't have passports, can't afford one, wouldn't know how to get one if they did, don't need one because they never leave the USA, and couldn't afford to leave if they wanted to. Most of us are trapped here by economics. It's a totally different experience than in Europe where international travel is as casual as getting on a train. I could travel 300km in any direction without even leaving my own State.
Being a stateless world traveler is one of the hallmarks of class privilege. The wealthy already live in a borderless, nationless, world. The poor (everyone else) need to stay where they are so they can better be tracked, controlled, and worked to death.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:36AM
I can understand someone in the USA not being able to afford to travel outside of their country, although not if they can afford to travel within it, as the last few times I've visited the US (from the UK) the cost of the airfare has been far less than half of the total trip costs, including hotel, food, and so on.
Not being able to afford a passport puts you very close to the poverty line though, if not below it. I don't know exactly how much it costs in the US, but in the UK it's around £70 and then it's valid for 10 years. £7/year isn't exactly a massive extravagance.
And TFA is not just talking about travel, but about the ability to work abroad. I spent 5 years freelancing after finishing my PhD and worked for companies all over the world, mostly without leaving my home. Almost all of my income during that time came from abroad, even though I rarely travelled.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by keplr on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:39AM
It's about $200 for a passport in the USA if you don't have a suitable portrait picture already.
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:37AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @10:02AM
It just has to be the correct position, size in frame, and background. You can do it yourself in your kitchen if you want.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:09PM
The photo shouldn't cost too much. Our local CVS will take your picture for under $10. The actual passport fees [state.gov] start at $110 for adults.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:03PM
You forgot the execution fee, sounds very American but its really just a way to raise the price without officially raising the price.
The actual cost of a new passport is $135 although issuing a new one with an updated expiration date, aka renewal, is still only $110.
There are other costs like the stereotypical moron not thinking about it until the week before they fly to Europe so they need to pay all the expediting fees which can add up to quite a bit.
I have no idea why it costs so much to do so little, its roughly of the level of a state ID card and those are absolutely free although drivers licenses raise tax revenue like $40 each.
Also they push passport cards which are apparently completely useless at every customs facility other than the USA so I wouldn't waste the money on them, but I suppose opinions may vary. That'll save you some money.
When discussing the horrible expense its worth considering that its $13.50 per year or a bit more than a buck a month. They are not asking for much.
(Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday December 31 2014, @12:32AM
Just a side-thread that might be of interest.
Here in sweden the pictures for the national id or the passport (both are applied for at the same place - the police station) are taken upon making the application at no extra cost
The costs are: national id card - 400sek, passport - 350sek
(currently 1usd = 7.7sek)
( in case anyone are interested to read about it http://www.polisen.se/en/Languages/Service/Passport-and-national-ID-card/ [polisen.se] )
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:17PM
I find it hard to believe that the "vast majority" of US citizens can't afford the $150 it costs to get a passport. Yes, it does cost a lot of get off this continent, but you make it sound like the government is keeping this cost artificially high just to repress the working man.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @08:05AM
Some of us are mountain folk. Doesn't matter what mountains, we recognize the culture. Some are river folk. Big river, small river, it's all about boats and alluvial. Some are people of the steppes, the prairie, the grasslands, wanderers with flocks. Or herds, again, doesn't matter of what. And some of us are subjects of a politieas, a king, if you will. Dwellers in cities, ruled by rules, measured by rule, located on a grid of panoptic surveillance. These are the city-dwellers, parasites, and of course it does matter what city it is, they are not all alike, they are different by the fact of being different, nation-states. So it is natural that the cities first make distinctions based on identity, instead of topography. And not surprising that cities try to extend their dominion over all the earth. But soon, we will all be Internet people, whether of mountain, river, or plain. And then it will not matter what city claims dominion over us, for we will recognize the culture. Ramen.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:07AM
That reads like it is a quote from somewhere - apologies if it is your original thought. But very well put!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:38AM
Weird that you call the city folks parasites, when these days it is the cities that feed the countryside. And that you think it is the city folk that are subjects to kings, when it was always the cities where people escaped to from the aristocracy.
I don't think that it matters to a city dweller which city they live in, as long as it is a city.
You also forgot ocean folk in your ennumeration.
And seem oddly unaware of the wilderness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:30AM
Or moving numbers from one page to another.
They actually produce very little of use especially at their cores. The 'financial/business' districts.
Technically parasites fits. If they all vanished nobody would die.
If the rural areas vanished. Everone would starve to death tho.
(Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday December 30 2014, @04:58PM
> If they all vanished nobody would die.
Ah, yes, the rolling countryside, with all its advanced hospitals and universities. There's more, but that's enough to refute your point.
Cities aren't hideous temples of Mammon occupied only by the 1%. Live where you want, I don't give a damn. But don't pretend one is inherently better than the other: Both exist for a reason.
(Score: 2) by pogostix on Tuesday December 30 2014, @03:17PM
the cities that feed the countryside??? hahaha yeah thanks for sending us your left over food from the grocery stores
"when your food and water comes from the land and rivers you will fight to protect them, when your food and water comes from big companies and gas powered trucks you will fight to protect them"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 31 2014, @06:29AM
Yes, I forgot the Island folk. Not quite the same as the Ocean folk, the ones who really get into the existence of the Ocean. But not bad, just one out of many. Of course, they are the one that could provide the change needed for the rest. Unaware of wilderness? Unaware of what, I may ask. Wilderness is not a place that makes a people, it is a place where people are made, but this only on an individual basis. Go there? Yes you should. Survive? Up to you. I am not unaware, I have been there. It is how I know that cities are parasites.
(Score: 2) by bootsy on Tuesday December 30 2014, @09:29AM
I have felt for a while that we have a moral hazard with where people live. The well skilled can travel to locations with low taxes and high benefits, in the form of pensions, health-care, unemployment etc. Most western countries ( I would include Japan in this ) are gradually bankrupting themselves by giving out more than they collect in taxes. For many residents this isn't a problem as they can simply leave the country when it collapses. If you don't like the national debt then simply move so you don't have to pay it.
We can see this arbritage process going in on in Europe at the moment. The populaton continue to vote for parties that benefit them to the detriment of their children. I know it is not quite as simple as highter taxes or less government payment but nevertheless the current balance is totally wrong and we are not getting the soft default of high inflation at the moment.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:00PM
The US, at least, is bankrupting itself due to welfare for the insanely rich. We need to go back to pre-Reagan tax rates before the country completely falls apart.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Geezer on Tuesday December 30 2014, @11:21AM
The flag they wave and die for doesn't matter. Really. Never did, never will.
Nation-states are the enabling vehicle of the ruling classes; a built-in security system and power-projection mechanism for their plundering enterprises, nothing more. Always have been, always will be.
The cute, naive idea of noble populations banding together for their common defense inspired by a noble ideal is a nice fairy tale, but Realpolitik has it otherwise. Even cave clans had a familial power hierarchy. Call it a city-state, a tribal nation, an empire, a monarchy, or a republic, it's all just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
And no, there is no Utopian solution to set everyone free in an egalitarian fairyland. Human greed and avarice trump principle every time. Let me repeat that: every time.
So unless your are a fortunate member of the oligarchy, just do the best you can, enjoy what comfort you can take, and don't lose sleep over the wretched human condition.
Maybe humankind will evolve beyond the in-born impulse to power and wealth, but we'll never live to see it.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday December 30 2014, @01:10PM
I think you're being too cynical and negative.
I see 2 basic possibilities for our immediate future. First is Malthus's horrible vision coming true, in which life is cheap. We could increase our population until a collapse happens, then things will hang in the balance. Will entire nations of starving people be able to restrain themselves from using the ultimate weapons we have available? Will we be able to get our populations back down to sustainable levels without resorting to destructive war? I doubt it. What might drive us in this direction is dominance by men. This is how societies like Afghanistan operate. Men want lots of children and women are not allowed to object. To strengthen male dominance, many try to stop girls from getting an education, even to the point of imposing the death penalty on any who try to go to school. Women there bear 8 children on average. 8! Half the children die before reaching adulthood, from malnutrition, disease, and a dangerous environment. The remaining children face a bleak future in which there is not enough of anything to go around, because there are just plain too many people. Lots of people have to die, and the only choice is how. Famine, war, or something else. The leaders, all men, just shrug off this appalling way of life as normal.
The other possibility is indeed a utopia. We exercise restraint and do not overpopulate. Then there is no need for war or other harsh means of reducing population. Our growing technological sophistication will empower freedom, remove many of the holds that the powerful still have over people. The working stiff will be in a position to defy The Man because a job may no longer be a necessity for survival, may be possible to get basic necessities more directly from the environment. 3D print whatever you need, like maybe a solar powered electric car, for far, far less expense than a traditional auto manufacturer could manage. Such a vehicle is in potential so much more reliable and all around less expensive that it may be possible have one without needing income from a job to pay for it. Then the vicious, abusive job environment as portrayed in Dilbert comics and The Office TV show will become a bad memory from the past.
We're evolving at a furious pace, and it's going mostly unnoticed. Thanks to nuclear weapons, we are now in a position where we cannot cut loose and indulge in all out, total war, not if we want to live. WWII has to be the last war of its kind. Over the centuries as weapons have become more deadly, we have changed, to become more even tempered, less volatile. One thing about the Crusades was it served as a way for Europe to kill off their brawlers and troublemakers. The American Wild West was another sink where violent, bad tempered people came to bad ends, thanks partly to the increased lethality of the weaponry available.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday December 30 2014, @12:55PM
I got one word for you... FOQNE, franchise operated quasi national entity.
If you don't recognize the reference / idea then you need to read more.
Its a realistic (not overly optimistic nor pessimistic) view of what total takeover of all world governments by corporations would look like.
I actually like the idea if implemented in the books, with all sorts of cool themes. HOWEVER knowing how most of my fellow humans have ridiculously poor bad taste, we'd likely be stuck with the franchise nation state equivalent of fast food, top 40 music, and hollywood sequels.
For those too lazy to read the books, it boils down to something like take how Disney already kinda controls their local .gov and let them completely take over with total autonomy. So you buy citizenship in the disney nation and get to live in disney world. Or Mr. Fongs Greater Hong Kong gated communities all over the world. We already kinda have that concept with diplomatic embassies this just makes it a public/corporate thing.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @06:08PM
In the interest of informing instead of alienating, the parent discusses a concept found in Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday December 31 2014, @10:20AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @05:39PM
The whole world is one big feminist cuntry now.
Women's rules rule.
Can't marry young female children.
Men are the master of nothing.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30 2014, @07:12PM
The whole world is one big feminist cuntry now.
Women's rules rule.
Can't marry young female children.
Men are the master of nothing.
+1