One World
The notion of a unified global order has been explored in various contexts, often with the aim of harnessing scientific and ethical insights for societal organisation.
But few discussions have addressed how such an order could realistically come into being — nor have they adequately considered the extraordinary levels of abuse that could be enabled through such centralisation.
Let’s begin by considering a model which we will title One World. This model is a step-by-step process that begins with scientific enquiry and ends with the active guidance of society’s evolution – a concept some might compare to Alexander Bogdanov’s idea of Scientific Socialism. It draws on ideas from several neo-Kantian schools. For example, the Neo-Friesian view, as seen in Paul Carus’ work, supports the idea that careful scientific enquiry can reveal a natural order in the universe, mirroring Bogdanov’s concept of empiriomonism. Next, the Marburg school, with thinkers like Hermann Cohen, considers the challenges of turning ethical ideas into fixed laws – an issue connected to Bogdanov’s concept of Tektology, which in this context is used to control what some might consider the 'human super-organism'. Finally, the Southwest/Baden school demonstrates how culture can be transformed, much like in Bogdanov’s Proletkult movement.
Scientific Knowledge
The first step is based on the belief that rigorous scientific enquiry can uncover a natural, underlying order—a fundamental structure that underlies every phenomenon in the universe. This stage sets the foundation by suggesting that reality operates according to universal principles that we can discover through careful investigation.
Ethical Synthesis
Next, we take this scientific knowledge and turn it into a universal set of moral rules. A gathering of scientists, ethicists, philosophers and social theorists would discuss and interpret the facts to draw out moral principles. This process — echoing the Neo-Friesian idea of an ordered reality — also shows just how challenging it is to move from 'what is' to 'what ought to be'.
Legal Codification
Once an ethical framework is developed, the next step is to turn it into law. This process changes abstract moral ideas into clear, enforceable rules, with the goal of creating a uniform set of norms that everyone must follow. However — as the Marburg school cautions — if our ethical ideas are updated frequently, then the laws need to be updated just as often.
Cultural Embedding
In the final stage, our ethical imperative is spread through culture and education, while a religious institution is charged with spreading and even enforcing the universal moral code throughout society. Using a top-down approach, this institution works to weave the ethical framework into every aspect of cultural life. This idea is similar to the cultural transformation promoted by the southwest/Baden school, where shared values help build a unified cultural identity.
The overall outcome of this pipeline is a hierarchical structure that could guide collective behaviour and even steer human evolution. In this model, society is deliberately directed in a way similar to what Barbara Marx Habbard called 'Conscious Evolution', potentially leading to the attainment of Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point—a state of supposed maximum complexity and the convergence of human consciousness.
Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations
Scientific Monism and Objective Order
At the heart of the One World model is the idea of scientific monism – the belief that every part of nature, from the tiniest atom to the largest galaxy, is part of one organised system within a materialistic reality. This concept further develops the worldview advanced by thinkers like Karl Marx. Supporters of this view – including Neo-Friesian thinkers such as Paul Carus – argue that careful scientific study can reveal a natural, hierarchical order in the universe. In other words, science is seen as a tool to discover the universal rules that govern everything.
However, even if such an objective order exists, turning scientific facts into moral rules is not straightforward. The jump from what 'is' (the way things are) to what 'ought' to be (how things should be) involves many layers of interpretation, personal judgement and cultural influence. This means that while scientific data can teach us a lot about how the world works, choosing the right moral principles from that data also depends on our own experiences and traditions.
Moreover, the goal of building ethics on the basis of scientific monism is complicated by the fact that interpreting raw evidence into a clear set of moral rules takes careful thought and debate, where even the best organised discussion might lead to different opinions. Therefore, any ethical system based on this approach must be considered temporary – always open to new ideas and flexible to change.
In summary, while scientific monism offers an attractive picture of unity and order in nature, turning scientific discoveries into universal ethical rules is very complex. It is full of interpretations influenced by our own beliefs and cultural backgrounds, so it is important to keep questioning and refining our ideas as we learn more.
From Constructivism to Thomist Realism
There are two main ways to think about how we learn about the world and decide what is right. The first idea is called constructivism. Constructivism tells us that knowledge isn’t just handed to us—it’s something we build from our own experiences and by talking with others. This means that any moral rules we create are shaped by our personal opinions, cultural backgrounds, and social influences.
In contrast, Thomist realism claims that there is a natural, objective order in the world—a fixed structure that exists whether we believe in it or not. Supporters of this view argue that through careful scientific study and logical thinking, we can discover this natural order. However, even if we do uncover this structure, turning it into clear rules about how we should behave isn’t a simple leap.
Neo-Kantian thinkers add another layer to this discussion. For example, the Neo-Friesian school supports the idea that science can reveal a natural order which can then be synthesised into ethics, while the Marburg school works to translate ethical ideas into legislation. Meanwhile, thinkers from the Southwest/Baden school remind us that our culture plays a big part in shaping our values, too.
All of these ideas show just how tricky it is to create a universal set of moral rules from scientific facts. Whether we see knowledge as something we build from experience or as something we discover in nature, turning those facts into lessons about how to live is an exceedingly tough proposition.
The Hierarchical Pipeline
Synthesis of Ethics
The first step in the One World model is to turn scientific discoveries into ideas about what is right and wrong. In theory, an influential group of thinkers comprising scientists, politicians, ethicists and philosophers would discuss scientific findings and from these work out a set of moral rules. This process is similar to Bogdanov's idea of empiriomonism, which interprets universal, scientific truths through a collective, yet subjective perspective.
However, moving from clear scientific facts to moral rules is not trivial. It involves making value judgements, which means personal opinions and cultural influences come into play. As a result, any agreement reached is likely to be temporary and will almost certainly change with time. Moreover, this stage is especially vulnerable to abuse. If one group is given all the power to decide on these ethics, they might favour their own perspectives exclusively, ignoring what would actually serve the people.
In short, while the idea of building a moral system from science is appealing, there are many challenges and risks involved in producing a truly universal set of moral rules.
Codification of Universal Ethics
The second step in the One World model is about turning the ethical ideas we've developed into clear, enforceable rules – essentially, into laws. This step is crucial because it transforms abstract ideas about right and wrong, based on scientific discoveries, into specific rules that apply to everyone in society. This is where the Marburg school comes into play. Thinkers like Hermann Cohen introduced the concept of 'Infinite Judgment', which seeks to align ethics with law, though in the past this approach has often led to rigid and oppressive systems, such as dictatorships.
However, this process also comes with problems. One concern is that having just one set of rules might mean that other ideas about what is right get ignored. If one group holds the power to decide these rules, there's a risk that only their opinions will count, leaving out other perspectives. This concentration of power could force everyone to think the same way, leaving little room for different opinions.
Another risk is that once these ideas are turned into fixed laws, they can become overly rigid. If the laws or their enforcement are too strict, it becomes very difficult to update them when new scientific discoveries are made or when society changes. When rules turn into unchallengeable dogma, fresh ideas and new ways of thinking can be completely stifled.
In short, while turning ethical ideas into laws is an important step in organising society, it also comes with big risks. When this process is enforced in a strict, fixed way – in this context equivalent to Bogdanov’s Tektology – it can create a system that is unchangeable, making it hard for society to adapt and grow. In fact, this kind of system might even pave the way for a dictatorship, something it has enabled many times in the past.
Cultural Embedding via a Global Religion
In the final stage of the One World model, the universal ethical framework isn’t merely turned into laws – it is woven into everyday life, shaping aspects such as culture, education, business and the arts. This step draws inspiration from the Southwest/Baden school and Bogdanov's concept of Proletkult, both of which stress the importance of creating a shared cultural identity based on common values. In doing so, these moral ideas become an essential part of society.
To spread these values all over the world, the model suggests several key steps. It recommends setting up Global Citizen Education programmes, using the arts to shape culture, and globally adopting One Religion as the main way to teach and maintain the moral code. This religion would operate without traditional clergy, relying instead on a central authority to provide clear ethical guidelines. The goal is to ensure that the same moral code is followed everywhere – from schools and businesses to faith institutions, theatres, and art galleries.
This religious approach reflects Hermann Cohen’s ideas in Ethik der reinen Willens, where he argues that religion can be a powerful tool for sharing moral law. According to Cohen, a well-organised religion can offer clear and dependable ethical norms that everyone can follow. Thus, a global religion is not just about spirituality; it’s an organised system which embeds ethical standards into every aspect of life.
However, while having one unified moral code can help bring people together and create clarity, it also raises some big concerns as this yet again concentrates power on an unprecedented scale. This centralisation could lead to a rigid, top-down enforcement of ethics, which might limit cultural diversity and individual freedom.
Conscious Evolution and the Omega Point
Theoretical Premise
Teilhard de Chardin's idea of the Omega Point talks about a final stage in human evolution where all our energy and ideas come together into one complete state of awareness and potential. This idea mixes science with a more spiritual view, suggesting that one day everything might unite into a single, shared understanding.
In our One World model, the entire process – from gathering scientific knowledge, to creating moral rules, to making laws, and finally embedding these values into everyday life – is seen as a way to guide how society evolves. By aligning our personal and community values with a universal set of morals, this model hopes to speed up Hubbard’s Conscious Evolution. In other words, the pipeline isn’t just a way to run a society; it is imagined as a tool to boost our collective awareness and intelligence.
This system is meant to bring together science, ethics, and culture so that all people can move towards the Omega Point. In this vision, human consciousness would develop in a unified and coordinated way, with everyone following the same set of values. The goal is to reach a state where all the progress in human thought and effort converges into a peak of complexity and awareness – the highest point of our potential.
However, even though this vision is compelling, it’s fraught with danger. Jumping from merely observing scientific facts to controlling how society evolves through same constitutes a major leap of faith. It is extremely challenging to bring together the many different experiences and cultural values of people under one set of rules. Moreover, if too much power is given to those who decide these rules, history tells us it’s almost certain to lead to gross abuse. A very strict and controlled system might further stifle creativity and natural growth, leading to a forced evolution of human consciousness instead of one that develops freely and organically.
In summary, while the One World model offers an inspiring vision of guiding society towards the Omega Point – a state of complete unity and awareness – it does come with legitimate dangers. The ambition to guide collective evolution could hypothetically create profound change, but it carries the risk of building a rigid, authoritarian system that could actually hinder the natural progress it is meant to support.
The Dual-Edged Nature of Hierarchical Control
While the idea of guiding society’s evolution towards an 'Omega Point' might appear palatable, the way to achieve it comes with major problems. To make such a system work, a lot of power would need to be concentrated at every step – from understanding scientific facts to making and enforcing laws. This heavy concentration of power would likely make the system rigid and easy to abuse.
When one group holds all the power, they commonly push aside other opinions and ideas. Those in charge could use their authority to steer society in ways that benefit themselves exclusively. This could mean that creativity and different viewpoints are squashed, leading to a system that is forcefully directive and unresponsive to change.
Furthermore, the idea of taking scientific discoveries and turning them into universal moral rules through ethical imperatives is not simple. Even though science can show us how the world works, turning those facts into clear rules about how we should behave requires a lot of interpretation. This process involves making value judgements influenced by personal, cultural, and philosophical views. As a result, the final set of rules might end up just reflecting the biases of those who created them, rather than being truly universal.
The danger is that by gathering all these subjective decisions into one system, the whole structure may end up representing only the views of a small, powerful group. This not only increases the risk of abuse but also limits the chance for different ideas and flexible thinking to grow. Instead of helping society evolve naturally, such a rigid system could cause progress to come to a standstill… degrowth, even. That decision would be left to a small clique, exclusively planning on our behalf.
In summary, while the idea of deliberately guiding society towards an 'Omega Point'—a state of complete unity and high awareness—could appear attractive, there are many legitimate challenges. Concentrating power and the many personal judgements involved in turning science into moral rules could easily turn this promising vision into a system that is ripe for exploitation and authoritarian control.
Risks and Potential for Exploitation
Concentration of Power
The One World model is built so that few groups or organisations yields substantial power. This means it would decide how scientific discoveries become moral rules, how those rules turn into laws, and even how these are propagated throughout society. When one group holds this much power, the chance of abuse significantly increases.
If only one group gets to shape the rules, only a few opinions will count. Other ideas might be ignored or pushed aside. Without many voices, healthy debate will cease, and the system will eventually become fixed and unchanging. Another risk comes when these ideas are turned into laws. If one group makes these laws without proper checks, those laws might become too strict and control everything. Such strict rules can stop new ideas from developing, limit individual freedom, and even lead to a system enabling systemic discrimination at will. In fact, the whole structure might end up serving only the interests of those in power. In the end, concentrating power with one group must be managed very carefully — if not avoided entirely — to make sure the system doesn’t become a tool for control and oppression.
Vulnerability to Abuse
History shows us that concentrating power with one or few groups commonly leads to strict, authoritarian control. In the One World model, every step – from turning scientific facts into ideas about right and wrong, to making these ideas into laws, and finally spreading them through culture – is at risk of being abused.
Because the One World model puts so much power in one place, it enables the possibility of exploitation, which can be used to control how society develops and thus enable Conscious Evolution. If this centralised power isn’t kept in check, it could even be used to create rules that only benefit that small group rather than the community as a whole. This could lead to a situation where society is forced to follow specific political or ideological goals.
In summary, while the One World model aims to build a unified system of ethics and organisation, it has many vulnerabilities. The concentration of power at each step opens the door to abuse – from leaders twisting moral ideas to strict, unchangeable laws that stop progress. The system could with ease be taken over by narrow interests, resulting in an authoritarian regime ruling entirely without oversight.
And should the select few manage to boost the collective human consciousness through technological implants like Brain-Computer Interfaces, the likelihood of abuse will only increase. Instead of allowing our understanding to grow organically in a dynamic and open society, it would be manipulated, leading to a situation where the system — meant to work for us all — instead becomes a tool of authoritarians, forcing the hand of all.
Conclusion
In our model — titled One World — scientific discoveries are turned into a universal set of moral rules, then turned into laws and finally spread throughout society by global institutions. In theory, this structured approach could help guide human development towards Teilhard’s Omega Point – the state of maximum complexity and collective awareness. But this approach is only enabled through an enormeous concentration of power in few hands.
There is a chance for abuse at every step – from how scientific data is first interpreted, to how ethics become laws, and finally to how those laws are enforced in everyday life. Concentrating power in few hands would almost certainly lead to an authoritarian system, where different opinions — at best — are silenced. History shows many examples where similar concentrations of power have led to outright genocide.
In summary, although the One World model offers an attractive way to combine science, ethics, and organisation, its many vulnerabilities mean we must remain very sceptical. The promise of guiding human evolution towards an 'Omega Point' must be carefully balanced against the huge risk of abuse. In fact, perhaps because of this likelihood of abuse, it shouldn’t even exist at all.
And upon closer inspection it appears our hypothetical One World model echoes reality. Because the Collegium International — where philosophers, politicians, artists, scientists, and ethicists meet — turn scientific discoveries into ethical ideas. The Institute of Noahide Code – as described on the ECOSOC webpage – takes those synthetic, global ethics and translates these into laws. The WAAS shapes cultural and artistic direction based on the mix of science and synthetic, global ethics, and UNESCO — through lifelong learning and Global Citizen Education programmes — impacts global education and cultural development.
And remarkably, the Baha'i Faith almost perfectly describes the One Religion in our hypothetical model, with their Universal House of Justice serving as the single authority on all matters of ethics. Perhaps the ideas behind our model are not hypothetical at all.
Perhaps we really are heading towards… One World?
Esc, at last I have read this One World piece, having only glanced at it previously. Very erudite. You have studied the work of many philosophers. Very thoughtful as you have quite rightly pointed out the many dangers of a One World process.
Jacob Nordangard has written 3 books about this topic, the first one called Rockefeller Controlling the Game describes the steps taken by that dynasty to achieving world domination, as per the quote you provide at the end of your piece. The Rockefellers promoted the Omega Point idea, their morals were/are to achieve Conservation, Population growth control and Global Government; basically, Eugenics and anti-ordinary folks.
In my opinion, the basis of everything is biology: male, female, children, the need to eat, drink, have shelter and security. Too many men try to philosophize instead of sharing the cleaning, cooking, fetching water, reproductive and caring essentials. The trouble with many men, a few women and most of the wealthy clase is that they get others - usually girls and women - to do these essential tasks. And this results in the lazy ... losing touch with reality, and, worse, becoming totalitarian lunatics.
The primary determinant of ethical 'rightness' is the individual human heart which is imbued with natural knowing and free will. All of these elaborate constructs assume that these elites must make ethical determinations for us and pretend that we can't do it for ourselves. They wish to abolish personal freedom and creativity so we can all be herded uniformly into their service as obedient slaves. I hope there is still a majority of us who would rather fight than switch.