In 1945, 51 countries existed in the world. In 2024, 193 countries exist.
Peter Thiel gave a thought experiment about people in the future and their freedom. It goes like this: would more countries exist or would fewer countries exist? And what would the number of countries mean for freedom? Three scenarios exist in this thought experiment: More countries, the same amount of countries, and fewer countries.
More countries?
Thiel mentioned one aspect of the thought experiment: more countries.
In a world where more countries exist, Thiel believes that “The marginal tax rates would vary quite a bit, depending on the number of countries.” Thiel then says along the lines that if you don’t like the tax rates in your country or state, move somewhere else. I agree with his final opinion: “If you want to increase freedom, you would want to increase the number of countries.”
From there, Thiel doesn’t dig deeper into the thought experiment. Let me write what I think each scenario means.
If more countries exist in the world, it comes with reason that each person enjoys more freedom: if you disagree with the values of one country, live in a country more aligned with your own values. When shopping, we apply the same logic: if you don’t like a store, you shop at the other. Same with brands of companies. Do you dislike a brand? Well, other brands sell products that best fit your needs.
So, the logic here is clear: more countries mean more freedom because people choose where they live. By living in a different country, people enjoy places that best fit their needs, beliefs, and future, and with groups that won’t deny those needs, beliefs, and futures. And I suspect more freedom means more inventiveness: people try new things with groups of people who believe those things will succeed.
From a country-wide perspective, the freedom to move is in the self-interest of all countries involved: we shall accept your detractors—who align more with us—in exchange that you take our detractors—who align more with you—that way, we both don’t deal with complaints and protests.
Same number of countries?
So, having more countries is an optimistic view. But what if the number of countries remains the same? What if the number of countries we have right now is the same number of countries twenty, thirty, forty years later? What would that mean for the case of freedom?
In this scenario, I think people would say that this is probably a good outcome.
But this would be a bad outcome: having the same number of countries means we made zero progress in anything: today would be the same as tomorrow and the decades ahead. If today is no different than the future, you’re living in the future today. And could we say that’s progress?
To understand that perspective, imagine yourself today and imagine yourself five years from now. Suppose you did the same set of actions for the next five years with slight variance between those actions. That means the you of today is the same you five years from now: the you of five years is no different than present you, except with an even smaller window of life.
But it gets worse: zero progress means the same set of today’s problems persist in the future. Here, the Malthusiastic view of a depleted-resource world becomes a reality: less food, less metals, less houses—less everything.
Even worse: we aren’t making progress when, at the same time, the problems grow. Look at the Malthusiastic view of depleting resources: if we define technology as doing more with less, and that technology requires progress, the opposite must be true: no progress means no technology, which means resource depletion.
With that said, what does that have to do with the same number of countries in the future? Well, let’s take the Malthusiastic perspective as true and technology does not get any better. With dwindling resources and the lack of technology to make up those dwindling resources, we can no longer sustain the same number of countries, like a jug of water with a hole at the bottom. With dwindling resources, the trend of a decreasing number of countries is more of a reality. When resources run low, I suspect countries start making the asymmetric bet of declaring war with one another as a means of gathering resources—a type of “rat in a corner attacks the lion” moment. Or diplomatic approaches, such as purchasing more resources or even buying entire countries. In either case, I can’t help but think that having the same amount of countries in the future is the perspective that is the unlikeliest and the most wrong out of the three guesses.
Though having the same number of countries doesn’t automatically mean zero progress, the odds of zero progress are much higher in this scenario: a stagnating number of countries indicates that people aren’t trying new, audacious things. And if we consider that more countries mean more freedom and more inventiveness, then stagnation of countries means stagnation in both freedom and inventiveness, which ultimately means less freedom and inventiveness.
Fewer countries?
But what if fewer countries exist? Or what if only one country exists? From here, it gets tricky. When people think of a “utopian” world, I think the most common view is a singular government. Talks of “one humanity, one species” are something along the lines of a unified humanity. In this view, people appeal to a unified view of the world because of the unity of beliefs. In such a world, no conflict arises because everyone has the same beliefs, and little reason for a major conflict.
But I believe that a single point of failure—that view of one government, one humanity, one species—is a rather bad one: is one country that controls humanity no different than a tyrant? Suppose you have a dissenting opinion, one that you think is correct but the whole world disapproves of—what would happen to you? I would guess three conclusions: they erase your existence or brainwash you or place you in jail. Let us not forget Galileo.
In the real world, I think humanity is too unique to have a singular government. The predisposition of humanity is that of uniqueness. Genetics makes this so: the amount of genetic variety is near infinite. Life experience also makes this so: because genetics is near infinite, the amount of human perspectives and beliefs is also infinite. Physics makes this so: even twins aren’t exactly the same because of their own atomic position in the universe—a fancy way of saying that no twin exists in a superposition of one another, at least, not to my knowledge. Combine these three, and watch how each person is truly unique (whether they are valuable to you or others is a different question). As such, I don’t see a singular government seeking a universally-accepted comprise among everyone. We would see the opposite: the government sets the hard, red lines, and anyone who crosses those lines must change their ways.
So, in a world with fewer countries, and especially in a world with one government, I think it’s reasonable saying that people would have less freedom.
How would the world stumble into a world of fewer countries? It’s hard making accurate predictions, but I wouldn’t be surprised if an increase in wars and land annexations indicates the fall of liberty.
When we see patches of light dim from cities, are we making progress? Imagine the news: “The nation of XYZ fell.” That doesn’t sound like progress. Imagine if your country fell. Is that progress?
Worse still is the zero-sum nature: as the number of countries reduces, the remaining countries get larger. And the likelihood of total human annihilation increases.
Imagine the scenario of dwindling countries. From 193 countries to 100 countries. From 100 to 50. From 50 to 10. Imagine, now, two countries left in the world. They’re left to fight one another. And the silos are open. Would there be a winner? Or would there be total nuclear fallout?
So, when we witness the number of countries in the world decrease, we must ask ourselves this paradoxical nature: are we moving to a more unified humanity or a more tyrannical humanity?
What does space have to do with this?
Because humans have differences, and we settle difficult differences through war (in the worst-case scenario), one could say that space is freedom.
Trillions of stars float in space. Trillions more of planets orbit around the stars. Most of those planets don’t support human life. But with knowledge, just as we fashion our environments to suit our needs here on Earth, we could fashion other planets and, soon, entire star systems. Indeed, space is freedom.
The pessimists would say that humans are violent, and the optimists would say we’re peace-loving. But humans are both: because we’re violent, how do we survive? Because we’re peace-loving, how do we keep peace? And regarding space, what enables both survival and peace? I have a possible answer: Each person must escape and form their own alliance with their own beliefs, with like-minded people.
Thiel has an interesting idea of how people group themselves.
- Impossible and Desirable
- Impossible but Undesirable
- Possible and Desirable
- Possible but Undesirable
Though Thiel’s matrix is about whether people want a certain technology to exist or not exist, I believe the same logic works for countries.
- Impossible and Desirable: this group is the idealists. They believe in a certain kind of utopia, but that utopia is simply impossible to achieve. And because this type of utopia is impossible, few people try to make this belief a reality. But that doesn’t stop them from believing. From an epistemological view and from a contrarian investor’s view, this group here makes for excellent asymmetric bets.
- Impossible and Undesirable: Whatever their position, they think your country is just wrong and will stumble upon itself and collapse on its own. To them, your country’s existence makes no sense. But because they believe your country’s fall is inevitable (hence they believe sustaining such a country is impossible), they have no urge to destroy your country. These are groups of people you could consider the most wrong. Because they believe your success is impossible, they won’t stop you: “Let a fool be a fool,” is their line of logic. And so you and them continue on separate paths.
- Possible and Desirable: Everyone chooses their version of this group. Here, people group themselves based upon their own beliefs and with groups of people who hold the same beliefs. Here, you find the largest group of people who share the same beliefs as you do. The game of cooperators comes into play: everyone wants to win and help win.
- Possible and Undesirable: this group of people are your enemies. The existence of your beliefs and values is an insult to their own beliefs and values. This group schemes for the destruction of you and your group. Sometimes, these groups of people will have the determination and the sense of urgency to eviscerate everything that composes your beliefs and values. They would seek tactics and strategies that suppress your survival. You find the largest, most devastating conflicts with this group.
So, how does space deal with this? Well, space is free game: it’s better teaming with people who believe certain things are Possible and Desirable while avoiding people who view your and your group’s beliefs as Possible and Undesirable.
Everyone should own a spaceship, especially to escape dangers. Space reduces the odds of conflict because space is just so big—big enough to house an infinite variation of opinion. When in doubt about the dangers humanity inflicts upon itself, never forget the atrocities of politics: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Neglect the freedom to flee, then you risk the state declaring you its enemy and beheading you. With Thiel’s matrix, space helps you seek the Possible and Desirable, building the Impossible and Desirable, while avoiding the Possible and Undesirable.
Gone would the days of succumbing to what you think may be faulty beliefs. The real test is whether any belief stands the test of time, whether people share the beliefs, and then replicate those ideas. And what better way to test beliefs but through space? And when people disagree, there would be no need for violence: they would hop into their spaceship or you could hop into your own spaceship and continue your beliefs in peace.
All of this may sound pessimistic—that sometimes we can’t sort out our differences, and that escaping all this mayhem means going to space. Don’t get me wrong: we could absolutely high-five each other and sort out our differences. The world isn’t as pessimistic as plenty of philosophers would make it. Nor is the world as optimistic as plenty of entrepreneurs would mold it.
Once people proliferate in space, I would guess that things become more like the story of game theory. Specifically, the story of cooperators and non-cooperators: space makes it easier to find who we want to cooperate with and avoid those we don’t. And that idea is similar to the future of a thousand different countries here on Earth.
Echo chambers? Military Weapons and Defenses?
Some people may say that this creates an echo chamber. In that case, we could think of the internet as space. And with the internet, people more than likely stick with their ingroup, making massive echo chambers, namely, political echo chambers. That becomes an epistemological problem: how do you know what you know is correct?
I don’t claim I have the answers here. But so long as human life is n=1, each decision we make is a bet toward what we think is correct. As for determining what is accurate or not… I have no clue. But if human life is n=1, we lean toward making decisions that best fit our view of the world, until the universe corrects us. Hence, you measure an idea through time: will it exist at the end of the universe?
But the point is about not forcing certain beliefs on people: it’s about having people believe their own convictions, and if they make a mistake, they either learn or double down. Think about it as a fail-safe against people who wish to annihilate those with differing opinions. In either case, you would have nothing to do with their lives. You have your own.
I would guess that the greater challenge is about weaponry and defense. You would want to be too expensive to war against: so that means heavily increasing defenses. You would also want to follow the big-stick policy: having the biggest, baddest weapon possible. Large gatherings of people may be the heart of both strong weaponry and defense. That’s because there’s only so much one person could do alone: is it easier to build an airplane with one man or with a hundred men or with a thousand men? In economics, people often quote Adam Smith and how the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. You can see the cooperators vs. the non-co-operators here too. The same logic applies to war.
But, the unsolved challenge rests on the big-stick policy: how do you prevent the strongest group of people from conquering everything? There’s a great historical example here: the United States of America and its discovery of the atomic bomb. What prevented the US from conquering the world from that particular moment in time, especially when the rest of the world had yet to make their own version of the bomb? From a kind of Darwinistic point of view, the US would secure its place on Earth by eviscerating every country that had not developed nuclear weapons. But that didn’t happen. Was it out of kindness? Was it because of the lack of resources? Was it something logistical? Laziness? Was it because of game theory?
And the more destructive a weapon, the more one person controls the world’s fate, the more those questions matter. The danger may be unlikely, but the result of that danger is far too strong.
Hence: space.