You need to ask this question because this is exactly what could/is going to happen. There won't be wars, there won't be deaths, there won't be an arms race. The effects on destroying the internet will be even more severe to a sociological standpoint than any war ever.
On the other hand, it's important to consider that the internet has many negative sociological effects which presumably would cease to be if the internet died one night. Ideological echo chambers, the ease of starting witch hunts both figurative and literal, oversocialization, pathological altruism and virtue signalling etc. would all be greatly diminished. Social media is a drug, and a very addictive one for many people.
The real reason we can't abolish the internet is because it would be too expensive. Think of all the systems like banking and our very infrastructure that involve computers talking to each other. You would need to rebuild entire sectors of the economy. If Y2K had been as bad as some doomsayers claimed, it would have been among the costliest disasters in history and that was 21 years ago.
Exactly. It needs to be forced because if left to the individual things like this and worse will happen (nuclear reactors exploding, viruses escaping, global terrorism).
While this does mean we need globalism, it doesn't mean the globalism as we know it. I don't know what the model would look like but probably would resemble the European Union (on a regional level or something like FDR's "Four Policemen") or a colonial empire (dominant country leading weaker countries around the world). A trusted supervisor unelected by the local people operates sensitive facilities where I'd include "anything with the capacity to kill lots of people" so this would include nuclear power, hydro dams, biological research facilities, and such. The UN already has a lot of institutions like this, they're just mostly powerless and corrupt.
You of course run into the problem of who gets to be the trusted supervisor and just look at IRL where the WHO is led by a Chinese puppet "doctor" (Tedros Adhanom is Ethiopian, and Ethiopia takes a lot of money from China and even styles their government and economy on China) who gave a confused response, continued to repeat China's lies, and will not push China hard enough to reveal their cover-ups, distortion of critical information, etc.
There won't be a cultural problem if there is no culture. The only culture is a technoculture that applies logic and reason to societies problem, disregarding the individuals emotions to accomplish the success of quality standards of livings with equity to all.
There won't be poor people or rich people if everyone can access to the same things. What there will be is people with power or people without power. Civilians and Citizens.
And that's where the need for social engineering comes in, because such values are anathema to many cultures including my own. I believe they conduct social engineering all the time to bring us closer to their model society, but it won't be successful until they have literal brainwashing, destruction of the family, and a sort of inverted totalitarianism (which the United States has been sliding toward since 9/11, a trend that's accelerated the past few years) to enforce conformity.
But even then I'm skeptical it could work. They want to blend the cultures into some consoomerist mud people, but if you take your average Swede who converts to Islam to marry a Somali, neither of the two nor their children are going to be pulling new values out of thin air. Sure, their mixed-race kid might grow up a tolerant liberal Muslim and be into consooming but just as much they're likely to be involved in crime or jihadism or whatever.
I know is really hard to understand and that is why futurists like Elon Musk talk in code most of the time. Because is really really really difficult to grasp the concept of a society without exchanges of currency. And most people (you can see it in this thread) will try to vilify such concepts because they are rooted in capitalists dogmas where power is equal to money.
A moneyless society can't happen, because scarcity is a fundamental law of nature. If Globohomo Inc. issues me a card I can swipe that gets me everything for free, what stops me from taking everyone's soy and bug rations? This means my card has limited value (i.e. my UBI). But there will be a global elite who has cards with bigger limits. The cards with the biggest limits will be the banks, since banks need to deal with transfers of money. Now these banks might not be banks as we know them, since presumably they're trading in some fictitious unit to track production. Science fiction likes using energy units as currency but some cryptocurrency or fiat currency would work just as well for this purpose. Even a planned economy needs a way to track production.
I talk in code when I say that
ignorance is a choice and that the only
law is your will, because the great reset has its foundation on esoterism and the occult. And I support them because mankind can't continue like it is, is self destructive and we won't last 50 years like this.
The world economic forum plainly and openly say it: We need leaders. We need innovators. We need change.
Change will happens. You like it or not. The whole concept of Hegelian Dialectics where history is in a constant loop has to be destroyed and if that means doing it by force and forgo the illusion of democracy, then it must be done.
Change will happen, but it doesn't have to completely and utterly warp humanity and result in a plastic and hollow society. Even if many of our current ways of governing society are obsolete in the face of technology (or will be), it doesn't mean we need to throw out humanity's soul and destroy the diversity of the world.
The problem isn't so much finding an alternative but presenting it in a coherent and organized push like is being done with the Great Reset. Slogans, propaganda, media, politicians, all of that. The Great Reset does so well because the biggest alternative that people have presented is conservative "let's stay the same" (which has never succeeded, ever) or outright reactionary proposals like the white nationalist obsession with traditional Catholicism and paganism. For the latter I'd also consider other right-wing ideologies like Hindu nationalism as well as traditional leftism (whatever is left of it) like communism and anarchism who tend to poorly update the theories of their favorites like Trotsky or Mao or whoever to the Information Age.
