Thanks for the clarifying question. It's the impersonal "you"; although I think specifically the personal "you" would be even more interesting. I updated the question.

Thank you for your answer! I'd want you to expand on all points, but will be more reasonable and prioritize my curiosity; re 2: does it creates more failures than successes because a) more people start a startup as a result, thinking it will be easier than it is, b) harder to get profit because competition is more fierce, or c) other reasons?

For your information, the above two links were judged as wrong

@davidad, any updates on your work?

I have the impression that the more unified the world is, a) the less likely wars are, b) the easier it is to coordinate to solve global problems. It would also create more economic prosperity. But some forms of globalisation could also make our civilisation less robust. Anders Sandberg says the extent a feature is globalize should be proportional to the extent that feature's impact is global (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91FKgBURAV0).

awesome, thanks a lot! :)

@habryka, I don't see Intercom, but I'm still interested in having my username changed; thank you!

ah, right, the premise of my question might be wrong! do you think colonies is a more likely outcome? why? (will update the question's description)

Epistemic status: arm chair thinking

I wonder if an Antarctic mass migration would lead to the UN working closer together to develop international laws, which would consequently increase international cooperation.