I think this paragraph should shed a bit more light on what the author meant:
But if enough people can get to space, they’ll see the planet for what it is: a fragile, magnificent ball with a thin shell of atmosphere protecting it from the entire Universe… and no artificial boundary lines to be seen. We made those ourselves, and we put an awful lot of stock in them. Remembering that fact might also be an important way to make sure our species endures.
I have no problem getting rid of international borders. Just install a global government of my choosing to control everything. No one else will have a problem with my choice, right?
Interesting that this was downvoted - probably because someone was impressed by the importance of remembering that we all need to unite to solve problems. I was trying point out how many problems are solved because we have international borders. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? We at least can limit power at borders. Seeking asylum? Sure is great that there's more than one country. Your government taken over by Communists? At least there are other countries reminding your fellow citizens that Communism isn't the best idea. It's not like you actually need borders to create wars.
Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel argues that Western Europe became more advanced than China despite a head start in China because there were so many countries, so one country's government couldn't ruin things.
This idea of "containment" may have worked well in the past, but is not as practical anymore. The world is so deeply connected, and technology so advanced, that international cooperation is far more essential.
Nuclear weaponry is but one of a number of salient examples. Even such staunch realists as Kissinger have come to recognize that they must be eliminated, and that intense international cooperation will be necessary to do so:
I agree with that. (Well, except for the idea that it's practical to get rid of every last nuke.) We need to work together AND we benefit from having separate countries and borders.
That "fragile" ball and "thin" atmosphere have been going strong for millions and millions of years. What the heck does he consider "enduring"? Fashionable politics really clouds the brain.
Our pretty fragile species. As a ball of rock going through the solar system, the earth itself will keep going until the sun blows up, and so will life itself more than likely. But we don't live in the whole planet, the biosphere (and even more so the section of it we can in) is a fragile shell and its destruction will translate in ours.
But if enough people can get to space, they’ll see the planet for what it is: a fragile, magnificent ball with a thin shell of atmosphere protecting it from the entire Universe… and no artificial boundary lines to be seen. We made those ourselves, and we put an awful lot of stock in them. Remembering that fact might also be an important way to make sure our species endures.