|
| Thread: The Nation of Earth? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted September 01, 2008 07:34 PM |
|
|
The Nation of Earth?
I saw an MVassilev’s post in the Georgia thread, which mentioned the One World Government. It occurred to me that it might be a good topic for discussion, since my opinion is split on the subject.
Of course, one world government would theoretically spell a stop to wars and international conflicts, cold wars, nuclear strikes etc. That would mean that the entire planet would become one single country, so that starving people in Africa and Asia would become a direct problem of the government, and it would become more possible to help them. A lot of funds that are spent on military purposes would instead be spent on research, which could bring the Earth into a golden age of peace and prosperity. Cures for disease would be found much faster, as well as new sources of energy, food-growing techniques, means of cheaper and easier global communication, and accelerated space exploration projects.
In theory.
But if we put aside all the optimism, and inject some common sense into the subject, we can see hundreds of problems just waiting to jump up on the desk, take their pants off and flash their bare arse right in front of the class.
First off, there’s the question of people who do not want to be a part of a global empire. Separatist movements, freedom fighters and terrorists would grow like mushrooms, and the government, being all-powerful and unchallenged, could use any means they wish to quell them. There would be no other nations whose governments might finance the rebel causes, but corruption would flourish – especially among corporations and larger companies - and where there's corruption, you can also find some illegal weapon deals. Either a strict control over the capital by the government would ensue (and no one could be sure that government officials aren’t corrupt too), or the planetary police and the government itself would deny everyone’s right of privacy - over phone, email, anything - because of "security measures" (which is already happening). Probably both. Weapons of mass destruction would of course be held by the government, at least secretly, again for "global security" - to prevent entire cities or nations of proclaiming their independence from the United Nations of Earth or Terran Federation or however it would be called. Oppression and fear would be mixed with expensive and shiny movies, shows and games on TV and internet, in order to keep the masses 1) if not happy, than at least comfortably numb, and 2) aware that there’s nowhere else to go.
There’s also the problem of overpopulation. First off, the government’s funds would be severely drained by the above-mentioned and some other problems, and it would find it hard to maintain normal life conditions in the famine-stricken parts of Africa. Tribal wars would still go on there, and peacekeepers would hardly be able to stop them, since their efforts would be concentrated on combating separatists across the globe. Getting excessive new recruits for the global military-police would rend the entire world a giant battleground of ever-present armed peacekeepers and militiamen. Africans would keep starving while the world gets more and more overpopulated. Huge cities would cover up ever-increasing amounts of space, and produce more and more pollution - because environmental research wouldn’t be the government’s priority with separatists all over the globe.
As for the issues of the government itself – if we wouldn’t want a dictatorship (at least not an apparent one, and especially not the dictatorship of one people over the others), elections would have to take place once in a while. It would only be fair for every country in the world to have someone running for the office; and smaller countries, therefore, wouldn’t have a chance. Only the largest, most populated countries would rule since people would mostly vote for their countrymen as the president. Going Eurosong on them (that is, forbidding people to vote for their own candidates) wouldn’t really work on the level of global politics and democracy (or what’s left of it). Smaller peoples might be satisfied with lower offices for a while, but after some time they're going to ask themselves why wouldn't they take their fate into their own hands. Not to mention election-rigging and everything else that could happen.
Here I mentioned just a few cons, most notable being:
1) Inner conflicts
2) Corruption
3) Oppression and confiscation of civil liberties
4) Excessive propaganda
5) Overpopulation
6) Pollution
7) Elective problems
There’s a lot of others, as well as probably a lot of other good sides of the world government. That’s where you come in. I’d like to see your opinion on all this. Note that I took the example of the world functioning as a single nation with a single government, and various peoples still remembering the age of various countries and ethnicity. There’s also the idea of a global alliance, which also has its pluses and minuses. I thought I’d leave that for discussion. 
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
posted September 01, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
Edited by pandora at 18:30, 02 Sep 2008.
|
Communism was a great idea,unfortunately it would never work on humans.
edit by Pandora: quote removed, completely unneccesary to quote the entire initial post
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted September 01, 2008 11:02 PM |
|
|
Communism IMO,is great in Ideology,just the way it was attempted by USSR failed,due to humane weakness.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted September 01, 2008 11:18 PM |
|
|
|
Nation of earth is too hard to be imagined. The only time humans will ever be unified in anything is if earth is invaded by aliens...
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 01:35 AM |
|
|
I think that a world government would be a good idea, but it would be best if it evolved gradually, because it wouldn't be much fun if all of the national governments disappeared today and were suddenly replaced with a world government. Can you imagine what'd happen?
Bak raised the problem of overpopulation. Well, you can't really permanently raise anybody's living standard by giving them money. That only creates dependence. A much more effective way to help them would be to first, of course, stop their tribal wars, then to improve their health and, this is very important, give them a good education system, and also give them job opportunites by removing trade barriers. And if they had more education and had an opportunities for jobs, especially relatively good ones (not ones like "child soldier" or "drug dealer"), that'd go a long way towards solving the problem of overpopulation. It's a common Malthusian mistake to say that raising the standard of living would result in overpopulation. As Western Europe shows, what happens is rather the opposite. When the opportunity cost of having children increases, people will have less children. Why do so many poor Africans have so many children? There are several reasons, one of them being that they have a low survivability and need to have many for some to survive past childhood, and another being that the parents want support in their old age, but the most important reason is because they can afford to. Ironic, isn't it, that the poorest people can afford (relatively speaking) to have the most children. Why is this so? Because if you have no job, or an extremely low-paying job, it makes relatively little difference to you if you have another child, since the time you would spend to bring him/her up would not be too expensive. On the other hand, rich people (unless they're not squeamish about leaving their kids in daycare all day or rich enough to hire a nanny) have more to lose by having more children. Thus, they have fewer. So raising the African living standard would help reduce overpopulation. (Not to mention that improved sexual education would help tremendously as well.)
Quote:
It would only be fair for every country in the world to have someone running for the office
Why? If there are no more countries, why should there be national candidates?
Quote:
1) Inner conflicts
2) Corruption
3) Oppression and confiscation of civil liberties
4) Excessive propaganda
5) Overpopulation
6) Pollution
7) Elective problems
Wait, isn't that already a problem with most nations around today?  But several of these would might actually be decreased by a world government. There might be less confiscation of civil liberties because often this is done by scaring the populace with an external enemy, and without other countries, this would be much harder to do. (On the other hand, with increased regional conflicts, internal enemies might work just as well.) Same with elective problems and propoganda. I don't see why pollution would increase.
Of course, a world government would give individuals much more mobility, which would be both good and bad. In the economic sphere, this would be good, since people wouldn't be stuck with whatever jobs there are in their own countries. For example, we could have Zimbabwean Sumo wrestlers!  On the other hand, this increased mobility would also result in more mobility for various terrorist groups. Since they are angry because the Western powers are meddling in their affairs, this would be seen as extreme meddling and would anger them even more greatly, and, without national borders, it would be far easier for them to travel and cause trouble worldwide. Also, since there are such wide disparities in the standard of living in different places around the world, I'm worried that the poor yet mobile will flock to the richer areas, bringing their standard of living down, while those who are too poor to be mobile at all will stay, and their areas will get worse too. So it'd be best to raise their standard of living so that there wouldn't be mass migration of the unskilled poor.
Also, an argument often raised by anti-internationalists that may be worth considering is this: today, there are many nations in the world. Some are tax havens, while others are socialist. Some are very conservative, while others are permissive. If a person doesn't like the country he/she is living in, that person can, with enough effort, move to another country, a country that is more favorable to that person's taste. My counterargument to this is that first there should be no place on Earth where people impose their religious beliefs upon others. Secondly, many people are too poor to move in such a manner. Thirdly, a minimal government would permit people to have conservative lives if they wished, but not impose that upon others.
So here is my idea. A worldwide free-trade pact paired with a worldwide guest worker program; also numerous arms reduction agreements. Then replace the national governments with a relatively minimal world government.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 11:16 AM |
|
|
A one nation world would be a bigger mess then current, unless humankind evolved to be over petty differences. Only when people realize that such things as race, sex, personal beliefs, sexual orientation, etc just don't matter...would it work.
As for corruption, got news for you, pretty much all the leaders of the nations are. Some just hide it better. In the past their may have been a few who were actually 'for the people' but now its all about how they can benifit from it.
Governments are not a bad thing. They help get a lot of things done that might not, but everything can be abused, if you know how to do it.  . So..utopia won't be found regardless, until we evolve to have more iq then the nearest rock.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 12:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
A one nation world would be a bigger mess then current, unless humankind evolved to be over petty differences. Only when people realize that such things as race, sex, personal beliefs, sexual orientation, etc just don't matter...would it work.
Wise words.
Right now it simply wouldn't work.
There would be still plenty of those who would consider themselves better because of some unimportant detail and it's so hard to prevent abuses in a multi-national country.
It would be just like it is. Blacks living amongst Blacks, Caucasians among Caucasians, and so on. With all the racism and hatred still around.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 12:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My counterargument to this is that first there should be no place on Earth where people impose their religious beliefs upon others.
Yet you want to impose some other things on them (esp. mandatory classes in schools for example)
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 01:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As for corruption, got news for you, pretty much all the leaders of the nations are. Some just hide it better. In the past their may have been a few who were actually 'for the people' but now its all about how they can benifit from it.
What is this based on?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 02:14 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
They have to know math, don't they? And I think that by high school there should be less of a standardized cirriculum, of course. I'm talking about elementary and middle school. On the other hand, I don't want my tax dollars going to some student who takes nothing but art classes, and then ends up failing as an artist.
Mytical:
In most developed countries, at least in the US, there is relatively little overt corruption. (That is, very few actually come up to politicians and say "If you do this, I will give you money.") The power of various interests comes from organization, access, and the ability to offer jobs. They (for example, the corn farmers) have a common interest (ethanol subsidies), and so can organize themselves pretty well. They can hire lobbyists, who have power not because of bribery but simply because they have better knowledge and better access to the politicians than do most people. And lobbyists can further tempt politicians and their aides by offering them lobbying jobs whenever they (the politicians and aides) are fired/retire/are voted out of office.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 02:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They have to know math, don't they? And I think that by high school there should be less of a standardized cirriculum, of course. I'm talking about elementary and middle school. On the other hand, I don't want my tax dollars going to some student who takes nothing but art classes, and then ends up failing as an artist.
What about those that don't want taxes for math (I'm not talking about arithmetic, but more advanced stuff)? Personally I like math, but I learned it myself. I'm not saying others shouldn't if they like it at school, but if we want a "free choice", then it is either for all, or none at all.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
"More adavanced stuff" can come in handy in everyday life as well.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 02:39 PM |
|
|
Who are you to decide? lol
once, "children fighting in a war" was handy, so thought the great Hitler. I had to use this reference because I love Godwin's Law you know
"religion" can be handy after you die, in some viewpoints (not me, because "handy" is not the word I would use). See?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 03:37 PM |
|
|
@Mvass
I didn't say that higher standard means overpopulation. I said that in order to stop the tribal wars (which would be the first step to a higher standard in Africa) the world government would have to make a LOT of effort and it would still be nigh impossible. Not to mention what would happen if some of the tribes decide to go against the government itself (and they probably would). The police from the "civilized" world would solve the problem of overpopulation right there, with thousands of African corpses lying around all over the place.
Assuming the, shall we say, rather optimistic ( understatement alert) view that problems of that kind could be resolved peacefully, let's take a look at what would happen. I didn't mean that the government should just hand them out some money, but invest in making the entire area(s) a better living space - again, theoretically. But millions of people from poor regions would swell to immigrate to the better-developed ones, such as Europe or USA, and with all of it being the same country, you could have no immigration control of that kind, unless you want to favor some regions over others, which would spell a stop to a global nation. Besides, people from poorer regions would be massively imported as cheap workforce by the global corporations, companies etc. which would mean a drop in the general drop of the overall living standard in more developed regions. Capitalism needs poor people in order to work and poor people need capitalism in order to survive.
Quote:
And lobbyists can further tempt politicians and their aides by offering them lobbying jobs whenever they (the politicians and aides) are fired/retire/are voted out of office.
Isn't this a subtle form of bribery?
Yes, there is corruption today, but imagine it on a global level, with tenfold more government offices, lobbies etc. It would be raging.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 04:14 PM |
|
|
I dont find it likely that ALL countries in the whole would become one nation, ever.
However I do feel that some time VERY far, far, far, FAR in the future the "top countries" would make something like the "Nation of Earth" (this means when we take over other planets and meet aliens etc, if humans are even alive then).
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Guarder
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 04:33 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I dont find it likely that ALL countries in the whole would become one nation, ever.
Well, maybe in the future, but I find it both likely and unlikely. I dunno why
Quote:
if humans are even alive then
After a magazine i read(Science Illustratedin english, illustrert vitenskap on norwegian) human Evolution could take 5 possible ways:
Cyborg s(well, pretty easy to understand. Human become Cyborg)
Gene manipulution( people get gene manipulated to become a perfect race)
Universe people (spesialized for the universe. Can't return to earth)
Back to the nature (only the strongest survive, etc.)
Scramble (all human from all over the world become mixed, so we will look different from any "human type", but still look like humans)
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 04:35 PM |
|
|
Right now, Cyborgism looks more favorable/possible than any other option.But with the current speed of weapon development, its entirely possible we never will get to see any of those options.There will be time, when weapons meant to annihilate planets, will be developed 
____________
|
|
lord_crusader
Promising
Supreme Hero
UHU!! supreme!
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 06:23 PM |
|
|
that's taken from a documentary call it zeigest...
____________
Dig Out Your Soul
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 06:36 PM |
|
|
Cool, I get that the magazine ("Illustrerad Vetenskap" in swedish) each month or something like that along with "History Illustrated" (Ilustretad Historia).
I would like to become a cyborg 
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 02, 2008 06:44 PM |
|
|
Nice,all posts before were deleted.Nice things they did with the ABM part which was not spamm.
Anyway,nuke weaker lands and move on.The way forward.They are gonna do something against the overpopulated earth.
|
| |
|
|
