| I mean, why would it be so bad? I assume people feel that they would lose their national identity or something? Guess what folks....when the aliens invade our asses, they're not gonna care if you're American or European or whatever. I mean....OK, maybe that will never happen.... BUT, one day our planet will cease to exist...that is 100% guaranteed. Our only hope would be to band together NOT as separate races or nationalities, but as ONE, as Earthlings. I personally wouldn't mind a New World Order at all....sign me up! |
| Yup, segregating people with imaginary boundaries is what will make us go extinct if anything does it. If we all worked together, we probably would've colonized another planet already. |
| I agree, having artificial boundaries is stupid. However it will continue to exist until we're technologically advanced enough and able to easily provide sufficient resources for everyone. I'd say maybe 75 years from now it might be possible assuming we don't nuke ourselves before then. I assume if we ever have a Mars colony it will exist as a single entity. |
<Something> |
| If you think today's governments are shitty, imagine what one controlling the entire world with nobody to oppose it would do. |
 |
| I kind of agree with Scud on this one. Personally I think that Inter-dependence is a much stronger idea than forcing everyone under the same banner. We already fail to cooperate in segregated groups, and I cannot imagine how much more you would exacerbate the problem by placing us all into one giant group. Identity is too strong a human attribute to remove everyone's nationality as a factor and not alienate everyone in the process. Not to mention the far reaching effects that will have on cultures of macro and micro scales. But, I digress. Issues of this caliber are way beyond my limited scope to address, and I don't have the answers for us to go forward. Hopefully the more intelligent people manage to find some solutions. EDIT: To answer the title, as well, I don't believe it's an inevitability that the world will become one nation. There's a distinct possibility we will destroy ourselves as a species before that happens. Or, we might destroy ourselves by forcing it to happen. |
 |
| i wish the aliens would just come and dominate us all bc humans are weak!!!!!! |
| It is not inevitable, but in many future scenario it is the most plausible outcome. We already have the base technology to make it possible and a fraction of goodwill that shown that people can actually work together on global and regional matter. Now the problem is in what form would it appears? The rise of automation on global scale could help diminishing some production inequality and xenophobia against fellow humans, however it would strengthen the position of the oligarch in society, worse case we're going to live under the rule of the corporate that control these automation. With no power over the means of production ordinary people no longer have the influence to governance, so democracy is the first one to die. Ironically this would brings another ideological wars between a lot of political-economic system, anarcho-syndicalist unions and state capitalist oligarchy probably would be one of the most important in deciding our future. Should the oligarch at that point already had autonomous war machines fully developed (as the current trends heading that way), nothing would stands in it's way to power. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| It's bad because someone in Norway isn't going to truly understand the problems someone is having in South Africa. Or someone from Mongolia not understanding someone's issues in Panama. We're greatly divided geographically and it would be silly to think that just because we are of the same species, that we're all the same sort of people. There are too many differences in our languages, culture, geography, and so on. Thus is it important that people of the same sort govern themselves. |
| Having individual nations also preserves much of the culture belonging to that nation. A world without individual culture is boring, as every nation brings something good (arguably) to the table. Nations competing with eachother in military and economics often results in great advancements in technology. For example alot if the early U.S. space program used technology from German V-2 bombs from WW II. If for whatever reasons you are worried about aliens invading, having nations competing for the biggest stick should be a good thing. |
 |
| A one world government can be appealing, in theory, when you think about all the potential good it could do. What if everyone's needs were met by sharing resources, for instance? But think about actual human history. Governments have committed every atrocity imaginable. It's a simple matter of probability that if you place your life in the hands of the state, it could very easily be ruined at the whim of politicians and petty laws. In the 20th century alone, it's estimated that 262 million unarmed people were killed by their own governments—and that's not counting anyone who died in combat during wars! Many millions of people around the world who did not harm a single soul are rotting in prison. And on and on. Nothing could be more obvious that governments cannot be trusted to safeguard our well-being and freedom. (I'm not saying we don't need government; I'm saying that alone isn't good enough.) Big government is a recipe for disaster. That's why smaller governments are held in such high regard. It's a lot easier to hold them accountable, especially when the populace is armed and able to defend themselves from tyranny. You can throw that out the window if you give one government all the power. If there were a way for a one world government to protect and guarantee the basic rights of every person on the planet (and I would consider this to be allowing them to live their life however they please as long as they don't initiate force, theft or fraud), I would be all for it...but I'd bet that's the least likely scenario. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, as they say. There are ample reasons why a global world order is typically portrayed as a dystopian nightmare. |
 |
| You're wrong. New World Order does not seek to unite us as "earthlings", all they want is money and power. We are only cattle for them. When the little greys invade us, they will negotiate with them. |
 |
| I only see this happening if AI and automation advances to the point where we are all just living in simulations most of the time instead of the real world and the global government just exists as a formality since they wouldn't really have anything to govern. Outside of a scenario like that, I don't see a global government ever forming for obvious reasons. |
 What's the difference? |
| I feel like I can't even argue anymore, there's pro arguments for both sides. It really comes down to preference, there is no global answer, we each go our own way. That said I embrace diversity even though we all strive towards a unifying goal. So, it's fine the way it is, it will be fine the way it will be, options will always be present, no point bickering about it. People, anyway, bicker when uncertain on concepts, so I'm guessing there's something still hanging on the other side for you too. That's all, nothing else to add, just your random "it's all relative" guy passing by. Btw, welcome back? Haven't seen you about. |
| Closer. |
| I feel like a world government would just enslave a former country and breed the inhabitants to work as slaves. I vote no. |
| That's the epitome of political tyranny, the worst future imaginable. Humans are not meant to live in a world government and suffering would be rampant, not to mention cultures would actually die en masse under a world government. |
 |
| A world without borders is scarily feasible. You just need to be willing and able to commit genocide. I think the chance would be for 100% chaos and destruction. If you take away what needed centuries and millenia to form and stabilize you will have a 1000 year long dark age before some similar segregated system will form. Humanity is not the scale humans really can think on. It is a very abstract term. More fundamental questions must be answered. First of all, what is going to motivate the governments of all the nations of the world to take the step of subordinating their rule to the world federation? The already developed countries will use the resources of the under-developed countries to their advantage under the authority of single government. This situation is analogous to that of united nations where the rich nations have a higher power which they use to exploit the poor nations. The world is a lot more complicated than that. There are more things dividing countries than just borders. There's culture, non-compatible value systems, there's tradition, and there's religion. In order to function we need to eliminate religion, culture etc... and that's not easy. Nations have evolved with individual styles. For liberal people like me it may probably be the best option but for sure there are far more worst things that can go wrong. But let's try this inevitable world order right now without eliminating our differences. Imagine that tomorrow we could get rid of all borders, but everyone on Earth had to live under the laws of a single country. Now let's imagine that every person is asked to vote on which country to choose. That's perfectly democratic, right? In that scenario, the most likely winner would be China. With 1.4 billion people, China could easily have a plurality of the vote. Plus that would probably be the fairest outcome. If the winner had been, e.g., Norway, 99% of the people in the world would have to adapt to a new government. With China as the model country, fewer people would have to adapt. Would people in India really agree to live under China's laws that is, under the rule of an unelected party? Would the US? Would Japan? How long before people began to resist China's laws? How long before mass protests began? How long before an insurgency tried to restore self-rule? And how long before China decided to destroy the culture and maybe the people? Let's imagine that China succeeds. Eventually, China encompasses the whole world. Everyone lives under Chinese laws, Chinese customs, and Chinese values. All other cultures are extinct. I have nothing against China. Replace China with the US or India or the EU and you end up with the same result: one culture takes over and every other culture is dead. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
--ALEX-- said: If you're talking about a literal one-world nation the only way for it to stay afloat would be to be an authoritarian police state like the USSR or China. An "economic/political union" would be similar: imagine the EU and their GDPR/Article 13 bullshit but on a global scale and 100x worse.I mean, why would it be so bad? --ALEX-- said: Let me guess, wanting national identity is something only the "alt-right" want and it makes you a bad person worse than 1000 Hitlers. National identity is what prevents the whole world from becoming surburban America with strip malls and Walmarts everywhere or the opposite a Communist shithole like North Korea built around a personality cult.I assume people feel that they would lose their national identity or something? --ALEX-- said: Bullshit.BUT, one day our planet will cease to exist...that is 100% guaranteed. Yes, humans and other animals may go extinct but the planet itself has survived much worse. --ALEX-- said: You can still have cooperation amongst countries while having nationalism.Our only hope would be to band together NOT as separate races or nationalities, but as ONE, as Earthlings. The Warsaw Pact and Comintern both existed and contributed to nationalist movements of many different races for "socialist solidarity", Japan was an Axis country along with Germany/Italy/Finland, The US has a military alliance with various European countries (NATO) and Asian ones (SEATO), etc... |
  |
| With Brexit, Trump and the general resurgence of nationalism across Europe, this seems like a strange time to say that a global government is inevitable. In as far as a global government requires a minimally stable global citizenry, human psychology/sociology may be a limiting factor. An incredibly diverse and geographically dispersed "community" of 8 billion is just so far removed from the small, homogenous communities humans are most comfortable with. Some of today's nations already seem to be pushing the boundaries of how big/diverse human societies can be while maintaining some minimal level of stability. Another potential limiting factor is energy and transportation technology. Even if it's possible to establish something like a global citizenry in principle, it would require a much greater level of global homogeneity and therefore a much higher level of people and things zipping around the globe on a regular basis. The required scale of transportation couldn't be done in a remotely sustainable way with current technology and I don't expect future technology to change the basic picture, but you never know. What I do expect to see more of in the near future is global governance agreements around e.g. climate change. |
JoshApr 3, 2019 7:25 PM
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Lost_Viking said: --ALEX-- said: If you're talking about a literal one-world nation the only way for it to stay afloat would be to be an authoritarian police state like the USSR or China. An "economic/political union" would be similar: imagine the EU and their GDPR/Article 13 bullshit but on a global scale and 100x worse.I mean, why would it be so bad? Imagine living in the same world now and thinking you are free. Imagine browsing the internet and hitting into ads on every step. Imagine going out the house and seeing ads instead of trees.. or walls, or sky, or anything else. Imagine you are free. Imagine waiting to be ruled as a form of free-thought. The world around you doesn't matter. What matters is what's inside you. |
| Closer. |
| It's a possibility, about if it's a good idea, I don't know, many ideas of ideal society which seemed good instead were a failure. We see always the best part of a plan, a definite solution to every problem, but the lif doesn't work that way. Reality is complex and we understand only a little part. Maybe if thgis will happens, at the beginning the system will work really good, but things change in time, the new generations for example could have different opinion to us about this global order, and they could choose to come back at the old system of separate states. And who have the power to amministrate? Each person amministrate from himself or there is a superior group which make choices for the rest of population? And in a global world order I'm not sure than some piece of shit search to obtain the power, I mean who take the power has the control of the entire world So I don't think it's really a good idea, it's too difficult stay in equilibrium, and also if we find a balance, in the time surely each thing will change again |
| Didn't Hitler try something like that? And he's one of the most hated people in history, lol. |
| Rather than having a single nation, just make so the various nations, specially the stronger ones, are not contantly plotting and competing to hog all the resources for themselves and exploit weaker nations into perpetual misery. The problem we have right now is this constant race to grow 'the nation' even, and specially, at the detriment of others. The "[insert nation here] first" modus operandi needs to change to a "humanity first" modus operandi. If we can manage to do that without having to install a single global government, I think that would be preferable. |
HyperLApr 4, 2019 12:19 PM
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
HyperL said: Rather than having a single nation, just make so the various nations, specially the stronger ones, are not contantly ploting and competing to hog all the resources for themselves and exploit weaker nations into perpetual misery. The problem we have right now is this constant race to grow 'the nation' even, and specially, at the detriment of others. The "[insert nation here] first" modus operandi needs to change to a "humanity first" modus operandi. If we can manage to do that without having to install a single global government, I think that would be preferable. I would prefer that over what we have now. Nationalists hate that model too much to comply though. |
| I vote yes to a world government solely so i can live out my dystopian cyberpunk rebel fantasies |
 |
| GWO is an utopia. it's perfect in theory, but flawed in practice. take EU for example. are you satisfied with how the EU maintains the interests of each members? the answer will be vary between "yes", "no", "neutral" and "not sure". even countries that had relatively similar historical and cultural background has different arguments and opinions about what's "ideal". |
 |
| This is a thing I started noticing in future sci-fi recently, where entire planets just have like one central government and countries barely get acnoledged assuming they exist at all. Earth Gov and Earth Dome from Dead Space and Babylon 5 or the Hegemony of Man in Hyperion. The downside of those stories is that all three of those and more either turned evil or ended in cataclysmic disaster. I guess it might work with a few tweaks to not give them too much power, but what do I know. All I have to go on is sci-fi Either way, fuck borders. They cause more problems than they fix anyway |
Rowan_F said: well, sci-fi genre is part of dystopia/cyberpunk culture, so it's understandable why it tend to lead to bad endings.This is a thing I started noticing in future sci-fi recently, where entire planets just have like one central government and countries barely get acnoledged assuming they exist at all. Earth Gov and Earth Dome from Dead Space and Babylon 5 or the Hegemony of Man in Hyperion. The downside of those stories is that all three of those and more either turned evil or ended in cataclysmic disaster. Rowan_F said: i don't think border is in wrong here. it exist to protect citizen, especially if state/country's power where you lived in is inferior than the neighboring countries/states.Either way, fuck borders. They cause more problems than they fix anyway |
|
xaow said: I vote yes to a world government solely so i can live out my dystopian cyberpunk rebel fantasies Hell Yeah! Break out the 83' Firebird and sawed off! |
|
Rowan_F said: This is a thing I started noticing in future sci-fi recently, where entire planets just have like one central government and countries barely get acnoledged assuming they exist at all. Earth Gov and Earth Dome from Dead Space and Babylon 5 or the Hegemony of Man in Hyperion. The downside of those stories is that all three of those and more either turned evil or ended in cataclysmic disaster. I guess it might work with a few tweaks to not give them too much power, but what do I know. All I have to go on is sci-fi Either way, fuck borders. They cause more problems than they fix anyway For a singular archaic state model (aka the Empire) it is actually depends on the capability to extend our borders further onto space. Think about it like the historical Mongol Empire or Macedonian Empire that keep on expanding, moving newly conquered nations forces to the front line. The earth hegemony can be preserved by a constant hunt (or fight) for the unknown. We don't really need aliens. Exploration, colonization (similar to the rush to the New World/america), and space pirates/separatists, is good enough to keep earthlings busy. It is of course would eventually fell apart, but for a short while the earthlings could exist as one entity. Historical model though, even if we're under one overlord empire, people would still fighting each others, because unfortunately that's how an empire always works. Each kings/sovereigns still has the rights to wage wars with their neighbors provided the imperial court law allowed them to. The UN Security council in today's world is supposedly this, and see how easy it is to be overruled with enough military and political force. |
| The most important things in life is the people that you care about |
| The problem with governments maintaining control over large swaths of territory (especially in the case of a one world government) primarily has to do with the logistics of it. In the case of the British Empire (or really any other empire, for that matter), its dominance was secured through brutal subjugation. I doubt anyone advocating for a one world government would want such a thing, so some sort of democratic structure would need to be implemented. The problem with this is that either individual regions would need to be able to self-govern well, leading to a more confederated style of government, or a large centralized government, with a bureaucratic system that would make even the Byzantines blush. Quite simply, a one world government would need to be extremely authoritarian with such a structure. That being said, concerns about cultural erosion are largely invalid in my opinion. A one world government would really only be able to function properly if it accommodated the needs of every culture on a regional basis. Attempting to supplant one culture for another using such means would only foment conflict, and it's unlikely such a government could exist using such means to begin with - the problem is essentially a non-starter at that point. |
| People who put MAL stats in their sigs are losers lol |
| All Mienus and SadMadoka said. World Government will either be: 1- An horrible dystopian tyranny, massacring dissenting people unnoposed, a la 1984. Would kill and destroy every culture and religion for the sake of creating some sanitized artifical common ground (insert there your favorite do-not-want flavor: american mass consumerist attitudes, Tankie authoritarism, some autistic esoterical nonsense like teosophy or perennialism...). Or just genocide other races but one, because, why not. They can! 2- Or "just" a incompetent-by-nature disingenuous project: Most of the voting decisions in the democratic Republic of Earth would be from India and China, do you think they have the pople of Paraguay/Kuwait/etc in their best interests? Even if they had, they probably can't grasp their realities full on. Even if said global-democracy had high-level federalism to address the localist questions, how about the logistics of combating world crime, smuggling of weapons/drus/sex slaves, all now very easy. Part of the reason the Soviet Union fell apart was because the minor republics believed they were but office-boys of the Russian Federative Socialist Soviet Republic, all while the Russians believed they were working to sustain much poorer places than their perceived nation (amd other being the absolute failure of planned economy to unleash the third industrial revolution, stagnating since the 1970's). Imagine that on a larger, global scale. Peaceful dissolution after a few decades of economic turmoil would be the BEST alternative. Because the other is Global Civil War, with nationalities seceding, and some nationalities inside those seceding as well. Civilizational collapse, neo-feudalism of micro-states waging war on one another. TL;DR: Do not want. Yes, would be bad. No, not inevitable. What the world is transitioning for the most part is for more natural common grounds and cooperation. Almost no one want to be part of one nation. Also, most of the reaction to it (who yes, has a lot of fashy f*cks) is born/strenghtnened because some politicians (hello, Macron/Tusk/Merkel) are forcing their hand so much on it; EU would lost over half of it's opposition if they stopped those retarded plans of further political integration (preferably, even diminish it a little). No one, sans vapid utopian hippies want a United States of Europe, they just want their nations to do good trade and be in peace with one another. But still existing. |
| FGO NA Code: 482.072.599 (F2P thug life of savings...) Ben-to! best nonsensical action anime. Ever. |
More topics from this board
» What kind of familiar would you like to have irl?Cute_Marseille - 11 hours ago |
6 |
by Cute_Marseille
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» How important is football in the West?Rally- - Apr 8 |
44 |
by MadanielFL
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Sticky: » General Advice Thread v2 ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Fluffygreygrass - Sep 13, 2024 |
269 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What are you doing right now? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )-Mayhem- - Dec 25, 2020 |
1804 |
by RainyEvenings
»»
2 hours ago |
|
Poll: » Are you a neet or a wagie ( 1 2 )MYZIC - Jul 29 |
57 |
by RunariNoctis
»»
3 hours ago |