LONGECITY

I'm just interested in what your takes are on the formation of a worldwide government rather than several sovereign countries attempting to run things (no, not those conspiracy theories...)

I'm personally for it, but my line of reasoning is entirely independent...I'm very probably have holes in my opinion and maybe I can see a better point of view from the responses.

Globalization, the U.N., general interconnectivity and the human knowledge- and opinion-base, the internet and other theorized or confirmed examples alike would be nice.

Do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing?

It's a nice ideal that would probably never work in practice.

If the world government had constitutionally limited power and guaranteed basic rights like free speech, then maybe. Unfortunately there are relatively few governments in the world today that guarantee free speech....so a world government might not either.

That being said, with the advent of rapid global communication it seems national borders are naturally and slowly dissolving and some sort of global governance or cooperative management will eventually evolve.

I want there to be free trade among all countries, but a one world "government" (governing body responsible for taxation, passage of laws, etc.) would too easily become corrupt, imo, mostly through lobby groups and the like. If we could have a one world government whose only job was to protect the peace, and it stayed that way, then I would probably be for it, but it will never happen.

terrible idea.

terrible idea.

Alright, then what is your take on why it's a terrible idea?

As long as humans are humans, it wouldn't work. You would need a complete paradigm shift among the population to have any semblance of justice, order, progress, or efficiency.

Edited by advancedatheist, 05 October 2007 - 01:18 PM.

Freaky, it's like they knew what was going to happen.

Will be a great thing to have after we have obtained immortality and accomplished the singularity. Kinda like the federation in Star Trek. I'm all for it as long as there is some kind of paradigm shift.

"With the use of computers..." Because the Bible mentions computers and all.. [glasses]

["With the use of computers..." Because the Bible mentions computers and all.. [glasses]

Of course. If your name doesn't show up in the Database of Life, you have to go to the fiery furnace.

As long as humans are humans, it wouldn't work. You would need a complete paradigm shift among the population to have any semblance of justice, order, progress, or efficiency.

Why not? Because people are hopelessly tribal/nationalistic? How does it work in a country like America where you have a lot of different cultures and ethnicities brought together? I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

Why not?  Because people are hopelessly tribal/nationalistic?  How does it work in a country like America where you have a lot of different cultures and ethnicities brought together?  I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

How does it work in America? I'm not sure it works that well. I'd say America has grown larger than optimal.

A democracy would cease to function at that level. You'd be looking at a dictatorship and all the ugliness that comes with it.

You'd be looking at a dictatorship and all the ugliness that comes with it.

More or less ugly than this?

Kebert Xela, that thing is hideous.

International government... I dislike our national government enough. I am all about giving back power to the states.

I see a stronger international government as a greater threat to world peace than as a protector of it: What happens when the international government becomes corrupt or heavily affiliated with special interest groups.... People will rebel.... Star Wars? Seriously though: it would be like getting aids to cure being fat.

Wars NEVER benefit the entire population of even the "winning" country and they certainly don't collectively benefit all parties involved ("winning" + losing side). That said it almost ALWAYS benifits war time industries and most importanly: Governments. (Just look at any presidents approval ratings as a country goes through war.) Truly, "War is the Health of the State". As common people around the world become more interconnected via trade and the internet, war will hopefully become a thing of the past. The people is what will save the world from wars, not the government. (I will also add that implied in having an international organization 'fix' things is regime change through violence)

Seriously, do we possibly need more government??!??!?!?!

A related topic that I started months ago:

http://www.imminst.o...=179&t=14439&s=

Kebert Xela, that thing is hideous.

IMO, if you look at all the various governments currently in power, I think you'd have to mix and mash them all together to try and assume what a world government might look like. Since most people seem to dislike governments, many for valid reasons, I don't really see how a world government could ever work. Now, if there was a global pact that unified all countries into one forum (UN with all countries), there could be more collaboration for the global economy, human rights, special interest, etc...

I think it's hard to envision such a thing at the current moment given all the situations we're exposed to on a daily basis, however, what I like to keep in mind is that most of the higher-end post-industrial countries are placing more emphasis on learning, freedom, and personal prosperity. If we're lucky enough to someday have the majority of countries who fall into this trend, the global mindset will be different from what it is today, and then the unified group/council would be run more effectively, and goals/challenges could be tackled more effectively as a global whole.

I was thinking more of a the-countries-are-states sort of model or a global U.N. where that organization has enough power to accomplish things.

I've always found it rather idiotic that we've divided ourselves by both physical barriers and by imagined lines for so long; we're all human, and if nothing else we share a nearly identical genetic code that would be easy to rally around if people could see it.

...but on the other hand, we're all human. Things might fall into discord easily through any number of ways: corruption, disinterest, political conservatism, etc.

Two arguments come to mind: one for, one against.

The argument for such an organization is simple (but only speculative) extrapolation: following the evolution of organization, we first see ourselves in little packs; then in moderately-sized tribes; followed by alliances within the tribes, where people frequently trade with each other and travel to the other tribes' territories; (relatively) clipping its heels the formation of the feudal system and other methods that contain a large number of people. Then hundreds of years later full-fledged countries using a Democratic or Communistic style of government; followed by colossal countries who trade with each other, make agreements, where the citizens travel to each other frequently.

To cite a few examples: NATO, the U.N., embassies, etc. I find this to be surprisingly parallel to simple tribes allying with each other before actually banding together under a single leader. I can see that - to at least a degree - there is a general human want to be organized. Political evolution shows the development of simple group-minded leadership, monarchies, dictatorships, to both things like Communism (along with constitutionally-binded governments). In order to suite that organizational necessity, we develop new methods to suite the growing number of people. Hypothetically, we could just be going into a more cooperatively-minded society like more primal societies went into.

An argument against such a formation is based on what many people in this thread think (and I agree with): humans may have a limit to how much organization they can have in terms of population. It might turn into a dictatorship because that is the only thing that could bring some semblance of order to the chaos that is everyday life, or perhaps sheer political corruption (the more people, the more power - ergo more corruption) could kill the government from the inside out.

A democracy would cease to function at that level. You'd be looking at a dictatorship and all the ugliness that comes with it.

What sets that level? It used to be on the order of 10-100,000 a long time ago - now it is closer to 100 million - 3 billion. Our political and communicational tools have developed accordingly to encompass this many; I think that level changes with our political systems and our methods of communication. The television and radio revolutionized the Democracy because voters had access to the viewpoints of the people they were voting for, as opposed to word-of-mouth propagating false information.

As long as humans are humans, it wouldn't work. You would need a complete paradigm shift among the population to have any semblance of justice, order, progress, or efficiency.

It wouldn't work without a complete paradigm shift, no - but we have had them in the past. It would be entirely illogical to assume that one will happen in the future just because we've had them in history, but one can still extrapolate the possibility.

It is extremely unlikely to happen without a quite large change in socio-political thinking, political tools and definitely our tools of communication - however it is possible that it could work sometime in the future.

terrible idea.

Alright, then what is your take on why it's a terrible idea?

because currently when you can't stand the rules in one area it is at least possible to go somewhere else. One world government is far too dangerous.

because currently when you can't stand the rules in one area it is at least possible to go somewhere else. One world government is far too dangerous.

So, If I was an Iraqi, and I didn't like all the shooting, I could pack up my family and move to America! Oh, wait...

One thing that would stand in the way of a federalized world is the relative wealth of nations. I think we'd need to have per capita GDPs that were closer than an order of magnitude for such a thing to fly. We are heading in that direction, but we are not there yet. You'd also need a way to set up the people who have power now to have a better deal under the new system, in order for them to go along with it. If any of us are around in a thousand years, I'm sure we'll have observed a whole bunch of social and political experiments.

because currently when you can't stand the rules in one area it is at least possible to go somewhere else. One world government is far too dangerous.

So, If I was an Iraqi, and I didn't like all the shooting, I could pack up my family and move to America! Oh, wait...

No no, I think it means that, if you are an American and don't like the draconian intellectual property laws and corporate-driven restrictions on access to generic, low-priced pharmaceuticals, then you could move to Australia! Oh, wait... (#$%#$% Free Trade Agreement).

We let anyone come in to America as long as you come across the Mexican border. )

People are overlooking the excellent architectural opportunities that would arise with a single World Government. The capital would obviously require some epic-scale buildings to suitably intimidate the outlying provinces. I'm thinking marble and massive stone blocks. And concrete. Lots and lots of concrete! But importantly, no plant life that could diminish the cold totalitarian effect.








(click here for big version)
Edited by basho, 06 October 2007 - 09:03 AM.

If you want to avoid the mark of this one world government beast power that's coming you might consider living communally so you don't need to buy and sell as an individual. The beast will be required to grant religious exemptions to those who live communally without private property and money according to the Scriptures. Give it serious consideration. Your longevity will depend on the choice you make.

People are overlooking the excellent architectural opportunities that would arise with a single World Government.  The capital would obviously require some epic-scale buildings to suitably intimidate the outlying provinces.  I'm thinking marble and massive stone blocks.  And concrete.  Lots and lots of concrete! But importantly, no plant life that could diminish the cold totalitarian effect.








(click here for big version)

Check the Parliament of Romania; make it a bit more fancy and renewed and it certainly could be one of the world capital main buildings:

Your longevity will depend on the choice you make.

How could you possibly know that? You evangelize constantly, but there is simply no way you could extrapolate such things to back it up.