Riverwind Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 I think if humanity is to continue to survive and prosper on a long time scale, world "government" is inevitable.The uneven distribution of population will ensure that there will never be a world government with elected representatives with decision making power. In fact, I doubt that there will ever be a common currency because different economic needs of different regions will outweight the benefits of a common currency. I think the break up of the larger states into smaller entities is a more likely outcome.The issues and divisions that affect humans on Earth will eventually fade into insignificance as we spread across and settle the galaxy, and either encounter other species, or, if none are found, begin to fight each other on an interstellar scale.Or, more likely, we fade away like the dinosaurs without ever leaving the planet. But in the future, as technology advances...Science fiction is fun but there are limits to what can be achieved. Fusion power may never be economic and even if it was the resources required to produce the goods are finite - especially since new technology offer exploits rarer elements like indium or hafnium. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Bonam Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 (edited) The uneven distribution of population will ensure that there will never be a world government with elected representatives with decision making power. In fact, I doubt that there will ever be a common currency because different economic needs of different regions will outweight the benefits of a common currency. I think the break up of the larger states into smaller entities is a more likely outcome. That's why my scenario relates not to the near future, but to farther away in the future. For now, different regions of the world are too different to be governed by one government. Or, more likely, we fade away like the dinosaurs without ever leaving the planet. We've already "left the planet" quite a number of times. If there was an existential threat that could cause our extinction on Earth, we already have the means and technology to preserve a tiny bit of our civilization elsewhere, so that we would not become extinct as a species. This will only advance as time passes, and the colonization of other worlds will become inevitable. Science fiction is fun but there are limits to what can be achieved. Fusion power may never be economic and even if it was the resources required to produce the goods are finite - especially since new technology offer exploits rarer elements like indium or hafnium. You greatly underestimate what can be done. At the turn of the 20th century (1900), which of the technologies we take for granted today could have been predicted? The world (at least the developed part of it) has been utterly reshaped over the last 100 years, as none could possibly have foreseen 100 years ago. The same will happen again, only even faster and even more spectacularly. Even the examples I have mentioned are probably the least impressive of what we will achieve over the next few hundred years. Consider for example the Law of Accelerating Returns, written by leading technologist and futurist Ray Kurzweil, which states that the pace of advance will only continue to increase exponentially, and backs this up with trends over hundreds or even thousands of years of human history. An excellent read if you have the time. Interestingly, most of his technical (though not economic) predictions in the essay are exactly on the spot. Edited July 27, 2009 by Bonam Quote
Bonam Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 What would be it's mandate? To counteract common threats to humanity (i.e. asteroid collisions, solar anomalies, non-human intelligences, etc) and to undertake projects for the common betterment of humanity (large scale scientific projects, backup civilizations, space exploration and colonization, etc). Deciding if you are poor and deserving or rich and undeserving?Let's not forget what the purpose of a government is. It is to allow each individual to be safe in his person and property. Should it decide who should be safe and who should not? No, these should not be the things that any potential future world government should concern itself with. You know, I was mentioning to someone today how thankful I was to Al Gore for inventing the internet. Al Gore did not invent the internet. With the internet I can be an expert on any subject just by googling it and reading about it. Indeed, an amazing development that has utterly changed our world. Just as will future technological developments. I am no longer dependent upon the expert to tell me I need a new car because my old one is subject to that silent killer - electromagnetic floor mat shifting. Haha, that was a funny advertisement. I think the internet is the biggest reason we do not need big government or World Government. We can look after ourselves like never before. Government is indeed still necessary for purposes of "justice" but that is primarily what it has always been about. Foreign affairs, justice and defence and not redistributing wealth. Well actually I disagree here. The internet is the beginning of the types of tools and technologies that bind the world more closely together. Information from all around the world is instantly available to all humanity. Also I would argue that we are not more able to look after ourselves than ever before. I mean, individually, a person that is interested in looking after themselves can indeed achieve that now, with great success, as they could not in the past perhaps. But the majority of society and the majority of the population does not have this as a goal, instead, our civilizations are growing ever more interdependent. People are more and more specialized into narrow fields, and things that once could be done by anyone with a bit of research/practice (i.e. fixing up a car for example) now (or soon will) require expert knowledge. Nations that were once entirely self-sufficient (i.e. the US) now exist only through a huge global trade network, relying on many other nations around the world. While for now age-old conflicts and economic differences make it impossible for the world to become united, people are nevertheless growing in understanding of one another. For now, no world government is possible, because as you say, any world government that formed in the near future would have completely the wrong mandate (redistributing wealth). But in the farther future, all that may (and most likely, will) change. The relentless advance of technology will drown out these types of factors, and the expansion of humanity throughout the solar system and throughout the galaxy will mean that a government that governs say the Earth (a world government) or even the solar system would still not have control of all of human civilization. Quote
GostHacked Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 That's why my scenario relates not to the near future, but to farther away in the future. For now, different regions of the world are too different to be governed by one government. We see those differences on the country, provincial, municipal levels as well. So yes a one world government can work. Quote
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 What would be it's mandate? Deciding if you are poor and deserving or rich and undeserving? Hopefully when we reach the stage where we can all live together under one set of rules and laws, there will no longer be rich or poor. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 Hopefully when we reach the stage where we can all live together under one set of rules and laws, there will no longer be rich or poor. Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one - John Lennon Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Smallc Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 Essentially, yes. Star Trek also gives a good example of what could be. Quote
Bonam Posted July 27, 2009 Report Posted July 27, 2009 The Star Trek vision of humanity is a bit too perfect, while also neglecting certain obvious developments in technology, as well as of course being hopelessly off on the portrayal of future human demographics. But world government is a common theme in just about all far future science fiction, whether they portray the world as a rosy, perfect, place (Star Trek) or as not much different from today (Babylon 5, etc) or as post-apocalyptic. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) Essentially, yes. Star Trek also gives a good example of what could be. Well, we know what happened to Lennon: Happiness (is a warm gun) Bang Bang Shoot Shoot Happiness (is a warm gun, momma) Bang Bang Shoot Shoot Edited July 28, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shraytus Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Hopefully when we reach the stage where we can all live together under one set of rules and laws, there will no longer be rich or poor. I bet that's what Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Castro were thinking too. Quote
Riverwind Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 That's why my scenario relates not to the near future, but to farther away in the future. For now, different regions of the world are too different to be governed by one government.And why would that change? Look at the example of the US and Canada: a 200 years of a shared culture and language yet there is zero interest in any sort political union beyond free trade agreements. The main reason is most people want to keep government power as local as possible and are not interested in further diluting their power over their lives. If you think about it there will always be economic differences between any two regions. If these regions are not already in a political union there is no incentive to create such a union because the richer regions will end up subsidizing the poorer region. The EU is the execption to this rule because of the WW2 created a generation of people who saw a non-economic benefit in limited union - there are no other places in the world with similar dynamics and the EU political integration has probably gone as far as it will ever go. We've already "left the planet" quite a number of times. If there was an existential threat that could cause our extinction on Earth, we already have the means and technology to preserve a tiny bit of our civilization elsewhere, so that we would not become extinct as a species. This will only advance as time passes, and the colonization of other worlds will become inevitable.I should have said left the solar system. The distances in space are simply too vast and the environment too hostile. We are no where close to having the technology that would allow a self sufficient space colony orbiting the earth (i.e. a colony that does not require a massive infrastructure on the ground to keep it going). And even if we did have the technology there is no where to go unless one presumes that what we know about physics is wrong and faster than light travel is actually possible.Lastly, even if though some amazing effort we did manage to launch a small colony shipship that colony would take generations to reach another habitable planet. By that time they will have adapted to life on a space ship and it is not clear that they would still be able/willing to colonize the planet. You greatly underestimate what can be done.The only thing I an certain of is linear extrapolations of where we are now will be wrong. I also think that there will be technological limits - i.e. problems we are never able to solve despite their science fiction potential. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
charter.rights Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) I bet that's what Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Castro were thinking too. I believe that it is quite possible to live in a egalitarian society and it still be engaged in capitalism. We just have to remove greed as the prime motivator for capitalism and replace it with communal benefit. Our problem as I see it today is that the industrial revolution made and the dependence on usury in the form of the stock market made way for corporatism - a collective greed empire - and we have been conditioned to believe that corporatism is our only way to prosperity. Yet it was capitalism that built the new world, and barter was a large component of that capitalist era. Often times labour was traded for goods or produce, and while merchants sometimes did better than others, they were not so marginally more wealthy that it separated them from the common masses or the community. As well, since tithing was often common it was the merchant class that help financially support communities and bring new technology into remote communities. In some rural communities this form of social cohesion still exists. The problem with globalization is that emphasizes corporatism as the main purveyor of international commerce. It drives off the greed of taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy, while at the same time pretending that it is creating larger markets for domestic goods. Rather than relying on this model as a basis for a One World Government, I think we need to reconsider the community / state model promoted by the UN and give it some teeth, such that all nation /states come to the table as equal partners, with equal weight around the various legislative tables and where the need for consensus (and not US bullying) prevails. That I believe is the only way a one world government could work and only so long as the concept of "world power" and "world domination" is over-ruled by the will of consensus. Edited July 28, 2009 by charter.rights Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
Riverwind Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I believe that it is quite possible to live in a egalitarian society and it still be engaged in capitalism. We just have to remove greed as the prime motivator for capitalism and replace it with communal benefit.There is no such thing as 'communal benefit' - there is only personal self interest. When people talk about 'communal benefit' they are really using that to disguise their own personal self interest. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 There is no such thing as 'communal benefit' - there is only personal self interest. When people talk about 'communal benefit' they are really using that to disguise their own personal self interest. So how do you account for health care and education in this nation? Is that merely a case of enlightened self interest according to you? Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 So how do you account for health care and education in this nation? Is that merely a case of enlightened self interest according to you? Are these enterprises that engage in capitalism? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
kuzadd Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Any talk of world government will get you labelled a conspiracy loon. However, there are organizations promoting it. check out this website and share your thoughts.http://www.voteworldgovernment.org/ one world government would be a massive tyranny, out of touch with and estranged from the populace. even just looking at the nonsense from that site. banning war? how would someone ban war, how much control would have to be exerted over every individual on the planet to ensure no 'war' Control of individuals and their access to resources and more what baloney globaloney! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
charter.rights Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Are these enterprises that engage in capitalism? They could. But they do not necessarily have to. Institutions provided for the benefit of the community have a direct interest to capitalist companies in that wellness and education produce healthy and smart people who contribute to the company (and employee)wealth. In turn the wealth becomes an avenue for the support of institutions. Indirectly, we pay for education and health anyway. So they are in essence capitalist born service. Quote “Safeguarding the rights of others is the most noble and beautiful end of a human being.” Kahlil Gibran “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” Albert Einstein
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Indirectly, we pay for education and health anyway. So they are in essence capitalist born service. No not in the least. Whether the system is socialist or capitalist it is still a social service and has no bearing on the model it originates from. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Are these enterprises that engage in capitalism? Yes and no............ Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Yes and no............ Not education Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Jerry J. Fortin Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Not education Universities generate profits and so do some clinics in Canada. Quote
M.Dancer Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 Universities generate profits and so do some clinics in Canada. What university operates as a for profit institution? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
tango Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 I believe that it is quite possible to live in a egalitarian society and it still be engaged in capitalism. We just have to remove greed as the prime motivator for capitalism and replace it with communal benefit.Our problem as I see it today is that the industrial revolution made and the dependence on usury in the form of the stock market made way for corporatism - a collective greed empire - and we have been conditioned to believe that corporatism is our only way to prosperity. Yet it was capitalism that built the new world, and barter was a large component of that capitalist era. Often times labour was traded for goods or produce, and while merchants sometimes did better than others, they were not so marginally more wealthy that it separated them from the common masses or the community. As well, since tithing was often common it was the merchant class that help financially support communities and bring new technology into remote communities. In some rural communities this form of social cohesion still exists. The problem with globalization is that emphasizes corporatism as the main purveyor of international commerce. It drives off the greed of taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy, while at the same time pretending that it is creating larger markets for domestic goods. Rather than relying on this model as a basis for a One World Government, I think we need to reconsider the community / state model promoted by the UN and give it some teeth, such that all nation /states come to the table as equal partners, with equal weight around the various legislative tables and where the need for consensus (and not US bullying) prevails. That I believe is the only way a one world government could work and only so long as the concept of "world power" and "world domination" is over-ruled by the will of consensus. How do we get over the idea that some people 'work harder' and contribute more 'to the community', while others are 'lazy bums', 'sit around drinking beer', and take from, rather than give to the community? I'm afraid that some people will always insist on more individual rewards for their 'service'. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 How do we get over the idea that some people 'work harder' and contribute more 'to the community', while others are 'lazy bums', 'sit around drinking beer', and take from, rather than give to the community? How would you go about reconciling the differences in "productivity" and "service"? I'm afraid that some people will always insist on more individual rewards for their 'service'. How much in an NHL goal worth? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Riverwind Posted July 28, 2009 Report Posted July 28, 2009 So how do you account for health care and education in this nation? Is that merely a case of enlightened self interest according to you?Most definately. Healthcare is obvious self interest because even people who could theorectically pay for it themselves can likely envisage a time when they could not pay for it. Education is similar since even people who don't have kids often have nephews/nieces.Scratch a socialist and you will find the self interest is the primary motivator. The only thing that seperates that self interest from the self interest of a capitalist is the social seeks to use the cohersive power of the state instead of the cohersive power of a market monopoly. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.