Is One World Government Possible?

Jerry J. Fortin · July 28, 2009

What university operates as a for profit institution?

I didn't say that now did I? I did say they generate profits, but that is not the same thing.

Smallc · July 29, 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.

It is too perfect...for the world that we live in today. As time passes, I fully expect us to evolve to something not as perfect as that (though I'm sure we'll develop new technologies), but I do expect it to be different from today...hopefully more peaceful.

Wilber · July 29, 2009

I didn't say that now did I? I did say they generate profits, but that is not the same thing.

If universities were profitable they would not need any government funding. Making a buck here and there is not generating a profit.

OddSox · July 29, 2009

If universities were profitable they would not need any government funding. Making a buck here and there is not generating a profit.

Umm, almost every 'for-profit' company in Canada makes use of government funding in one way or another...

Bonam · July 29, 2009

It is too perfect...for the world that we live in today. As time passes, I fully expect us to evolve to something not as perfect as that (though I'm sure we'll develop new technologies), but I do expect it to be different from today...hopefully more peaceful.

More peaceful? Certainly we may fight each other less, as we encounter other cultures more alien and fight them instead. Even in Star Trek, interstellar war is a fact of life. The galaxy, and the whole universe itself has only a finite amount of resources, a finite amount of energy that can be extracted before the universe reaches its maximum entropy state. There will always be competition for such resources, however far we progress.

Machjo · July 29, 2009

I think a decentralized world federation could be possible, but it would first have to establish a common second language at least. Just look at the problems we have now in Canada with just two official languages and the First Nations, or the EU with its army of translators and interpretors, or the UN with its six official languages and little access to it for thsoe who don't speak one of those languages.

A common second language woudl undoubtedly be a reprequisit, or at least co-requisite, of any kind of world federation.

July 29, 2009

I think a decentralized world federation could be possible, but it would first have to establish a common second language at least. Just look at the problems we have now in Canada with just two official languages and the First Nations, or the EU with its army of translators and interpretors, or the UN with its six official languages and little access to it for thsoe who don't speak one of those languages.
A common second language woudl undoubtedly be a reprequisit, or at least co-requisite, of any kind of world federation.

So do we pick the most common language, a obscure rarely used language, or do we make up a new one.

Edited July 29, 2009 by TrueMetis

charter.rights · July 29, 2009

I think a decentralized world federation could be possible, but it would first have to establish a common second language at least. Just look at the problems we have now in Canada with just two official languages and the First Nations, or the EU with its army of translators and interpretors, or the UN with its six official languages and little access to it for thsoe who don't speak one of those languages.
A common second language woudl undoubtedly be a reprequisit, or at least co-requisite, of any kind of world federation.

Language is irrelevent. Translators can bridge almost any gap in language.

In fact in order to find a true consensus it is very well important for different representatives to think and speak in their own languages. Language is connected to worldview and one must not lose sight of their own worldview when participating in international discussions.

Canada works fine. The only real complainers are the extreme right wingers that believe their Chicken-Little worlds will come crashing down if they don't demand that Eh-Gana-duh-Eh English be spoken only in their presence. Otherwise we get along despite the differences in language and regions.

Topaz · July 29, 2009

I don't think you could have a one world government. Do you really think that US, Russia, China, N.Korea would let any one of them rule the world or any other country? To out law war...the military and the businesses that produce military weapons and sell them would lose big time. Unless aliens come down from space and tells it like its going to be, there not a chance in hell, we can't even have peace, how would you have one world government?

Smallc · July 29, 2009

Though it isn't the most widely spoke language yet, English is quickly becoming the language of world business and science. It's replaced French for the most part in that regard. It is probably the language that would need to be used.

charter.rights · July 30, 2009

Though it isn't the most widely spoke language yet, English is quickly becoming the language of world business and science. It's replaced French for the most part in that regard. It is probably the language that would need to be used.

It is also one of the least expressive, and inconsistent languages in the world.

No wonder the English have been in the centre of some of the world's most violent conflicts......One can say "yes" in English and really mean "no"! ya...a...a...

Smallc · July 30, 2009

Right. Doesn't really change the fact that it is quickly becoming the international language.

Riverwind · July 30, 2009

It is also one of the least expressive, and inconsistent languages in the world.

Least expressive? A matter of opinion. Inconsistent? Yes, but that also means it is a very forgiving language when spoken poorly (i.e. english can be mangled yet remain comphrensible).

Bonam · July 30, 2009

It is also one of the least expressive, and inconsistent languages in the world.
No wonder the English have been in the centre of some of the world's most violent conflicts......One can say "yes" in English and really mean "no"! ya...a...a...

Expression in English can rise to heights no lesser than those of just about any other language. One need only look at the great works of English literature for confirmation. There are certainly also works of great merit in many other languages, but the English ones are by no means inferior.

As for consistency, formal English language is no less logically and systematically based than many other languages. It abandons the use of genders, (almost all) conjugations, etc, in favor of a simplicity and consistency, as well as the extensive use of prepositions and other parts of speech that more explicitly indicate the interrelation of the words in a sentence. It also rejects the extremes of agglutinative languages such as German, etc.

English also is the language which has adapted and created by far the most technological and scientific vocabulary. Even other living, vital languages of technologically advanced nations borrow words heavily from English when speaking of matters technical or scientific.

As for its use as an international language, it is not yet a foregone conclusion, but it is very likely. It is taught as a second language around the world by far more than any other language. It is used as the language of science and technology in nations around the world, and as such is understood at least on a rudimentary level by technical professionals almost anywhere on Earth.

Also, your statement that the use of different languages is beneficial to coming to a consensus seems completely backwards. As you say yourself, language affects world view, and those who share a more similar world view will be more likely to be able to come to agreement on anything. Thus the use of a common language should facilitate more understanding and cooperation, not less. How many conflicts and hatreds throughout history have been contributed to by the people of opposing sides being unable to understand each other? How often has the language of the enemy been portrayed as inane babble, as barbaric, as uncouth, uncivilized, to perpetuate hatred? The use of translators is not a solution - have you ever gone to a meeting or conference where you had to wait for a translation before understanding the speaker? It is a huge barrier, and without it, it is much easier to come to understanding and agreement.

All that being said, the current demographics of the world do not bode well for English continuing its dominance on the international scene.

Riverwind · July 30, 2009

All that being said, the current demographics of the world do not bode well for English continuing its dominance on the international scene.

You forget that English is widely used within Indian society (not without controversy albeit). As India grows in economic status its use of English will likely help ensure the dominance of English as the language of international commerce for a few more generations.

GostHacked · July 30, 2009

It is also one of the least expressive, and inconsistent languages in the world.
No wonder the English have been in the centre of some of the world's most violent conflicts......One can say "yes" in English and really mean "no"! ya...a...a...

English is elegant and very expressive. You just need to learn some of it. Some posters on this board show top notch examples of it. My late Oma just loved the english language over german/polish that she grew up with. The one thing she said was that she could express herself in more detail and with better words in english. German just does not have that flexibility. Simply there is no german equivilent for many english words.

There are other languages that are not consitant as well. Get a Frenchman and a Quebecios talking. It's kind of funny, trust me. I am also going to say that English is not consistant, but when you have several groups semi isolated from each other (kind of a crappy example but) like Australia, England, Canada, USA. We all speak english, but we all speak it differently, and at the end of the day we can still be on the same page with the commonality in the language among us.

Machjo · July 30, 2009

So do we pick the most common language, a obscure rarely used language, or do we make up a new one.

Depends. If we want a more elitist system, then let's choose English, that way, native English speakers aside, only the academic elite and a few others who'd have had the chance to learn English well could truly benefit from it.

If, however, we'd want a more just system that allows even the less educated to be able to learn the official language before the end of high school, then we'd need to adopt, revise, or create an easy second language to then be gradually introduced in schools worldwide.

Machjo · July 30, 2009

Language is irrelevent. Translators can bridge almost any gap in language.
In fact in order to find a true consensus it is very well important for different representatives to think and speak in their own languages. Language is connected to worldview and one must not lose sight of their own worldview when participating in international discussions.

Canada works fine. The only real complainers are the extreme right wingers that believe their Chicken-Little worlds will come crashing down if they don't demand that Eh-Gana-duh-Eh English be spoken only in their presence. Otherwise we get along despite the differences in language and regions.

I'd served as an interpreter at a meeting in Montreal once. The debate: whether to buy an expensive high-tech interpretation system, which would involve building a small room for the interpretor and wiring the hall so that people could plug in their interpretation devices. It was to cost a few thousand dollars, and this for a non-profit organization, just so that they could replace the current consecutive interpretation with simultaneous interpretation.

Anyway, one francophone argued in French that it wasn't needed and that Anglophones should just learn French out of respect for the locals. The Anglophone responded in English that he was learning French, but that in the meantime, he'd need interpretation.

Finally, that same francophone signalled to me not ot interpret, switched to English, and called the Anglophone a Nazi.

This just gives some idea of how harmonious our country really is. I've lived in many parts of Canada, both French and English, and can tell you many more such stories I'd come across within a multi-lingual setting.

A united country would require one language, and a world federation would be intended as a country after all, no?

Machjo · July 30, 2009

Though it isn't the most widely spoke language yet, English is quickly becoming the language of world business and science. It's replaced French for the most part in that regard. It is probably the language that would need to be used.

That's fine as a language of business, science, etc. But certainly not a language for a democratic world government supposed to ba accessible not just to international businessmen and scientists, but to the electorate. It depends on whether we'd want a grassroots world federation or a more elitist one.

Personally, I'd be opposed to a world federation if it were just to benefit the elites of society.

Oleg Bach · July 30, 2009

No it is not possible - every person deserves atonomy- you have to have walls - rooms - the sacred individual must be allowed to focus and generate his or her gifts into the world - Utlitiarianism - removes the abitlity for the individual to assist the collective - let each have their own home and mind - One man is worth the full empire of Rome - Rome or one world governance is to take us all and turn us to grey un-dynamic sludge - It would mean the end of progress.

Machjo · July 30, 2009

Though it isn't the most widely spoke language yet, English is quickly becoming the language of world business and science. It's replaced French for the most part in that regard. It is probably the language that would need to be used.

I suppose a radically simplified form of English would be worth considering, but it would need to undergo so much revision that it would be a new language after the revision process anyway.

Machjo · July 30, 2009

It is also one of the least expressive, and inconsistent languages in the world.
No wonder the English have been in the centre of some of the world's most violent conflicts......One can say "yes" in English and really mean "no"! ya...a...a...

Least expressive? It's a quite rich and nuanced and expressive language, just too difficult as a universal auxiliary language beyond the elite classes and native English speakers.

Machjo · July 30, 2009

Right. Doesn't really change the fact that it is quickly becoming the international language.

I remember reading statistics that though about 25% of the world is learning English as a foreign, only about 10% really know the language well, and this includes native speakers!

Machjo · July 30, 2009

Least expressive? A matter of opinion. Inconsistent? Yes, but that also means it is a very forgiving language when spoken poorly (i.e. english can be mangled yet remain comphrensible).

Not forgiving at all. According to one researcher, an estimated 15% of air crashes are caused by miscommunication!

That's not forgiving.

Bonam · July 31, 2009

Least expressive? It's a quite rich and nuanced and expressive language, just too difficult as a universal auxiliary language beyond the elite classes and native English speakers.

How do you figure that it's too difficult? English has got to be one of the easiest European languages to learn.

Unless you mean that any real language is too complex, and that we instead need to come up with a constructed language like Esperanto that is specifically intended to be extremely easy to learn. In which case I would disagree, because there is no incentive for billions of people to start learning a language that no one else yet uses. Just as Esperanto never took off, so too would any such future undertaking flounder. You just need to take the most widely used, most common language out there, that already has more of the world's information represented in it than any other language, and keep building it up until it becomes the de facto common language of the world.