I feel that the best way for the world to advance and for humans as a species to survive and thrive the longest would be through the creation of one worldwide nation. By putting ourselves under one banner and establish a government we can all agree on, cooperation on the global scale explodes and the integration of ethnicity's could lead to a peace that thrusts humans into a much longer period of existence. Thoughts?
Sounds too good to be true. Will never materialize. Theory & practice will never match. Too idealistic. We are too egoistic as human-beings.
I can see why you would say that, but that is some what of a realist living in the now standpoint. In every government regulated state there are groups within the state that thoroughly wish to defect or end the current government, but even with these groups in existence states maintain themselves quite well, and each in their own way. if we apply this ideology to the world, it would be logical that a worldwide, single government CAN exist and maintain itself, but the main things that need to be fixed is the cultural barriers that divide human beings and the extreme and/or eccentric groups that oppose most governments in general. another thing to look at is that we have been gradually making progress towards this goal throughout human history. 10,000 years or so ago we were living in groups of 50 people, but through the rise and fall of more larger and advanced civilizations/government establishments, we have seen progress, gradually, from those said groups of 50 to 193 states that hold the world's population of 7 billion and growing. Who's to say that we can't keep going? But the main thing is that we have to understand that none of us alive today are likely to live when this finally occurs. My main point is that this should be a focus point for moving the Human species forward so that we may exist for as long as possible, on Earth and possibly on other planets as well, whenever that becomes possible.
You kind of got the wrong idea. If the world becomes Democratic this will never happen because it would be impossible to represent every ethnic group in existence that wishes to be represented (almost all of them im sure). There would need to be the creation of a new governmental system of a very decentralized nature so that ethnic and racial identity can remain non-oppressed, but at the same time having people to be willing to devote their national allegiance to this said worldwide state. But I appreciate the support for my idea.
Well overpopulation is an issue, but only to the regions it pertains to, being Sub-Saharan Africa and east/south Asia essentially, which are very fixable through dedication to the problem Not necessarily phase out religion, just desensitize it by eliminating extremist groups and extremely strict and or oppressive sects such as Southern Baptists
No, bad idea. A one-size fits all approach would not work best. Just look at all the stupid regulations that have been passed in the E.U. Plus, what if a bad government comes to power? At least with many separate world governments the other nations can come together and invade to take a bad dictator out of power.
I don't see the appeal. What is the purpose of the one world goverment to make all the nations get along get rid of wars. It would be great if we could end war but how long before a one world goverment the ultimate power starts taking away are civil liberates even with good intentions its just that when you create that machine they keep going goverment doesnt get smaller they get bigger some a one world goverment would continue to grow until are whole economy and every aspect in way or another is controlled through the beuracy of the this goverment
All good thoughts, folks! RadicalRevolutionary has made two key points: We have indeed evolved from tolerance only of our own little clans of a few dozen, to non-violent cooperation with millions, so there is some hope that we could, planet-wide as a species, tolerate a world-wide administration... someday in the misty future. In spite of our progress over many millennia, the regional inter-ethnic wars in the Balkans and currently in Syria and its neighbors demonstrate clearly that we have a long way to go. You don't have to scratch a responsible, educated citizen in most places too deeply to find a xenophobic tribesman beneath the skin. I like RR's decentralized model and agree a world government would have to look something like that, so that all of us closet tribesman don't get nervous. MYSY is not quite right about the UN. The General Assembly and Security Council are indeed pretty much toothless, but the many agencies operating under the UN banner do splendid work, and are the sort of institutions that could operate very effectively at the core of a decentralized world government. However, there would have to be some very different economic and political models as well. Democracy as we understand it today has one key vulnerability: people living in democracies have to be prosperous or confident that they will soon become so. Democracy only ever worked well in the few times and places where you had a medium-sized, prosperous population whose voters were primarily land-owners with a stake in the rule of law that assured their titles were secure. So, it worked well in the USA and the UK up until about 1960, and continues to in Scandinavia and a few other places. It is actually getting more effective in countries where property ownership by individuals is increasing, like Brazil and possibly South Africa. However, there is a universal tendency that as populations grow, the natural resources that support economies get used up, and there is a limit to how well technology and shifts to a service economy can compensate. Wealth gets less and less evenly distributed. When fewer and fewer voters have a stake in the democratic system that is supposed to assure not only peace but prosperity, they stop voting, or vote for radical populists. All to say, if there is to be a future world union of autonomous regions where "ethnic and racial identity can remain non-oppressed", we are going to have to find some other model than democracy, OR an economic model that permits everyone to be middle class. It might help that the UN continues to project that the world's population will start to decline sometime in the next century, so there will be fewer people to distribute wealth among. JoakimFlorence and gmackenzie58578 are right to be skeptical of the powers of a world government, especially that it could become oppressive and bureaucratic. If it is to be successful, there must be understood limits to its powers, with much authority relegated to the autonomous regions, not unlike the US division of state and federal powers. (It always astonishes and rather delights me that if an American finds his own state government intolerable, there is an excellent chance he can simply uproot and find a much more satisfactory set of laws just a few hundred miles away). So far, so good. I have constructed, building on RR's model, a theoretically viable world order. Just one problem big remains: traditionally, a government's key authority rests on its monopoly on violence. Can we imagine a system in which a benevolent and universally respected world government somehow manages to collect onto itself all armed force, and remain respected, trusted and not tempted to abuse such authority? I can't. Any suggests? RadicalRevolutionary? Somebody?
The further a government is from the people, the more corrupt and less responsive to the people it is. I think the U.S. government is reaching that point. There is no way a world wide government would be responsive to the will of the people. - - - Updated - - - So you don't want to be totally repressive, just mostly repressive. I'm just amazed at how little progressives trust people to make the right decisions. You folks don't seem to believe in liberty at all.
One world government is happening before your very eyes. The problem is it will be the enslavement of the entire planet. The agenda of the one world government was laid out by Rockefeller years ago, it is to destroy self determination and to establish a world run by bankers and the financially elite. You can see it happening in Europe as the people of Europe lose the ability to govern themselves and control their borders to the bueracrarats of Brussels. You are seeing it in Syria as the Oil companies and Military establishment murders thousands of people and displace millions more to exploit their country and create a market for the wares of war. You are seeing it in the US as laws like the Patriot act are taking every freedom you ever were told you had. The more power people have, the more evil they become. The one world government will be a place where human rights and justice will no longer exist and human life will have no more value than it does in Syria or Afghanistan today....
The logical end of Human and Political Evolution is one government, one currency, one language, one religion (or none) and one race.
Oh look! A mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing trial balloon for New (*)(*)(*)(*)ing World Order. Hey mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er:We the people of all different Nations like our sovereignty.(*)(*)(*)(*) OFF! I'm going to make a prediction:Russia and China will put an end to the New World Order. Obama is a New World Order supporter. The American people are not.Neither are the citizens of Iran.The citizens of China and Russia are not on board either. Well;Maybe the lately indoctrinated US/UK publicly-educated students are,but that's about it.
