03 Mar 05
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHmm, I think at the same time as there are presssues to conglomerate states together into political blocs, there are opposite pressures from nationalists and federalists to splinter those blocs into smaller nation states. The old Soviet Union and Yugoslavia would be examples. I think overall there will be a move towards larger political structures, since these are often a good way of preserving peace and encouraging trade, but these will probably in most cases be loose affiliations rather than giant single nations. After all, even in the US, which most of the world thinks of as very much a single entity, quite a large amount of power is devolved to individal states. A future federal Europe could look quite similar.
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
Rich.
03 Mar 05
I believe it is inevitable that we shall have a one world government.
The Bible speaks.... oh wait... not here.... right?
In any case, the way technology is advancing in our day, it will not be far in the future when we shall have a one-world currency (which must come to a reality in conjuction with a one-world government).
We already have the technology to "imbed" a micro-identifier underneath the skin. It is already purported that the best place to position these micro-identifiers is on the forehead and/or the hand. This technology is currently used in wildlife tracking, farms, fish, and pets.
These micro-identifiers will ease transactions and prevent fraud and is necessary to maintain control in a one-world government. Tracking individuals will be very easy and crime will probably be greatly reduced.
However, there will be those that will refuse to take part in the one-world government and war will ensue.
Hey, being in Canada, have you heard that Bill Clinton wants to head the UN and Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the US in 2008? You think maybe this is a beginning?
Oh My Gosh!
Kris 😕
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateAs a current Canadian, I pray this day never comes in my lifetime. If the time comes and we are called to be annexed, I will take up arms and storm the ambassador bridge, guns a-blazin'. Not all us Canadians are docile little hamsters. Beware! 🙄
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlayDon't worry, Darv, Mexico will annex both of our countries in a matter of time...😲
As a current Canadian, I pray this day never comes in my lifetime. If the time comes and we are called to be annexed, I will take up arms and storm the ambassador bridge, guns a-blazin'. Not all us Canadians are docile little hamsters. Beware! 🙄
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI think a world government is inevitable. But, intially it will be a incomplete group of nations united under a weak government. The UN may eventually be this government. But as the need arises, more nations will either join willfully, or be forced to by the central power. I believe the world government will be compelled to stay weak, though, because of the threat of civil wars. It is very difficult to get a group as diverse as the worlds population to agree on much. Old national disputes will probably remain for awhile, but will eventually be forgotten.
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
The level of unrest will probably be quite high, and there will be small splinter nations. But any nations with a hope of a good economy will be forced to stay.
A lot of scientic progress will be made with this global cooperation.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 😉
This is the state of the world in 2119. I'm taking bets, any takers. Loser buys dinner.😛
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlayJust don't shoot me when you come stormin' over the bridge.
As a current Canadian, I pray this day never comes in my lifetime. If the time comes and we are called to be annexed, I will take up arms and storm the ambassador bridge, guns a-blazin'. Not all us Canadians are docile little hamsters. Beware! 🙄
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlayI'm afraid you better get a move on if you're going to storm the bridge, the bus has already left, the process of attrition and assimilation has been on the go for decades. We are bombarded by everything from Britney Spears and Budweieser Beer to Walmart and HBO. Our cultural identity and our national economy has been hijacked by US mass marketing and politics(not necessarily a bad thing). Our politicians are weak willed and apathetic, our school system is marginal at best and one can comfortably make more living on welfare than working two minimum wage jobs.
As a current Canadian, I pray this day never comes in my lifetime. If the time comes and we are called to be annexed, I will take up arms and storm the ambassador bridge, guns a-blazin'. Not all us Canadians are docile little hamsters. Beware! 🙄
I wouldn't refer to myself as a docile hamster, though, even hamsters have teeth. But, I am disappointed in Canada. In fact I'm disappointed in the US most days. I went to a career day recently to talk to 350 seniors at a local high school about career opportunities and post secondary education. Out of 350 students 7 had firm plans to go to college/university. Another 30 or so had done some reasearch into post secondary education or some sort of career. The balance had no clue as to what they were going to do. I was pissed that their counsellors had given them NO guidance. We have the luxury of living in some of the wealthiest countries in the world and we throw it away.... what a waste.
I'm proud I'm a Canadian, I'm glad I am free, but our downward slide makes me feel that our leaders are dogs and I am a tree. Maybe a strong world government would allow us to take a cooperative approach to education, our economy and our environment that we are sorely lacking.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI can't argue with any of this, my newfound friend. I share your sorrow. :'(
I'm afraid you better get a move on if you're going to storm the bridge, the bus has already left, the process of attrition and assimilation has been on the go for decades. We are bombarded by everything from Britney Spears and Budweieser Beer to Walmart and HBO. Our cultural identity and our national economy has been hijacked by US mass marketing ...[text shortened]... a cooperative approach to education, our economy and our environment that we are sorely lacking.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateI guess it will just be another case of: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
The problems inherent in governmental structures will just carry on. The only reason countries will "grow" together, will be due to economic pressure by the multi-nationals. And they won't create anything which doesn't suit them.
Look at the new EU constitution that they're trying to get in place. It's GATT 2 all over again.
Companies will be allowed to sue a State if they think the State is not acting on their behalf (so goodbye national health service, publically owned and maintained utilities and goodbye human rights).
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't disagree that these are very serious problems. However, do the benefits outweigh the negatives?
I guess it will just be another case of: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
The problems inherent in governmental structures will just carry on. The only reason countries will "grow" together, will be due to economic pressure by the multi-nationals. And they won't create anything which doesn't suit them.
Look at the new EU constitutio ...[text shortened]... tional health service, publically owned and maintained utilities and goodbye human rights).
The ideal would be a true New World Order with far reaching benefits in the areas of: 1. Stabilize Global Economy 2. Increase the standard of living worldwide. 3. True free trade with limited regional tarrifs. 4. Technology sharing 5. Health & Education 6. Global Peace.
Never going to happen is it? Humans are inherently flawed beings with violent tendencies.
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by Hand of HecateLet me pose a counter thesis.
Is a one world government feasible and sustainable?
I'm a Canadian originally and I see our defacto absorption into the US as an inevatibility. Similarly the European Union is smudging boundries between countries. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but, the loss of national identity is unfortunate.
Any thoughts?
Is a world without government feasible and sustainable?
Now you will have to think real hard here. The human race is about fifty thousand years old. We got along just fine for 47.6 thousand years without ANY government. How did we do that?
What has changed in the last couple thousand years that makes "government" a good idea?
Why do we insist on "following" a leader?
Is 'following the leader' what government is?
Why?
In response to your question, I will say that when the world has given up it's last slave, then we can talk about it. That translates into the elimination of the last despotic dictator. Isn't that fair? How can we even think of discussing a "world government" when the one we have (UN) sanctions the ownership, de facto, of human beings?
If you doubt me, count the number of dictatorships in the UN who can walk into the street, take a person to prison AS IF THEY WERE PROPERTY and dispose of them at will.
"High minded notions will best be belayed until some sort of rudimentary and rational thought gains a moment."
Another famous old saying I just made up.
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou ask what has changed. Two things: Population and the relative effectiveness of our ability to kill each other wholesale.
Let me pose a counter thesis.
Is a world without government feasible and sustainable?
Now you will have to think real hard here. The human race is about fifty thousand years old. We got along just fine for 47.6 thousand years without ANY government. How did we do that?
What has changed in the last couple thousand years that makes "government" ...[text shortened]... rudimentary and rational thought gains a moment."
Another famous old saying I just made up.
We are essentially pack animals, hardwired by 50,000+ years of evolution, existance and natural selection to become the pack Alpha. Our 'instinct' to dominate, control and pursue power is a danagerous combination as our population growth pushes 'packs' closer together and our technology makes it easy to destroy each other in our struggle for dominance.
Our forebrain tells us that our continued existance necessitates cooperation. Our primal hind brain, infinitely older, tells us to protect the pack, dominate the weak and secure our own survival.
The entirety of human history, recorded and unrecorded, is stained red with the blood of innocents. It is very difficult pit rational thought against our hard wired hind brain. We, as a global society, must make the concious decision to protect the entire pack and not just our tiny portion of it.
This will take decades if not hundreds of years. However, we are just to good at killing each other and our survival must be ensured.
04 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI don't think I really answered your question. The answer is I would prefer less government in my life, but, there is too much momentum for society to go nackwards.
[b]Let me pose a counter thesis.
Is a world without government feasible and sustainable?
The idea of total anarchy is appealing to me as I feel I am adequately equipped to survive independantly of society. I would be very happy living a simpler primal existance. However, one cannot turn back the clock. People want their HBO, reality TV, RHP, fast cars, single malt scotch and porn star extraveganzas. Faced with this need/want our society will continue along this path even at the risk of total derailment. I think some form of World Government is required to stabilize our 'progress'.