Why we need a one world government

[Forestman]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against astroids and solar flares.

[IMP]

Shouldn't this be in the "Lame Jokes" thread here: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=25301

[drankin]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against astroids and solar flares.

LOL!

Ok, just how would a one world government stop anything you listed except possibly a nuclear war? Which, by the way, is not likely anyhow IMO.

[Forestman]

Create a set of standardized world wide laws.

Create a one child per family rule.

Create a world police force.

Force more money to be spent on nuclear fusion and other environmentally friendly forms of energy.

Have all money exchanged electronically in order to better regulate the economy.

Democracy does not need to be done away with, but we do need a more limited democracy in order to deal with the problems facing the world. Especially climate change and over population. We need a new government that can act much faster than democracy allows.

[drankin]

Create a set of standardized world wide laws.

Create a one child per family rule.

Create a world police force.

Force more money to be spent on nuclear fusion and other environmentally friendly forms of energy.

Have all money exchanged electronically in order to better regulate the economy.

Democracy does not need to be done away with, but we do need a more limited democracy in order to deal with the problems facing the world. Especially climate change and over population. We need a new government that can act much faster than democracy allows.

I don't see this happening in our lifetime. The amount of civil war that would arise would negate any benefit IMO. Having hundreds of governments submit to and absolve their authority to a single government just isn't feasible.

[Forestman]

You are probably right.

If people don't do something now about climate change, over population, asteroids, and solar flares I just don't see how humanity is going to be able to survive. A giant solar flare, which is called something different; is supposed to erupt sometime in 2012 or 2013. And when this happens all of the Earths power grids and communication satellites will be knocked out.

I guess I just feel that if people aren't going to do something big to fight these problems then they need to be forced too.

[micromass]

I agree with you Forestman. If mankind is to survive, then all of these issues must be dealt with immediately. But mankind is not visionary, it doesn't care for the future, it only cares for immediate profit and gain. This is why I think that our society won't survive for another 100 years. We just messed it up...

[dacruick]

You are probably right.

If people don't do something now about climate change, over population, asteroids, and solar flares I just don't see how humanity is going to be able to survive. A giant solar flare, which is called something different; is supposed to erupt sometime in 2012 or 2013. And when this happens all of the Earths power grids and communication satellites will be knocked out.

I guess I just feel that if people aren't going to do something big to fight these problems then they need to be forced too.

really?

I agree with you Forestman. If mankind is to survive, then all of these issues must be dealt with immediately.

really??

This sounds absurd, I can't tell if you guys are joking. One of you wants to create a worldwide unified government in 11 months, and the other thinks that next week is the deadline for human survival. Neither of you have said anything relatively rational to support this.

EDIT: Both of you severely underestimate the resilience of human life

EDIT 2: Forestman, one of your best arguments for the dwindling of human life is over population. Really???

[Forestman]

Thanks micromass.

[micromass]

This sounds absurd, I can't tell if you guys are joking. One of you wants to create a worldwide unified government in 11 months, and the other thinks that next week is the deadline for human survival. Neither of you have said anything relatively rational to support this.

Well, I'm certainly not joking. And it's hard to present something to support my conclusion, let's just say that it's my gut feeling.

But maybe I'll try to present something rational anyways:
- oil and various metals will be depleted within the next 50 years (so I've heard), and our entire society depends on oil. We have nothing to replace oil with. This is a recipy for disaster.
- the popultation will increase exponentially. If we don't force any measure to control population, then we will soon see a massive amount of deaths by starvation and war.
- Clean sources of water are running out fast. Water will soon be a very expensive resource.

Then again, I've always had a very pessimistic outlook on life. But I don't see how humans will be able to deal with this...

[dacruick]

Well, I'm certainly not joking. And it's hard to present something to support my conclusion, let's just say that it's my gut feeling.

But maybe I'll try to present something rational anyways:
- oil and various metals will be depleted within the next 50 years (so I've heard), and our entire society depends on oil. We have nothing to replace oil with. This is a recipy for disaster.
- the popultation will increase exponentially. If we don't force any measure to control population, then we will soon see a massive amount of deaths by starvation and war.
- Clean sources of water are running out fast. Water will soon be a very expensive resource.

Then again, I've always had a very pessimistic outlook on life. But I don't see how humans will be able to deal with this...

at least you are trying to support a theory now. But saying oil is gone within 50 years is definitely false. You've gone from the destruction of mankind to "resources being expensive" pretty quickly. Population is increasing exponentially in the poorest countries, the countries with the least resources. that should be a tip off that resources and human life are inversely correlated. You might be referring to quality of life.

All I'm saying is that the statements made were just about the boldest things I've heard since I read a link about women being better than men at everything.

[micromass]

EDIT: Both of you severely underestimate the resilience of human life


I hope that I underestimate it...


EDIT 2: Forestman, one of your best arguments for the dwindling of human life is over population. Really???

Overpopulation is a very serious issue. Do you really think that our earth can support an unlimited amount of people?

And right now the only people living in luxury is the western world. Should the other people not deserve this luxury two? But, here's the catch: if everybody on this world should have the same luxury as us, then we would need 3 earths to support us! So clearly, it is in our benifit to create inequality in our world.

[dacruick]

if everybody on this world should have the same luxury as us, then we would need 3 earths to support us! So clearly, it is in our benifit to create inequality in our world.

But less than 20% of the worlds population lives with our luxury so we don't need 3 worlds? we need much less than 1? This also isn't even resemblant of a fact...

I can make things up and try and push them as points too but thats not getting anywhere.

[micromass]

But less than 20% of the worlds population lives with our luxury so we don't need 3 worlds? we need much less than 1? This also isn't even resemblant of a fact...

I can make things up and try and push them as points too but thats not getting anywhere.

I'm just saying that the developing countries are working pretty fast to catch us up. And when they do, our life standard is bound to go down.

at least you are trying to support a theory now. But saying oil is gone within 50 years is definitely false.


I'll quote wiki:


The American Petroleum Institute estimated in 1999 the world's oil supply would be depleted between 2062 and 2094


from the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_depletion


You've gone from the destruction of mankind to "resources being expensive" pretty quickly.


I've never spoken about the destruction of mankind. I've spoken about the destruction of the modern society. Without oil and energy, this will come very fast in my opinion.


Population is increasing exponentially in the poorest countries, the countries with the least resources. that should be a tip off that resources and human life are inversely correlated. You might be referring to quality of life.


In 2050, there will be almost 10 billion people living in this world. Can our earth really maintain 10 billion people. I expect a lot of starvation in the future. It is inhumane to proceed this way. A population control is certainly in order to prevent disasters in the future.

All I'm saying is that the statements made were just about the boldest things I've heard since I read a link about women being better than men at everything.[/QUOTE]

[drankin]

The sky is falling. Been falling since the dawn of civilization.

The decline of oil production will be gradual. As this happens it will be more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, other energy sources will be improved upon and utilized as the cost of them begins to be less than the cost of oil. It's the natural order of things. It won't be a catastrophic collapse.

[drankin]

Also, regarding oil, there will never be an end to it. It will simply become a rarer commodity and the cost will rise.

[xxChrisxx]

The oil running out so we'd better all start eating soil argument is and always has been a bogus one.

There has been 50 years of oil left for the last 50 years.
That is an estimate of what is currently economically practical to obtain. With ever increasing technology and ever increasing cost of a barrell of crude it becomes more proactical to start production in more difficult places.


On the other hand population growth certainly is an issue, soon to be a big one as it's an exponential increase. Any population growth long term is unsustainable, it's just how long it takes to get to that point.

[phyzguy]

Well, I'm certainly not joking. And it's hard to present something to support my conclusion, let's just say that it's my gut feeling.

But maybe I'll try to present something rational anyways:
- oil and various metals will be depleted within the next 50 years (so I've heard), and our entire society depends on oil. We have nothing to replace oil with. This is a recipy for disaster.
- the popultation will increase exponentially. If we don't force any measure to control population, then we will soon see a massive amount of deaths by starvation and war.
- Clean sources of water are running out fast. Water will soon be a very expensive resource.

Then again, I've always had a very pessimistic outlook on life. But I don't see how humans will be able to deal with this...

There are several things incorrect here:
(1) As others have said, as the oil runs out (gradually) we will use other forms of energy.
(2) Unlike energy, metals can't be depleted because they don't go anywhere. Unless you launch them into outer space, they are available to be recycled.
(3) Population is no longer growing exponentially, the growth rate is slowing significantly, and we are on track to reach steady state at about 9-10 billion people in about 2060. Most developed countries are already at negative population growth, and virtually every country has seen a big fall in its population growth rate as it develops economically. Thus, continued economic growth of the underdeveloped countries is the best solution.
(4) Clearly the water is there, and since it is a renewable resource, it is just a question of using what we have intelligently.

Not that there aren't problems, but I think the future will be much brighter than you make it sound. I have been hearing these doom predictions for decades, and at the same time watching most of the world get richer, healthier, longer-lived, etc. Don't believe it.

[Pengwuino]

This really should be in the Humor section. How did it get put here?

[Forestman]

Whatever

[drankin]

Whatever

Now there is an intelligent response. LOL!

[xxChrisxx]

Now there is an intelligent response. LOL!

An equally mature response.

[Forestman]

How do you make an intelligent response to an unintelligent response.

[drankin]

An equally mature response.

It just brought back teenage memories of how one responded when a debate didn't go your way.

[Proton Soup]

Create a set of standardized world wide laws.

Create a one child per family rule.

Create a world police force.

Force more money to be spent on nuclear fusion and other environmentally friendly forms of energy.

Have all money exchanged electronically in order to better regulate the economy.

Democracy does not need to be done away with, but we do need a more limited democracy in order to deal with the problems facing the world. Especially climate change and over population. We need a new government that can act much faster than democracy allows.

so your plan is to initiate a world war ?

[Pengwuino]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA. The original post is meaningless. It would be like saying "We need to get rid of all non-science majors in universities. This would stop world hunger, allow us to colonize other galaxies, end all murder, make cable TV free, and allow bread to fall butter-side down".

No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."

[DevilsAvocado]

... A giant solar flare, which is called something different; is supposed to erupt sometime in 2012 or 2013. And when this happens all of the Earths power grids and communication satellites will be knocked out.

Source please!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/600px-Sunspot_Numbers.png

[DevilsAvocado]

... There has been 50 years of oil left for the last 50 years.
That is an estimate of what is currently economically practical to obtain. With ever increasing technology and ever increasing cost of a barrell of crude it becomes more proactical to start production in more difficult places.

Source please!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b0/GrowingGap.jpg/590px-GrowingGap.jpg

[edward]

This really should be in the Humor section. How did it get put here?

It would be ok if we all got to wear neat little penquin suits.

[Forestman]

Pengwuino, I apologize, I should not have said that your remark was unintelligent. Even though I disagreed with it. I am not taking back what I said about world government, I still hold to what I said, but I should just have said nothing in response to your remark. When you insult people though, it is natural for them to want to fight back.

[nismaratwork]

Hmmm OP, you might need this while "unifying" such a disparate population . :rofl:

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

[nismaratwork]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA. The original post is meaningless. It would be like saying "We need to get rid of all non-science majors in universities. This would stop world hunger, allow us to colonize other galaxies, end all murder, make cable TV free, and allow bread to fall butter-side down".

No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."

Heh... yep.

[DevilsAvocado]

As some has already indicated, most of this is speculations. We don’t have time travel (yet) and the future is not fixed.

My very personal opinion is that there are three (alternate) things we can do get us all killed:
1) Pretend it’s just another day in paradise.
2) Give up, because we’ll never make it anyway.
3) Install global dictatorship implementing "THE TRUTH".

Forestman, it’s dangerous to live – one might die!

I think you’ve only scratched the surface of endless horrors... DISCOVER Magazine has an article on 20 Ways the World Could End (http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld) that will keep you 'busy'... :wink:
1 Asteroid impact
2 Gamma-ray burst
3 Collapse of the vacuum
4 Rogue black holes
5 Giant solar flares
6 Reversal of Earth's magnetic field
7 Flood-basalt volcanism
8 Global epidemics
9 Global warming
10 Ecosystem collapse
11 Biotech disaster
12 Particle accelerator mishap
13 Nanotechnology disaster
14 Environmental toxins
15 Global war
16 Robots take over
17 Mass insanity
18 Alien invasion
19 Divine intervention
20 Someone wakes up and realizes it was all a dream

This was the October 2000 issue. To lighten up the mode somewhat :smile:, Stephen Petranek shortened the list to 10:

v9d65u3LfKs

Always remember 1: One day you could cross the street and be killed by a drunken driver!
Always remember 2: If we don’t do "anything" in approx 5 billon years, we’re smoked 100%!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Solar_Life_Cycle.svg/700px-Solar_Life_Cycle.svg.png


EDIT:
AH! Nismars "Evil Overlord List" definitely puts period on the 'discussion'! :rofl:

[nismaratwork]

My mother likes to say, "You never know, the truck with your name on it could be right around the corner, enjoy today."

Good one DA! Should we tell him that "not to scale" also includes the blasting or incineration of the 4 inner planets? :rofl:

[DevilsAvocado]

NOOOO!!! :surprised

[Forestman]

You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.

[Evo]

You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.Citation needed.

[Forestman]

I really don't remember, but I know that Einstein desired to see a one world government so that all war could be brought to an end.

Second of all I don't want any kind of world power, I just feel that world government is the only way to solve many of the problems currently facing the world.

[Evo]

I really don't remember, but I know that Einstein desired to see a one world government so that all war could be brought to an end. Please do not make statements that aren't true.

Second of all I don't want any kind of world power, I just feel that world government is the only way to solve many of the problems currently facing the world.A world government is a pipe dream and not one that even makes sense. How do you make laws for rich, developed countries that work in third world countries?

[ginru]

Even though I don't believe a one world government is the answer, I feel we do need a global management system that doesn't simply rely on the goodwill leadership of powerful nations. Whenever a crisis happens, China and Russia either look the other way or get in the way of action. The EU powers and US may want to do something but can rarely agree on an effective plan of action. So much of the world will usually just sit by and helplessly watch the mayhem unfold. Based on the usefulness of the UN, I don't have much faith in a one-world government. Heck, based on the efficiency of our own US government, I don't have much faith in a traditional government anyway.

I feel it's not too much to expect that any civilization capable of nuclear power should also be able to build a better global order than our current situation. I gain hope from how the youth have embraced Internet technology to gain an upper hand over outdated governments. My theory is that when they eventually develop a stable, alternative currency to go with their adept use of innovative communication, then we'll begin to have a real chance of evolving beyond the established order of stagnant politics and economic division. Empowered youth don't seem to accept the usual "Not in my lifetime" excuses.

[drankin]

Even though I don't believe a one world government is the answer, I feel we do need a global management system that doesn't simply rely on the goodwill leadership of powerful nations. Whenever a crisis happens, China and Russia either look the other way or get in the way of action. The EU powers and US may want to do something but can rarely agree on an effective plan of action. So much of the world will usually just sit by and helplessly watch the mayhem unfold. Based on the usefulness of the UN, I don't have much faith in a one-world government. Heck, based on the efficiency of our own US government, I don't have much faith in a traditional government anyway.

I feel it's not too much to expect that any civilization capable of nuclear power should also be able to build a better global order than our current situation. I gain hope from how the youth have embraced Internet technology to gain an upper hand over outdated governments. My theory is that when they eventually develop a stable, alternative currency to go with their adept use of innovative communication, then we'll begin to have a real chance of evolving beyond the established order of stagnant politics and economic division. Empowered youth don't seem to accept the usual "Not in my lifetime" excuses.

I hope you are right. I mean, we need a good reason for our youth to put down their console gamepads. This might be it!

[Physics-Learner]

we need a world govt like we need a hole in the head. govts are no longer satisfied with owning a country, now they want to own the world. dont buy into this scare tactic.

govts do only one thing well - look after themselves. the bigger they are, the more they can steal. not only are we revolting here in the states, but other countries as well.

[nismaratwork]

You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.

Hey, did you know that Freud did a TON of cocaine?

You've never heard the word, "fallacy" in your life, have you?

[Forestman]

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/global/world.php

[Physics-Learner]

i think the article, if true, supports what was said about einstein.

it only goes to show that a good physicist does not mean one understands the human equation, and what govts are really all about.

[nismaratwork]

i think the article, if true, supports what was said about einstein.

it only goes to show that a good physicist does not mean one understands the human equation, and what govts are really all about.

Nor was he able to accept QM, yet here we are, reaping the benefits of it.

[Physics-Learner]

pretty soon we will be needing a world govt to kill the aliens that are about to attack !!!

[Physics-Learner]

what is of greatest concern to me is still the countless numbers of people who dont realize that govt is not their friend. all that govt for the people, by the people stuff. geez, they are almost as good as another entity i had close ties with, regarding brainwashing the masses.

i like the song by dylan when he says something like, "if the arrow is sharp, it can pierce thru dust no matter how thick" (something to that effect).

[Pengwuino]

I can imagine Einstein would say such things. He was definitely a pacifist who had lived through a time in man's history that showed how much destruction nations could rain down upon one another. Post WW2 was probably the best time for the ideas of single government rule.

But like I've always said, it's not healthy to gather opinions from people on subjects outside their area of expertise. He really probably had a very average understanding of global politics.

[nismaratwork]

I can imagine Einstein would say such things. He was definitely a pacifist who had lived through a time in man's history that showed how much destruction nations could rain down upon one another. Post WW2 was probably the best time for the ideas of single government rule.

But like I've always said, it's not healthy to gather opinions from people on subjects outside their area of expertise. He really probably had a very average understanding of global politics.

He was also a self described, "Einspanner", yet he didn't live that way. This is also an appeal to authority in the worst way, but yeah... your analysis seems sound. I think most intelligent people dont want violence, but for a pacifist he took one hell of a stand re WWII.

[chiro]

Oh my god I can't believe this thread!

You want a one world government? Well lets see what you get with that order:

1) A one world government
2) A one world financial system
3) A one world central bank
4) A one world legal system

So why is this a bad thing? Lets go over just a few reasons.

There is a saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any instance of centralizing anything is bound to cause problems. The things that are decentralized offer choice and competition, of which are one of the two greatest things that developed countries have access to in one form or another.

Having the opinion that centralizing things such as government and the money supply is laughable especially on the world level. Wealth generation in your so called paradise will also become centralized due to the fact that the financial system will be completely centralized and give rise to even more horror than currently exists.

Now a lot of people in western countries like to say that countries in the middle east are bad, and that its full of loonies and suicide bombers. But there is one thing that most people don't realize: in some of these countries, it is illegal to charge interest on loans: (its called usury). From this very simple law, people do not become debt slaves to financial institutions and have the ability to create genuine personal wealth for themselves.

Now if you want to look at your so called paradise for the world just look at the Federal Reserve. Legal tender used to be backed by something but now its backed by nothing. They have the monopoly over money creation and look at what is happening. How in the hell can you think that a world central bank will be better if it had such power? You've got to be stark raving mad!

In short centralization of anything creates the breeding ground for corruption and if you want more examples of this then I'll be here for days rattling them off. Its bad enough as it is with the corruption in centralized functions like governments, how can you honestly with any brain cell think that it will get better if you centralize it even further?

[Proton Soup]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA. The original post is meaningless. It would be like saying "We need to get rid of all non-science majors in universities. This would stop world hunger, allow us to colonize other galaxies, end all murder, make cable TV free, and allow bread to fall butter-side down".

No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."

dude, you're going to get a lot of teenagers posting teenage views of the world here. it's just the nature of the beast. the OP's question seems silly to the old farts here, but we've been around long enough to realize these things really aren't possible. at least not in a timeframe that our lives fit into, or without a significant amount of brutality.

[phyzguy]

what is of greatest concern to me is still the countless numbers of people who dont realize that govt is not their friend. all that govt for the people, by the people stuff. geez, they are almost as good as another entity i had close ties with, regarding brainwashing the masses.

i like the song by dylan when he says something like, "if the arrow is sharp, it can pierce thru dust no matter how thick" (something to that effect).

What concerns me is the movement in the United States that "all government is bad". With a nation of 300M+ and a world of 6B+, we need to have government. Anarchy would be a disaster. The challenge is to make the government more efficient and responsive. Throwing up our hands and saying "all government is bad" is not the answer.

[Al68]

But there is one thing that most people don't realize: in some of these countries, it is illegal to charge interest on loans: (its called usury). From this very simple law, people do not become debt slaves to financial institutions and have the ability to create genuine personal wealth for themselves.Sure, unless they want a loan to start a business to create wealth for themselves. Then they're screwed because business loans are not an option.

That works out just fine for those that already have plenty of money, though. Keeps the competition away.

[Al68]

What concerns me is the movement in the United States that "all government is bad". With a nation of 300M+ and a world of 6B+, we need to have government. Anarchy would be a disaster. The challenge is to make the government more efficient and responsive. Throwing up our hands and saying "all government is bad" is not the answer.Um, you have a link to such a movement? I keep hearing about it, but have never actually seen evidence of any such movement. Is it like the tooth fairy?

[Ivan Seeking]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA. The original post is meaningless. It would be like saying "We need to get rid of all non-science majors in universities. This would stop world hunger, allow us to colonize other galaxies, end all murder, make cable TV free, and allow bread to fall butter-side down".

No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."

I think some of the responses in this thread, including yours, are a bigger problem than the op. If the stated position doesn't make sense, then explain why it doesn't make sense. Your position suggests that education has no place here. How is that consistent with the mission of this forum?

What I see is a mob mentality and a bunch of cheap shots.

[dacruick]

I think some of the responses in this thread, including yours, are a bigger problem than the op. If the stated position doesn't make sense, then explain why it doesn't make sense. Your position suggests that education has no place here. How is that consistent with the mission of this forum?

What I see is a mob mentality and a bunch of cheap shots.

What you are saying is definitely true. However, I think this thread should have been shut down a while ago. Making the kind of statements that Forestman was making on page 1 of the thread, without citations or even any rational support, is going to get this kind of response every time.

Although I will say that Forestman has shown better conduct than most on this thread, including myself.

[nismaratwork]

Um, you have a link to such a movement? I keep hearing about it, but have never actually seen evidence of any such movement. Is it like the tooth fairy?

You keep hearing about it, because you come off like it, which may be why you chimed in although the comment wasn't directed at you?

No?

Here's an example then: the midwestern "militia" movements.

[nismaratwork]

I think some of the responses in this thread, including yours, are a bigger problem than the op. If the stated position doesn't make sense, then explain why it doesn't make sense. Your position suggests that education has no place here. How is that consistent with the mission of this forum?

What I see is a mob mentality and a bunch of cheap shots.

I think that people who chime in with something this ridiculous, and persist in their error are best corrected through shame and cheap shots. The alternative is what life will deal them, and that's not some text online.

edit: This may explain my view on how P&WA could be "corrected"... if people act like fools, let them be well aware of the depth of their condemnation, and if they fail to provide support and persist... continue.

[dacruick]

I think that people who chime in with something this ridiculous, and persist in their error are best corrected through shame and cheap shots. The alternative is what life will deal them, and that's not some text online.

I think it is easiest to throw cheap shots, but its not the best way. If you are condescending to someone, and poke fun at them, they won't value your opinion anymore. So now you've thrown away your voice. Then it creates a negative atmosphere on the thread.

But the reality for me is this. I don't want to spend the effort and time being polite and thorough in my explanations when I feel that the person I'm speaking to is delusional in some aspects. Since I don't respect Forestman's opinion, or the way it was presented, the chances of me approaching his posts with an ounce of compassion are slim to none.

[nismaratwork]

I think it is easiest to throw cheap shots, but its not the best way. If you are condescending to someone, and poke fun at them, they won't value your opinion anymore. So now you've thrown away your voice and your opinion. Then it creates a negative atmosphere on the thread.

But the reality for me is that I don't want to spend the effort and time being polite and thorough in my explanations, when I feel that the person I'm speaking to is delusional in some aspects. Since I don't respect Forestman's opinion, or the way it was presented, the chances of me approaching his posts with an ounce of compassion are slim to none.

Your first point is for me, inextricably linked to the second, but very few P&WA posts, even by those I violently disagree with (Russ' for instance) are like that, or warrent that kind of response. Those few which are beyond hope shouldn't be instantly met with condemnation, but between ignoring someone and poking them a bit... I would poke. The latter has a chance at least, of eliciting a respone, which may be a loss for me personally, but it may also lead to something better in the future.

There is a world of difference between unfounded ranting like Forestman's, and extreme ideology rigidly presented. The latter is annoying, and frusterating, and may have the same result, but the former is hopeless. In the latter case, there's still hope, but cordiality is all that's expected or required.

[Gokul43201]

This really is one of the reasons there is debate on reforming P&WA.
...
No content is given, no actual thought put in. It's akin to a teenage girl declaring she deserves a new $50,000 SUV for her 16th birthday. Why? "Because."I count at least 5 fairly clear violations of the existing P&WA rules over the course of the thread between the OP and the above post. Did you report any of the bad posts? I did. Asking for more moderation to make up for the lack of initiative from the membership is just lazy, if you ask me. This is a volunteer run site. It's like a teenage girl asking for a new $50,000 SUV because her current $50,000 SUV has a flat tire.

I think some of the responses in this thread, including yours, are a bigger problem than the op. If the stated position doesn't make sense, then explain why it doesn't make sense. Your position suggests that education has no place here. How is that consistent with the mission of this forum?

What I see is a mob mentality and a bunch of cheap shots.I see the cheap shots too. But nevertheless, it is true that the claims implied in the OP could use a lot more substantiation than was given. Requiring the OP to compose a well thought out and expressed thread starter based on at least some published sources is hardly unreasonable, and certainly doesn't diminish the educational value of PF.

What you are saying is definitely true. However, I think this thread should have been shut down a while ago. Making the kind of statements that Forestman was making on page 1 of the thread, without citations or even any rational support, is going to get this kind of response every time. I mostly agree, but there is a very simple solution to this problem. REPORT the bad posts.

Although I will say that Forestman has shown better conduct than most on this thread...I agree.

[nismaratwork]

I count at least 5 fairly clear violations of the existing P&WA rules between the OP and the above post. Did you report any of the bad posts? I did. Asking for more moderation to make up for the lack of initiative from the membership is just lazy, if you ask me. This is a volunteer run site. It's like a teenage girl asking for a new $50,000 SUV because her current $50,000 SUV has a flat tire.

I see the cheap shots too. But nevertheless, it is true that the claims implied in the OP could use a lot more substantiation than was given. Requiring the OP to compose a well-thought out and expressed thread starter based on at least some published sources is hardly unreasonable, and certainly doesn't diminish the educational value of PF.

I mostly agree, but there is a very simple solution to this problem. REPORT the bad posts.

I agree.

Reports lead to warnings and infractions... I for one would prefer to argue with someone unless there is no hope, or the content of the posts is truly egregious. Maybe the reporting habits in P&WA reflect an underlying lack of a desire to be moderated or moderate in the current fashion around naturally combustible issues?

Besides, every report = work for a mentor... if the issue can be resolved without resorting to that, why not? Spare the volunteers, who in Politics have their own internal issues (unless mentors lose their political views upon initiation) in what often boils down to deeply personal issues.

There is also this: would you ever design a pressure vessel without an emergency relief valve? Welcome to what (as far as I can tell) is that valve.

[Gokul43201]

Reports lead to warnings and infractions... That certainly isn't the policy, and I've never once seen it happen while I was on the staff. Perhaps a continued abuse of the report system (even after warnings not to do so) may result in infractions.

I for one would prefer to argue with someone unless there is no hope, or the content of the posts is truly egregious. Maybe the reporting habits in P&WA reflect an underlying lack of a desire to be moderated or moderate in the current fashion around naturally combustible issues?That is your personal preference. However, in general, it is unreasonable to demand more moderation when even the tools that exist are not being utilized. Furthermore, belittling a member or insulting them, rarely helps further an argument in any constructive manner. Not to mention, it's clearly against the rules.

Besides, every report = work for a mentor... if the issue can be resolved without resorting to that, why not?Even the best intentions can lead to bad outcomes. Reporting the OP could have had the thread locked pending a revised, better sourced OP. That single report may alone have spared the huge headache that inevitable arises when a bad-to-borderline thread that is not being continuously monitored is eventually reported at page 10, requiring a Mentor to have to read through 9+ pages of posts to figure out how to deal with the thread.

[DevilsAvocado]

i think the article, if true, supports what was said about einstein.


It’s true, but you have to put it in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government#United_Nations

World government

World War II, 1939–1945, resulted in an unprecedented scale of destruction of lives (over 60 million dead, most of them civilians), and the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Some of the acts committed against civilians during the war were on such a massive scale of savagery, they came to be widely considered as crimes against humanity itself. As the war's conclusion drew near, many shocked voices called for the establishment of institutions able to permanently prevent deadly international conflicts. This led to the founding of the United Nations in 1945, which adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Many, however, felt that the UN, essentially a forum for discussion and coordination between sovereign governments, was insufficiently empowered for the task. A number of prominent persons, such as Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Bertrand Russell and Mahatma Gandhi, called on governments to proceed further by taking gradual steps towards forming an effectual federal world government.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/world-government/

World Government

After the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, atomic scientists lobbied for the international control of atomic energy as a main function of world federalist government. Albert Einstein wrote in 1946 that technological developments had shrunk the planet, through increased economic interdependence and mutual vulnerability through weapons of mass destruction. To secure peace, Einstein asserted, “A world government must be created which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. This government must be based on a clear-cut constitution which is approved by the governments and nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive weapons” (1956, 138).

[nismaratwork]

That certainly isn't the policy, and I've never once seen it happen while I was on the staff. Perhaps a continued abuse of the report system (even after warnings not to do so) may result in infractions.

You misunderstand, I mean that it ends that way for the reported party... that's still not always desirable.

That is your personal preference. However, in general, it is unreasonable to demand more moderation when even the tools that exist are not being utilized. Furthermore, belittling a member or insulting them, rarely helps further an argument in any constructive manner. Not to mention, it's clearly against the rules.

De Jure or De Facto?... Obviously they are sharply divided in practice in P&WA, and the reporting practices you describe are indication that this is more than just my preference.

Even the best intentions can lead to bad outcomes. Reporting the OP could have had the thread locked pending a revised, better sourced OP. That single report may alone have spared the huge headache that inevitable arises when a bad-to-borderline thread that is not being continuously monitored is eventually reported at page 10, requiring a Mentor to have to read through 9+ pages of posts to figure out how to deal with the thread.

Good intentions can lead to bad outcomes indeed, and blowback, and unintended consequences in general. You make a good point about dumping this on a moderator after 10 pages... I'm not arguing for that at all. I'm saying that in a case like this, where you have nearly universal condemnation of the OP's notion (not the OP though), where's the harm? This is the reaction s/he'll get in life, only lasting and without the benefit of as many rules and regulations.

Besides, I've rarely seen an active thread in P&WA without at least one mentor actively posting, never mind reading it. Your good intentions to attenuate hostility may have the unintended consequence of leading to increased, but veiled hostility... which does seem to be the case. When looking to change rules, it's best to look at the past (which sounds unpleasant by all accounts), the present, and possible futures.

Do we go with the ideal that is not followed, the practice that's imperfect and imperfectly enforced by your standards at least, or a new model? Maybe the issue is the topic... guns, abortion, elected officials, unions, corporations, war, peace... these issues are ones that engender passion. My guess is that to make this sub-forum peaceful, you'd need to close it... the kind of enmity that builds in these cases can only be bridged by individuals.

Example: WhoWee and I often do NOT agree, yet we don't' fight tooth and nail over everything. I've come to respect him as a valuable source of information, and while he has a strong view that I don't' agree with, he often presents in a way that I have no answer to. Others just make noise, and the same noise, over... and over, and over... as though awaiting the perfect echo. Without a measure of conflict, the latter would be free in P&WA, and the former would probably never have happened.

Unintended consequences tend to be more extensive than just, "more reading".

[FlexGunship]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against astroids and solar flares.

Not quite making the connection between number of governments and these particular issues. What if the one world government, for example, wasn't interested in anthropogenic climate change?

The fundamental problem with your argument isn't really feasibility (plenty of dictators have help power over too many people for far too long), but that you simply assume this one-world-government would align itself with your desires. Hardly seems likely!

Besides, with many governments there is an inherent check-and-balance system in place. Is Russia nukes South Africa (I don't know why), then Russia expects retaliation. With a single world government, who would be left to keep that government in check?

Sounds like one of those 8th-grade social studies discussions.

[nismaratwork]

Not quite making the connection between number of governments and these particular issues. What if the one world government, for example, wasn't interested in anthropogenic climate change?

The fundamental problem with your argument isn't really feasibility (plenty of dictators have help power over too many people for far too long), but that you simply assume this one-world-government would align itself with your desires. Hardly seems likely!

Besides, with many governments there is an inherent check-and-balance system in place. Is Russia nukes South Africa (I don't know why), then Russia expects retaliation. With a single world government, who would be left to keep that government in check?

Sounds like one of those 8th-grade social studies discussions.

Good to see you back and kicking hard. :biggrin:

[Pattonias]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against astroids and solar flares.


I think it would be better to pick at the individual statements than to criticize the statement as a whole. Most of these ideas can be thought out logically using historical examples without picking at the OP himself.

Stop man made climate change -
This certainly could be achieved by a world-wide regulating authority assuming that we have enough of an impact on climate to make a change by regulating industry. That would be another topic entirely.

Stop Terrorism -
This is impossible. According to the US Department of Defense's Link (http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_4.htm)
definition of terrorism.
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

By this definition you can never really stop terrorism, any more than you can stop every individual in the world from committing unlawful acts.
The only affect a world government would have is preventing a state sponsored terrorism. This would be a mute point because you would only be stopping state sponsored terrorism because their would only be one state. On another note, what stops the single world government from committing terrorism.

Stop Overpopulation -
A touchy subject in itself, this could theoretically be solved by having a single world government by implementing laws regulating the number of children people can have. I can just imagine how we would have alternating periods where everyone is required to have one child, followed by maintenance periods where we are required to have two children to maintain optimal population followed by periods where we have to have three in order to increase the population during periods that are dwindling. Like the climate change argument, this could be discussed in its own thread.

Stop the Threat of Nuclear War-
Mutually assured destruction is just as strong a deterrent as a hypothetical world government. A world government could theoretically dismantle all nuclear weapons, but to what end. We live in the post-nuclear age, we are going to have to accept that these weapons exist and come to a balance. If we dismantle them all, as time progresses the possibility always arises that through need or evil intent they could show up again. The other problem I can see is that with a single world government, there would be no way to hold your government accountable should it opt to use nuclear weapons in an isolated incident. It seems to me that there will always be a threat of war and of great loss of life. Should a world war arise between large groups of people, these extremely efficient weapons will rear their ugly head again and again.

Create a Stable Economy-
Unifying currencies has not shown, so far, any improvement in stabilizing economies. When you unify currencies you tie the worth of your money to the stability of every local and regional economy in the currencies reach. The up-side is that should, through political or agricultural turmoil, a local economy is doing poorly the currency doesn't lose worth and inflation is less of an issue. The reason for this is that the stronger economies can prop up the currency until the local area stabilizes. The downside is that the more widespread economic decline the larger the burden on the other countries and a wide-spread failure is more likely to affect a larger area.
For instance a decline in one country can stifle the growth of another country. Stifling growth is roughly equivalent to initiating decline economically. The results in both countries ending up in a decline and this snowballs into a general decline.
It just doesn't make economic sense to put all your eggs in one basket. This isn't idealistic, but there is no such thing as an perfect economic system.

Create a defense against asteroids and solar flairs -
Sadly I can't really come up with a discussion to address this. The subject matter is a little far fetched. This is roughly like saying we need a defense against the Earth ending. Eventually technology will reach a point where defending against these problems will be feasible. A unified government certainly could coordinate to find a defense, but at what cost economically, and socially. At best, it would speed up a defense, but not really so much so that it would be worth the drawbacks in other areas. By the time we developed the tech to destroy, move entire asteroids we may also have the means to colonize other planets and evacuate Earth. There are just too many variables.

Other issues to consider -
Politics -
How much more frustrating will politics become with world government. Think about what it is where your from multiplied by the number of people who don't live in your country. You have to accept that the most popular (not most able) people get elected and that politics are inherently corrupt. You accept these facts like any reasonable person accepts the duality of man.

Bureaucracy -
The operation of government would be so complex that it would be near impossible to manage it, and near absolutely impossible to run efficiently.

(I did read the posts between the first and this, but I didn't really feel like drawing on those arguments just yet.)

[DevilsAvocado]

Second of all I don't want any kind of world power, I just feel that world government is the only way to solve many of the problems currently facing the world.

And you might be right, but one of the criticism of world government is that you’re going to create more problems than you solve, and the first obvious is – WHO is to be in charge??

Are you going to solve it with – one woman/man, one vote?

Total Population
http://i51.tinypic.com/ivekr8.jpg
In Spring 2000 world population estimates reached 6 billion; that is 6 thousand million. The distribution of the earth's population is shown in this map.


Or, are you going to solve it with – one $, one vote?

GDP Wealth
http://i52.tinypic.com/244dv8l.png
This wealth map shows which territories have the greatest wealth when Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is compared using currency exchange rates. This indicates international purchasing power - what someone’s money would be worth if they wanted to spend it in another territory.

Next problem; if you don’t get global acceptance for a "World government", how are you going to avoid ('self' generated) violence?

(Maps from Worldmapper.org (http://www.worldmapper.org/))

[FlexGunship]

Yikes, wouldn't want to navigate by one of those maps.

The idea of many governments is a pretty good one. I bet we could do away with a few of them though, there are so many small sovereign states and they all seem to rely on outside support to keep their population alive (if they aren't actively killing their population instead).

Not to add drama and contention to the discussion, but the most natural dividing line for world governments wouldn't really be geography, but religion. Even the differences between capitalist states and socialist states are smaller than the differences between a secular state and a Muslim state.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Islam_World.svg/600px-Islam_World.svg.png
(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#Islamic_states)

Blue = secular state
Dark green = Islamic state
Bright green = Nations with prescribed religions (predominantly Islam)

Even for similar GDPs and geographical regions, the living conditions are very different in these two bordering regions.

[DevilsAvocado]

And the rest of the 'grey world' is... "united"...??

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Prevailing_world_religions_map.png/800px-Prevailing_world_religions_map.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

[dacruick]

A one world government is something that we are working towards. it is a distinct possibility to me. But I'm talking in terms of thousands of years. There is a high rate of economic globalization right now, and governments will follow the money. You can see this beginning to happen with China and the U.S, and the EU is very codependent. This is a trend that will continue in my mind. At one point, with technological advancement, and the elimination of geological limitations, it will make sense to start mutually governing bodies.

But this is an infant stage of such a state. The U.S is one country and doesn't (IMO) have an up to standard governing structure. I think in future years we will see the federal government start to take power away from the state. Sorry for the tangent.

EDIT: But Hell, I live in Canada and 40% of Quebec has been trying to separate for a hundred years. And they are smack dab in the middle of the country!

[FlexGunship]

And the rest of the 'grey world' is... "united"...??

Hah, no... obviously not. It was just an example. By segmenting information it's much easier to make a simple point. But I was specifically discussing existing governments which are based on religion (i.e. state religions) which your map doesn't take into account.

[Physics-Learner]

What concerns me is the movement in the United States that "all government is bad". With a nation of 300M+ and a world of 6B+, we need to have government. Anarchy would be a disaster. The challenge is to make the government more efficient and responsive. Throwing up our hands and saying "all government is bad" is not the answer.

i think you unknowingly changed my meaning. do you understand the difference between "all govts are bad" and "all government is bad" ?

my statement was about the status of actual current entities.

your statement is about a process.

while there may have been a few, there are no govts in the past 2000 years that i can recall off the top of my head that were good.

human nature, as it is, govts are formed by wealthy people who can exert control. and then exert control in such a way as to benefit mostly themselves.

if you look at the u.s. govt, we could probably do without about 90% of it. if you make a govt small enough, it is much more apt to actually serve the people, instead of the people serving it, which is what we have today.

govt should be localized as much as possible, since a localized govt is much easier to be made accountable for its actions. and much more visible to see said actions.

instead of a country, i would like to see our geographical area actually be a federation, whereby we are federated on those issues that make sense. we should have one language, one currency, some sort of federal military, etc.

what we actually have is ridiculous.

[Newai]

The sky is falling. Been falling since the dawn of civilization.

The decline of oil production will be gradual. As this happens it will be more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, other energy sources will be improved upon and utilized as the cost of them begins to be less than the cost of oil. It's the natural order of things. It won't be a catastrophic collapse.

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

[FlexGunship]

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

I don't know, but I think frat boys will drink more; politicians will lie more; and idiots will get dumber.

[ginru]

while there may have been a few, there are no govts in the past 2000 years that i can recall off the top of my head that were good.

human nature, as it is, govts are formed by wealthy people who can exert control. and then exert control in such a way as to benefit mostly themselves.

if you look at the u.s. govt, we could probably do without about 90% of it. if you make a govt small enough, it is much more apt to actually serve the people, instead of the people serving it, which is what we have today.

govt should be localized as much as possible, since a localized govt is much easier to be made accountable for its actions. and much more visible to see said actions.

instead of a country, i would like to see our geographical area actually be a federation, whereby we are federated on those issues that make sense. we should have one language, one currency, some sort of federal military, etc.

what we actually have is ridiculous.
Makes me think of the Federation of Planets from Star Trek. :tongue:

I like this direction but then the roadblock is those wealth/power elites that would stand in the way of something like this happening. Maintaining the status quo would seem to serve their interests. I could imagine the powerful elite cooking up some propaganda to paint any such movement as destabilizing their respective countries.

That's why I feel a unifying, alternative currency would be a meaningful step towards pulling society and the global economy away from the control of the wealthiest minority, especially if it empowers future generations to create a more effective system for serving the people.

[nismaratwork]

Between oil and all the other resources that rise in cost, while we can generally get by, what will be the human response under all that pressure?

War.

[nismaratwork]

A one world government is something that we are working towards. it is a distinct possibility to me. But I'm talking in terms of thousands of years. There is a high rate of economic globalization right now, and governments will follow the money. You can see this beginning to happen with China and the U.S, and the EU is very codependent. This is a trend that will continue in my mind. At one point, with technological advancement, and the elimination of geological limitations, it will make sense to start mutually governing bodies.

But this is an infant stage of such a state. The U.S is one country and doesn't (IMO) have an up to standard governing structure. I think in future years we will see the federal government start to take power away from the state. Sorry for the tangent.

EDIT: But Hell, I live in Canada and 40% of Quebec has been trying to separate for a hundred years. And they are smack dab in the middle of the country!

Which "we?" The UN, The EU, The USA, China, Russia? You see it as a distinct possibility, although no such thing has ever existed, and the tendency is to fragment along cultural, tribal, religious, monetary, resource...etc... lines. Codependancy doesn't end in a perfect union, it ends in tragedy or seperation, and frankly what infantile state do you see technologically?

How do you coerce a world of people who largely hate and covet each other, to hold hands without fighting over resources, including land, views, clean air, access to water... etc. You might want to research the history of water rights and warfare before you even consider more lofty issues.

[Physics-Learner]

Makes me think of the Federation of Planets from Star Trek. :tongue:

I like this direction but then the roadblock is those wealth/power elites that would stand in the way of something like this happening. Maintaining the status quo would seem to serve their interests. I could imagine the powerful elite cooking up some propaganda to paint any such movement as destabilizing their respective countries.

That's why I feel a unifying, alternative currency would be a meaningful step towards pulling society and the global economy away from the control of the wealthiest minority, especially if it empowers future generations to create a more effective system for serving the people.

actually, just the opposite. the powerful elite wants to rule the world, not just any one country. be very wary of anyone wanting to head in that direction.

[alt]

actually, just the opposite. the powerful elite wants to rule the world, not just any one country. be very wary of anyone wanting to head in that direction.

What direction ? Rule of the world, or rule of the world by powerful elite, ie, plutocracy ?

I would hate for the world to be ruled by one party, but would prefer plutocracy to communism any day !

[dacruick]

What direction ? Rule of the world, or rule of the world by powerful elite, ie, plutocracy ?

I would hate for the world to be ruled by one party, but would prefer plutocracy to communism any day !

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

[nismaratwork]

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

One world government screams facism to me, and tolalitarianism... Communism would collapse first.

[dacruick]

One world government screams facism to me, and tolalitarianism... Communism would collapse first.

And what if you leave your pessimism behind??

[nismaratwork]

And what if you leave your pessimism behind??

I'd probably melt like the witch from 'The Wizard of Oz'?

I'm Skeptical old Cromm, not cynical... communism grows, and collapses... it's history not pessimism.

[dacruick]

History doesn't govern the future though. 100 years ago women weren't even allowed to vote. I don't think any rational person can say that women don't have a core role in the success of every social and economic system.

[Physics-Learner]

A one world government pretty much screams communism doesn't it? Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly. I hear China is working on it...

communism fails because it requires people to work hard for the benefit of strangers. but there is one very common instance where communism works great. anyone tell me what it is ?

[dacruick]

No but now I'm curious.

[nismaratwork]

communism fails because it requires people to work hard for the benefit of strangers. but there is one very common instance where communism works great. anyone tell me what it is ?

Not a clue, but I'll bite too.

@dacruick: It doesn't govern the future, but it's a good object lesson(s) in this case. I'm not looking at just 100 years either... attempts at unification of even marginally dispirate elements (China for example) is violent and maintained by the threat of vioilence.

[Physics-Learner]

it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.

[dacruick]

Not a clue, but I'll bite too.

@dacruick: It doesn't govern the future, but it's a good object lesson(s) in this case. I'm not looking at just 100 years either... attempts at unification of even marginally dispirate elements (China for example) is violent and maintained by the threat of vioilence.

Violence when there is no other option. But can't you imagine a society at some point in the future with unified goals? Maybe a society where religion is a non-factor? Or where there is nothing to fight over? I am clearly being an idealist, but it is a possibility.

And yes, I do think religion promotes segregation, hatred, and oppresses change. It had its place many years ago when states needed money, to be unified under the same beliefs, and organization. What better way to do that than with an all powerful entity. But now with the amount of communication and organization that we can achieve, religion is a detriment more than a tool.

[dacruick]

it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.

A family?

[nismaratwork]

it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.

Academic institutions... in theory?

[nismaratwork]

Violence when there is no other option. But can't you imagine a society at some point in the future with unified goals? Maybe a society where religion is a non-factor? Or where there is nothing to fight over? I am clearly being an idealist, but it is a possibility.

I can't imagine human nature changing so radically without tragedy preceeding it. I'm sorry, I'm no pessimist, but I'm also no idealist... I can only imagine the form, not the structure of that kind of world. It seems like a world we see in dreams, that looks perfect, but it's not to scale... not liveable. I can imagine such a world, I just can't imagine people being the ones living in it.

And yes, I do think religion promotes segregation, hatred, and oppresses change. It had its place many years ago when states needed money, to be unified under the same beliefs, and organization. What better way to do that than with an all powerful entity. But now with the amount of communication and organization that we can achieve, religion is a detriment more than a tool.

I'm not sure... I used to believe as you do, and I'm about as religious as a lump of clay. Still, some cultures are inextricably linked to religion, and people seem to need it. I don't know that religion HAS to result in conflict, but it makes for a dandy justification... that's clear enough. As a cause... yeah, it happens, but it's also a driving force for change at a certain level in the evolutio of a society.

[Physics-Learner]

A family?

as the fonz would say - correct-a-mundo.

give to the pot based on ability, take from the pot based on need.

[nismaratwork]

as the fonz would say - correct-a-mundo.

give to the pot based on ability, take from the pot based on need.

...And how many families don't have a clear leader or leaders, and how many are dysfunctional from the POV of Communism? A lot I'd say...

[Physics-Learner]

well, in star trek, they managed it - mainly due to the fact that a person's needs were taken care of, so there was no reason to fight or control.

think about heaven and eternal happiness. if that really existed, you would already have anything that you needed.

[Physics-Learner]

...And how many families don't have a clear leader or leaders, and how many are dysfunctional from the POV of Communism? A lot I'd say...

yes, that is why i said most of us. if the family is dysfunctional enough, it can still be a bad situation.

[nismaratwork]

well, in star trek, they managed it - mainly due to the fact that a person's needs were taken care of, so there was no reason to fight or control.

think about heaven and eternal happiness. if that really existed, you would already have anything that you needed.

Yet, you had the Borg, Romulans, and others...

[Physics-Learner]

yes, societies that had not yet reached those levels. vulcan was one society that had.

[Physics-Learner]

Yet, you had the Borg, Romulans, and others...

dont forget the klingons - LOL

[nismaratwork]

yes, societies that had not yet reached those levels. vulcan was one society that had.

...True... but they still had the representation of their darker side: The Romulans.

I can't believe I'm having this conversation... I may spontaneously grow a pocket protector. :wink:

[nismaratwork]

dont forget the klingons - LOL

Yeah, but they evolved over the course of the series... they're a better example for your point of view. Heh...

[Physics-Learner]

i just watched one of the dvds with a bunch of conversation on it. one of the bigwigs chose the name romulans, cuz his son was studying the roman empire at the time - LOL.

[nismaratwork]

i just watched one of the dvds with a bunch of conversation on it. one of the bigwigs chose the name romulans, cuz his son was studying the roman empire at the time - LOL.

Heh, that makes sense... I always saw the Vulcan-Romulan dichotomy as a "what if" had the myth of Rome's origins had ended with founding of two great cities. Romulas and Remus both birthing an empire on radically different principles.

[Al68]

Maybe by that time we will have advanced enough as a race to apply communism properly.How can involuntary servitude be "applied properly"? Are you saying that "advanced" means that every person volunteers?

There is a reason Stalin and Mao killed people by the millions: Communism is inherently incompatible with the existence of "non-communists" in society, and non-communists exist in society.

[nismaratwork]

How can involuntary servitude be "applied properly"? Are you saying that "advanced" means that every person volunteers?

There is a reason Stalin and Mao killed people by the millions: Communism is inherently incompatible with the existence of "non-communists" in society, and non-communists exist in society.

:yuck: I agree completely.

[Gokul43201]

communism fails because it requires people to work hard for the benefit of strangers. but there is one very common instance where communism works great. anyone tell me what it is ?

A family?

as the fonz would say - correct-a-mundo.

How is the family unit an example of Communism? Even by your definition above, that would require family members to behave like strangers.

[nismaratwork]

How is the family unit an example of Communism? Even by your definition above, that would require family members to behave like strangers.

I could be wrong here, but I believe his point is that it works in the limited instance where you do NOT have to do this for strangers, but family instead.

[Gokul43201]

I could be wrong here, but I believe his point is that it works in the limited instance where you do NOT have to do this for strangers, but family instead.But you have a very immediate and direct self interest derived from the well-being of your family. And you enter into a relationship voluntarily, not by fiat. That looks to me more like a capitalist organization than a communist one.

[nismaratwork]

But you have a very immediate and direct self interest derived from the well-being of your family. And you enter into a relationship voluntarily, not by fiat. That looks to me more like a capitalist organization than a communist one.

True, which is why I didn't exactly accept that analogy, but I still fail to see how this has to do with interacting with family as though they're strangers. I'd say it's more of a feudal system in most cases, but there is (in the USA) a legal merger of finance, property, and risk so... there are communist elements.

[Physics-Learner]

remember that communism is an economic policy. it is the opposite of capitalism.

in communism, the group gives on the basis of ability, and takes on the basis of need.

the dad and mom are the main givers, while everyone takes based upon their needs.

the children did not enter voluntarily. they were put there - LOL.

[FtlIsAwesome]

dont forget the klingons - LOL
Don't forget the Ferengi either.

[nismaratwork]

Don't forget the Ferengi either.

I liked the original, whip-wielding, slave-trader Ferengi... the modern ones make no sense in a world of replicators!

[FtlIsAwesome]

And the Cardassians.

[Proton Soup]

Yet, you had the Borg, Romulans, and others...

borg are the ultimate in other-worldly governance

[nismaratwork]

borg are the ultimate in other-worldly governance

Agreed.

@FitIsAwesome: I always felt the Cardassians were a cheap version of the Romulans... not a fan of them! :tongue:

[FtlIsAwesome]

I wonder what its like to be a borg... :eek::eek::eek:

[Perspicacity]

Cardassians were lame—but Quark was by far the best Star Trek character ever.

[nismaratwork]

Cardassians were lame—but Quark was by far the best Star Trek character ever.

Not in small part to the immense talents of the actor, and the writers. I never understood why people didn't seem to enjoy DS-9... I found it to be a change of pace, but one that grew on me.

[FtlIsAwesome]

We are the Borg. You will be assimilated.

[FtlIsAwesome]

We are the Ferengi. You will give us your money.

[Al68]

But you have a very immediate and direct self interest derived from the well-being of your family. And you enter into a relationship voluntarily, not by fiat. That looks to me more like a capitalist organization than a communist one.That's exactly right. Voluntary vs. forced is the proper distinction to make, at least politically, since that's the reason for opposition to communism.

And while it's true that children are "forced" into the relationship, using the word communism for that makes about as much sense as using a words like "slaves" or "prisoners" to refer to children. Technically true, yes, but kinda silly.

[nismaratwork]

That's exactly right. Voluntary vs. forced is the proper distinction to make, at least politically, since that's the reason for opposition to communism.

And while it's true that children are "forced" into the relationship, using the word communism for that makes about as much sense as using a words like "slaves" or "prisoners" to refer to children. Technically true, yes, but kinda silly.

I don't know... it's pretty literal in many parts of the world unfortunately... and not uncommon at all. I take your general point however.

[nismaratwork]

We are the Ferengi. You will give us your money.

Right? Assimilated.. :bugeye:

"give us your cash"

:uhh:

I love the retcon to explain that "gold pressed latinum" was somehow special and not replicator friendly. :rofl:

[FtlIsAwesome]

I love the retcon to explain that "gold pressed latinum" was somehow special and not replicator friendly. :rofl:
Latinum is supposed to one of the only things, or the only thing, that cannot be replicated. I'm not really sure what the gold is for, since I think it can be replicated.


Right? Assimilated.. :bugeye:

"give us your cash"
The Ferengi have discovered how to rewrite the Borg code. They control the Borg now. Give the Ferengi your money or they will command the Borg to assimilate you. :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:

[Al68]

The Ferengi have discovered how to rewrite the Borg code. They control the Borg now. Give the Ferengi your money or they will command the Borg to assimilate you. :bugeye: :bugeye: :bugeye:You forgot to tell people how to send the money. The Ferengi accept Paypal sent to the following e-mail address: Al68@yahoo.com.

[FtlIsAwesome]

You forgot to tell people how to send the money. The Ferengi accept Paypal sent to the following e-mail address: Al68@yahoo.com.
Arg! :grumpy::grumpy::grumpy: :rofl:


Well, you'll get a lot of spam now. :biggrin:

[Physics-Learner]

That's exactly right. Voluntary vs. forced is the proper distinction to make, at least politically, since that's the reason for opposition to communism.

And while it's true that children are "forced" into the relationship, using the word communism for that makes about as much sense as using a words like "slaves" or "prisoners" to refer to children. Technically true, yes, but kinda silly.

did you read my post ? communism is From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

exactly what a family unit does - at least a good mom and dad.

[nismaratwork]

You forgot to tell people how to send the money. The Ferengi accept Paypal sent to the following e-mail address: Al68@yahoo.com.

Be honest now, if I sent you money, you'd probably faint from shock. :wink:

[FtlIsAwesome]

I wonder if that email is valid. :rofl:



I didn't know the Ferengi use email.

[Al68]

Be honest now, if I sent you money, you'd probably faint from shock. :wink:That's a chance I'm willing to take. Please make it as shocking as possible.

[Al68]

did you read my post ? communism is From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

exactly what a family unit does - at least a good mom and dad.Sure, I agreed that the definition was technically correct, analogous to using the word "prisoner" to refer to children.

[nismaratwork]

Sure, I agreed that the definition was technically correct, analogous to using the word "prisoner" to refer to children.

Are you familiar with a form of indentured servitude of children in regions with high poverty?

Oh, and I would not prepare for a shock, but I do appreciate how game you are. :wink:

[Al68]

Are you familiar with a form of indentured servitude of children in regions with high poverty?Yes, I should have specified children generally, not a specific case. There are children who really are slaves, prisoners, and communists, but those words aren't normally used to refer to all children, even if technically true.

[nismaratwork]

Yes, I should have specified children generally, not a specific case. There are children who really are slaves, prisoners, and communists, but those words aren't normally used to refer to all children, even if technically true.

Fair enough, just making sure... not everyone does know.

[Physics-Learner]

the children dont need to be slaves. communism is not totalitarian. it is simply an economic policy where you give what you can, and take what you need.

the reason it works in a family is because there are emotional ties to one another. the reason it does not work in a country is because there are not those emotional ties to one another.

[nismaratwork]

the children dont need to be slaves. communism is not totalitarian. it is simply an economic policy where you give what you can, and take what you need.

the reason it works in a family is because there are emotional ties to one another. the reason it does not work in a country is because there are not those emotional ties to one another.

That explanation works best for my taste, and dovetails with the dysfunctional families as well.

[Forestman]

Perhaps communism on the scale of the world would work if people were genetically engineered to be extremely altruistic and non competitive. Then there would be no conflict between the individual and the group. Once it is perfected the government should provide genetic engineering for everyones future offspring, otherwise a rich superclass of people will be created because only the rich will be able to afford to genetically engineer their offspring.

Also if the worlds population was brought down to at least a billion then there would be enough resources to go around. I don't mean killing people, just not allowing everyone to have children. And for those who would be allowed to have children; only allowing them to have one.

[drankin]

Perhaps communism on the scale of the world would work if people were genetically engineered to be extremely altruistic and non competitive. Then there would be no conflict between the individual and the group. Once it is perfected the government should provide genetic engineering for everyones future offspring, otherwise a rich superclass of people will be created because only the rich will be able to afford to genetically engineer their offspring.

Also if the worlds population was brought down to at least a billion then there would be enough resources to go around. I don't mean killing people, just not allowing everyone to have children. And for those who would be allowed to have children; only allowing them to have one.

Where do you get these ideas anyway? Do you realize how many people would die fighting to prevent such a thing?

[Forestman]

Genetic engineering of people is going to happen whether we like it or not, therefore we might as well make sure that it turns out for the best.

If the population of the Earth is not lowered, then in the end we well all be living in poverty.

[drankin]

Genetic engineering of people is going to happen whether we like it or not, therefore we might as well make sure that it turns out for the best.

If the population of the Earth is not lowered, then in the end we well all be living in poverty.

You have been watching/reading too much sci-fi.

Where's Evo?!

[Forestman]

I understand that things like only allowing people to have one child or none at all sounds really terrible, but what choice do we have. It won't be long now and the Earth will have around 9 billion people on it. The Earth just does not have the room or the resources to take care of 9 billion people. And it won't stop there, but it will just keep growing. Not to mention the devastating effects that it will have on our climate. Controlling the population is far more humane than the majority of the worlds people living in poverty and disease. Not to mention the war that it would breed.

[nismaratwork]

You have been watching/reading too much sci-fi.

Where's Evo?!

OK... we're in perfect agreement two posts running now...

Evo... HELP!!! "I scared!"

[nismaratwork]

I have a new answer to the title of this thread:

Why...?: Because life isn't complex enough, we need a chaotic period during which nations guarding stocks of weaponry ranging from conventional to nuclear no longer focus on guarding those stocks... or use them.

[drankin]

OK... we're in perfect agreement two posts running now...


I think we agree more than we disagree, actually.

[nismaratwork]

I think we agree more than we disagree, actually.

It does seem that way lately, doesn't it?

[Forestman]

You have been watching/reading too much sci-fi.

Where's Evo?!

You make to many assumptions.

[nismaratwork]

You make to many assumptions.

Please list them.

[Physics-Learner]

actually, i agree with population control. the problem is that most of the overgrowth is in the third world countries.

the birth rates in the us and europe are actually down. but then immigrants come over, and bring their overpopulation tendencies into the new areas.

from what i have read, it is already a done deal in europe. that continent will be dominated by muslims within a generation or so.

i am more of a segregationist. let each country deal with their own problems. if a country wants to procreate until they live like sardines, so be it. just dont bring it over here.

[drankin]

As countries progress, they stop having so many kids. My great grandparents and most everyone they knew had large families, lots of sibings. You don't see that so much anymore in America, Canada, Europe. So, this being the case, we don't need to control population, we need to help bring up other countries and it will happen naturally. IMO.

[Physics-Learner]

i agree with that. but there an awful lot of countries "to bring up".

[nismaratwork]

i agree with that. but there an awful lot of countries "to bring up".

The alternative is war, or disease... we have no choice.

[Forestman]

As countries progress, they stop having so many kids. My great grandparents and most everyone they knew had large families, lots of sibings. You don't see that so much anymore in America, Canada, Europe. So, this being the case, we don't need to control population, we need to help bring up other countries and it will happen naturally. IMO.

That is true, but as America experiences more of an influx of Hispanics, who have lots of children, and as Europe experiences more of an influx of Arab immigrates, who have lots of children as well, then things will start to change.

[nismaratwork]

That is true, but as America experiences more of an influx of Hispanics, who have lots of children, and as Europe experiences more of an influx of Arab immigrates, who have lots of children as well, then things will start to change.

Ahhh, but when people come to this country, the same forces of poverty apply. Yet, over time you find that as people integrate their birth rates tend to stabalize, although it takes generations.

Besides... change isn't always a bad thing... and it's inexorable.

[lisab]

That is true, but as America experiences more of an influx of Hispanics, who have lots of children, and as Europe experiences more of an influx of Arab immigrates, who have lots of children as well, then things will start to change.

Mexican culture places high value to family and strong work ethic. While American culture may change a bit because of their influence, it probably won't be a bad thing, IMO.

[nismaratwork]

I'd add... when your child mortality rate decreases, and the cost of children and eduction INCREASES... you have pressures to lower birth rates. I see nothing wrong with this influx, anymore than anyone has of every group in the past. We need diversity to be a functional country the way an immune system needs lymph.

[ginru]

So Poverty ends up being the real issue here. This thread was initially about the establishment of a world government, basically saying we need a more efficient structure to our global society. This is of course obvious but then the huge destabilizing force to human society seems to come from Poverty. It creates the desperation of the underclass, thus leading people to throw their potential away to crime and/or terrorism, while also adding to the overpopulation issue.

Then dealing with all of its side-effects ends up seriously draining the resources of any government through wars/policing actions, incarceration, and welfare. So once the human race finally deals with the core issue of Poverty then perhaps solutions to many of our other problems will fall into place.

[Phrak]

We need a one world government too:
Stop man made climate change.
Stop terrorism.
Stop over population.
Stop the threat of nuclear war.
Create a stable economy.
Create a defense against astroids and solar flares.

Why we-the-people need to castrate the UN in it's one-world-government ambitions and advancements:
Stop the insidious promotion of human climate change hysteria.
Stop the creeping advancement of universal tyranny the unelected will bring about.
Stop the inevitable euthanasia those in power will bring about. Remember Smilin' Uncle Joe Stalin. Nevermind the second stringers, Hitler and Pol Pot.
Stop the inevitability kill-off of the expendable-and-enslaved-we-the-people that absolute power brings about.
Create a dynamic economy, not a stagnant servant serving the entrenched and powerful.
Hu?

[Gokul43201]

I'm not aware the UN has one-world-government ambitions? Is this described somewhere in their charter or official statements? Do you have a reference for me to read?

[Phrak]

I'm not aware the UN has one-world-government ambitions? Is this described somewhere in their charter or official statements? Do you have a reference for me to read?

I can only say I'm surprised to hear doubt expressed over human nature. The UN is not an It. It's a bunch of folks who are members, having obtained the positions they have obtained, not by shunning influence over others, but by seeking it.

[Gokul43201]

I can only say I'm surprised to hear doubt expressed over human nature.I thought you were making a specific claim about the UN, rather than expressing a general opinion on human nature.

[Forestman]

I actually used to be against the idea of one world government like you Phrak, then I started questioning these people that were so adamant in preaching against it. When it really hit me that climate change was largely man made is when my mind started to change. I admit that there is a chance that having a one world government could go in the wrong direction. But that is why I would never want to see the end of democracy, only a lessing of it so as to allow the government to act more swiftly to end the problems that are facing the world. Especially climate change and over population. Maybe what the others have been saying is true, and that it could never work. Maybe I am just being a little bit of a crack pot in supporting the idea. But regardless of whether it could work or not I just hope that something can be done about these major problems.

[Gokul43201]

And believe me climate change is largely man made.Statements like this are not permitted on PF. Please see the Forum Guidelines for a list of topics that are not allowed.

[Forestman]

Okay, I will make sure that it does not happen again.

[Phrak]

I actually used to be against the idea of one world government like you Phrak, then I started questioning these people that were so adamant in preaching against it. When it really hit me that climate change was largely man made is when my mind started to change.

Yeah, like Gokul43201 said, we are banned from speaking of g****l w*****g, however the blatant fraud that advances it is in the gray area.

[Phrak]

I can only say I'm surprised to hear doubt expressed over human nature. The UN is not an It. It's a bunch of folks who are members, having obtained the positions they have obtained, not by shunning influence over others, but by seeking it.

I thought you were making a specific claim about the UN, rather than expressing a general opinion on human nature.

In afterthough, I think this was intended to be some sort of skew insult, which I'm perfectly fine with, but I think you could have made it better, somehow. I don't think a general statement about human nature on the self-serving side discludes the members of the UN, but in my assessment targets them.

[Gokul43201]

Why we-the-people need to castrate the UN in it's one-world-government ambitions and advancements:This is a statement of fact, and by the forum rules, requires some documented support.

I'm not aware the UN has one-world-government ambitions? Is this described somewhere in their charter or official statements? Do you have a reference for me to read?

I can only say I'm surprised to hear doubt expressed over human nature. The UN is not an It.Yet, that was your choice of word in the previous post, not mine. Moreover, I don't think my doubt is all that bizarre.

It's a bunch of folks who are members, having obtained the positions they have obtained, not by shunning influence over others, but by seeking it.This is true of any person elected or appointed to work in government. It's one thing to say that a politician has personal ambitions, but quite a leap to go from that to insisting that a particular group of bureaucrats collectively possess and are working towards realizing their ambitions to rule the world! I think it's fair to ask for a reference when such a leap is made.

I thought you were making a specific claim about the UN, rather than expressing a general opinion on human nature.

In afterthough, I think this was intended to be some sort of skew insult, which I'm perfectly fine with, but I think you could have made it better, somehow.It wasn't an insult; it was a reaction to your combination of posts.

I don't think a general statement about human nature on the self-serving side discludes the members of the UN, but in my assessment targets them.If it's just your "assessment", then it should be presented as that: an opinion, not a fact.

[nismaratwork]

Why we-the-people need to castrate the UN in it's one-world-government ambitions and advancements:
Stop the insidious promotion of human climate change hysteria.
Stop the creeping advancement of universal tyranny the unelected will bring about.
Stop the inevitable euthanasia those in power will bring about. Remember Smilin' Uncle Joe Stalin. Nevermind the second stringers, Hitler and Pol Pot.
Stop the inevitability kill-off of the expendable-and-enslaved-we-the-people that absolute power brings about.
Create a dynamic economy, not a stagnant servant serving the entrenched and powerful.
Hu?

Wow... you actually managed to match the OP and others, nutty for nutty. I'm impressed, and until I read on I could have sworn that you were joking.

I'd also dearly love to see your justification for this... list. It reads like Glenn Beck's nightmare closet, with the intellectual rigor of Keith Olberman, and the witty presentation of Wolf Blitzer.

I realize, and have made the point many times, that Stalin killed more than Hitler and (unrelated by war) Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge, but 'second stringer' is absurd. Shall we simply minimize all genocide and other horrors because they don't match the numbers of another?

By your logic we could euthanize a significant portion of our population... say... a few million unwanted folks like pedophiles, and career criminals... and still be 'no Stalin'! I thought you had more to you than this Phrak.

[nismaratwork]

I can only say I'm surprised to hear doubt expressed over human nature. The UN is not an It. It's a bunch of folks who are members, having obtained the positions they have obtained, not by shunning influence over others, but by seeking it.

OK... now we're back to reality...

How does an incompetant bickering body equate to a future of euthansia and economic collapse, or mass murder?!

[Perspicacity]

OK... now we're back to reality...

How does an incompetant bickering body equate to a future of euthansia and economic collapse, or mass murder?!

Well if I had to guess, it would be because hysterical people advocate giving that same incompetent bickering body MORE power because they're frightened of whatever doomsday scenario is in vogue at the time.

[nismaratwork]

Well if I had to guess, it would be because hysterical people advocate giving that same incompetent bickering body MORE power because they're frightened of whatever doomsday scenario is in vogue at the time.

That time passed with the Cold War, since that time said body has been eviscerated where it hasn't shamed itself into obsolesce. I can't imagine a less likely body to be sought during a crisis that anyone wanted to ACTUALLY effect, than the UN.

Anyway, sounds like the issue is hysterical people, willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety, and that sounds more like the USA under W. than the UN or anything else frankly.

[Perspicacity]

That time passed with the Cold War, since that time said body has been eviscerated where it hasn't shamed itself into obsolesce. I can't imagine a less likely body to be sought during a crisis that anyone wanted to ACTUALLY effect, than the UN.

Anyway, sounds like the issue is hysterical people, willing to trade freedom for the illusion of safety, and that sounds more like the USA under W. than the UN or anything else frankly.

I agree, but that was my best guess for an answer to your question.

[ginru]

Doesn't help to blame the hysterical people when we're all living in the same asylum. :wink:

So the UN can't seem to work through internal differences and fails to deal with issues effectively for the common good. That sounds like a dysfunctional family, and as I think was mentioned earlier can fail for similar reasons. But when a family fails, the logic is to either fix that family through therapy or mediation (--Evolve the procedures of the UN--).... Or to simply break it up through divorce (--Dissolve the UN and build a new, better system--).

We're all essentially one big family living on the home planet. If we only see ourselves as individuals catering to self-interests and fearful of unified structure, then I'd assume any house we create will suffer the usual instability.

My hope is that instead of waiting hundreds of years for the ideal sci-fi technology, we can simply look inwards and figure out how to build stronger families capable of handling internal differences (of opinion, sexuality, religion, financial, etc.). From there, we can better resolve differences with other families to ultimately build stronger communities, then onto optimized nation building, then onto a functioning world government.... and then onto exploring the galaxy on the star ship Enterprise. :tongue2:

[nismaratwork]

I agree, but that was my best guess for an answer to your question.

I can't say boo to that, thanks for the honest effort, and I'm sorry that I misunderstood your intentions. I admire the ability to be dispassionate and pose hypotheticals... I should have realized your intent; I won't make that error twice.

[nismaratwork]

Doesn't help to blame the hysterical people when we're all living in the same asylum. :wink:

So the UN can't seem to work through internal differences and fails to deal with issues effectively for the common good. That sounds like a dysfunctional family, and as I think was mentioned earlier can fail for similar reasons. But when a family fails, the logic is to either fix that family through therapy or mediation (--Evolve the procedures of the UN--).... Or to simply break it up through divorce (--Dissolve the UN and build a new, better system--).

We're all essentially one big family living on the home planet. If we only see ourselves as individuals catering to self-interests and fearful of unified structure, then I'd assume any house we create will suffer the usual instability.

My hope is that instead of waiting hundreds of years for the ideal sci-fi technology, we can simply look inwards and figure out how to build stronger families capable of handling internal differences (of opinion, sexuality, religion, financial, etc.). From there, we can better resolve differences with other families to ultimately build stronger communities, then onto optimized nation building, then onto a functioning world government.... and then onto exploring the galaxy on the star ship Enterprise. :tongue2:

I doubt that will happen, but it's a beautiful vision of the future.

[Phrak]

Wow... you actually managed to match the OP and others, nutty for nutty. I'm impressed, and until I read on I could have sworn that you were joking.

I'd also dearly love to see your justification for this... list. It reads like Glenn Beck's nightmare closet, with the intellectual rigor of Keith Olberman, and the witty presentation of Wolf Blitzer.

I realize, and have made the point many times, that Stalin killed more than Hitler and (unrelated by war) Pol Pot and the entire Khmer Rouge, but 'second stringer' is absurd. Shall we simply minimize all genocide and other horrors because they don't match the numbers of another?

How did I know someone would take my words and turn them around, and that it would be you. But I'm just a nut with outlandish opinions on human nature, so this can't be true.

[nismaratwork]

How did I know someone would take my words and turn them around, and that it would be you. But I'm just a nut with outlandish opinions on human nature, so this can't be true.

So it would seem. :smile: