Why we need a one world government

[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 don't 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 asteroids 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 possesses 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.

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.