News 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 asteroids and solar flares.

 

[IMP]

Shouldn't this be in the "Lame Jokes" thread here: https://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 asteroids 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 Earth's 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 Earth's 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 that's 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 that's 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!

 

[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!

 

[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 .

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 http://discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featworld" that will keep you 'busy'...

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 , Stephen Petranek shortened the list to 10:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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 billion years, we’re smoked 100%!

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

 

[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?

 

[DevilsAvocado]

NOOOO!

 

[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. don't 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 don't 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 don't want violence, but for a pacifist he took one hell of a stand re WWII.