- #36
Forestman
- 212
- 2
You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.
Last edited:
Citation needed.Forestman said:You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.
Please do not make statements that aren't true.Forestman said: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.
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?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.
ginru said: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 I gain hope from how the youth have embraced Internet technology to gain an upper hand over outdated governments.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.
Forestman said:You guys know, Einstein wanted a one world government.
Physics-Learner said: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.
Pengwuino said: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.
Pengwuino said: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."
Physics-Learner said: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).
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.chiro said: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.
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?phyzguy said: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.
Pengwuino said: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."
Ivan Seeking said: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.
Al68 said: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 said: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.
nismaratwork said: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.
dacruick said: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.
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.Pengwuino said: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 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.Ivan Seeking said: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 mostly agree, but there is a very simple solution to this problem. REPORT the bad posts.dacruick said: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 agree.Although I will say that Forestman has shown better conduct than most on this thread...
Gokul43201 said: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.
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.nismaratwork said:Reports lead to warnings and infractions...
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.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?
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.Besides, every report = work for a mentor... if the issue can be resolved without resorting to that, why not?
Physics-Learner said:i think the article, if true, supports what was said about einstein.
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).
Gokul43201 said: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.
Gokul43201 said: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.
Gokul43201 said: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.
Forestman said: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.
FlexGunship said: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.
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.Forestman said: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.
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 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.
Forestman said: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.