News Why we need a one world government

  • Thread starter Thread starter Forestman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Government
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the idea of establishing a one-world government to address global issues such as climate change, terrorism, overpopulation, nuclear threats, and economic stability. Proponents argue that a unified government could implement standardized laws, enforce population control measures, and prioritize funding for sustainable energy solutions. However, critics challenge the feasibility of such a government, citing potential civil unrest and the impracticality of merging diverse political systems. Concerns about overpopulation and resource depletion are raised, with some participants expressing a pessimistic outlook on humanity's ability to adapt and survive. Others counter that technological advancements and economic growth in developing nations could mitigate these challenges. The conversation also touches on the risks of centralizing power, with warnings about corruption and inefficiency in a global governance structure. Overall, the debate reflects deep divisions in perspectives on governance, sustainability, and the future of humanity.
  • #91
it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #93
Physics-Learner said:
it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.

A family?
 
  • #94
Physics-Learner said:
it is so common that just about all of us experienced it.

Academic institutions... in theory?
 
  • #95
dacruick said:
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.

dacruick said:
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.
 
  • #96
dacruick said:
A family?

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

give to the pot based on ability, take from the pot based on need.
 
  • #97
Physics-Learner said:
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...
 
  • #98
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.
 
  • #99
nismaratwork said:
...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.
 
  • #100
Physics-Learner said:
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...
 
  • #101
yes, societies that had not yet reached those levels. vulcan was one society that had.
 
  • #102
nismaratwork said:
Yet, you had the Borg, Romulans, and others...

dont forget the klingons - LOL
 
  • #103
Physics-Learner said:
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:
 
  • #104
Physics-Learner said:
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...
 
  • #105
i just watched one of the dvds with a bunch of conversation on it. one of the bigwigs chose the name romulans, because his son was studying the roman empire at the time - LOL.
 
  • #106
Physics-Learner said:
i just watched one of the dvds with a bunch of conversation on it. one of the bigwigs chose the name romulans, because 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.
 
  • #107
dacruick said:
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.
 
  • #108
Al68 said:
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.

I agree completely.
 
  • #109
Physics-Learner said:
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 said:
A family?

Physics-Learner said:
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.
 
  • #110
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #111
nismaratwork said:
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.
 
  • #112
Gokul43201 said:
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.
 
  • #113
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.
 
  • #114
Physics-Learner said:
dont forget the klingons - LOL
Don't forget the Ferengi either.
 
  • #115
FtlIsAwesome said:
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!
 
  • #116
And the Cardassians.
 
  • #117
nismaratwork said:
Yet, you had the Borg, Romulans, and others...

borg are the ultimate in other-worldly governance
 
  • #118
Proton Soup said:
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! :-p
 
  • #119
I wonder what its like to be a borg... :eek::eek::eek:
 
  • #120
Cardassians were lame—but Quark was by far the best Star Trek character ever.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
975
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
14K