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.