World Goverment
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: World Goverment
Most likely in the event they find there is little time for a solution one religion will kill off the rest. We're all being herded into camps so that when the time comes they know who to protect. Sadly for the moderates they probably won't quite fit the doctrine of singularity.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lilith Pride's post
11-02-2012, 08:50 PM
RE: World Goverment
A single world government (secular, theocratic or otherwise) would be a disaster of epic proportions.

What to believe, how to live and how to govern are not things for us to "figure out" and "get right". There are a million ways to approach them and the chorus of answers is the diverse richness of the ethnosphere.

The ethnosphere is like the biosphere in that diversity is a necessary good.

The globalisation movement has been rolling for some time, promoting monoculture wherever it goes and the result is nothing less than catastrophe. 3 000 of the world's 6 000 languages will disappear inside the next generation. It's an incalculable loss. While the 'inferior savage' understanding of world cultures festers in the collective unconscious, as Wade Davis points out, these are not failed attempts at modernity, not failed attempts to be us, but rather the chorus of voices answering the question of what it means to be alive and human.

Enshrining one way as the only way presupposes that things never change. We've figured it all out. It's the end of history! But that sort of thinking is foolhardy. Democracy might not work in 100 years. Maybe someone will work out something better. But once a single way is institutionalised, it closes the door on innovation. We'd be locked into a single way. And God help us if it stops working all of a sudden.

One world government would be bad m'kay.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Ghost's post
11-02-2012, 09:41 PM (This post was last modified: 11-02-2012 10:04 PM by Zat.)
RE: World Goverment
(11-02-2012 08:50 PM)Ghost Wrote:  A single world government (secular, theocratic or otherwise) would be a disaster of epic proportions.

Ghost, it entirely depends on how you define a government's role, function and responsibilities.

I can imagine a scenario in which it could work just fine (if the government's ONLY function is to prevent crime and assure that everyone's basic needs are met) or, as you said, it could be the worst imaginable dictatorship of the 1984 variety.

It all depends on how mature and sane the citizenship is by the time that level of unification becomes even remotely possible.

As I said before: I am not very optimistic. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zat's post
11-02-2012, 11:26 PM
RE: World Goverment
maybe we should end all wars between states and nations before we think of making us all one big nation.

I, personally, don't like it. I think every nation is entitled to preserve its own culture and tradition, and one big unified world will eliminate this possibility.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2012, 11:46 PM
RE: World Goverment
(11-02-2012 04:21 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  This was the huge fear of the brand of fundies I grew up around. The world will one day be united by the Head Antichrist of all antichrists and he will make everyone take the mark of the Beast and worship him. If they don't, it's off with their heads!

I was subjected to this abuse around age 12. Start watching around minute 6:30 and you'll have an understanding of why I have a deeply ingrained fear of a One World Government.

That turned my stomach!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
12-02-2012, 12:54 AM
RE: World Goverment
(11-02-2012 03:40 PM)Zat Wrote:  
(11-02-2012 03:37 PM)Jackrabbit Wrote:  What do you guys think? arent we all just citizens of the world?

It would make perfect sense, jackrabbit, we are the same species, living on the same planet.

It is a lovely dream, probably centuries in the future, if humanity does not self destruct in the near future, as it seems to be bent on.

However, "dreams sometime come true, even if you tell them"! Smile

Lilith Pride's comment, the Star Trek view, is desirable for peace and stability and the future of humanity.
Resistance to change to this model (which btw is kinda the United Nations idea) comes from the problem as articulated by others already, of Diversity vs Assimilation.
It is the reason why Multiculturalism fails.

I vacillate on the one. I feel the need to maintain my values but living in a foreign country, I know that I should not (have no right to) impose my views on others. Can I join the culture and influence within, I think so and this is better than building a ghetto. It’s why I chose to live in Chinatown, in Singapore rather than one of the ex-pat ghettos. And is the culture influencing me, I hope so.

Add to the mix… personal liberty. Well, the secular ideas are facilitating our ability for personal freedoms within societies (clubs, religions, states) and where governance (and indeed Governments) enables and adjudicates and administers… but does not dictate.

So, extrapolating this to global levels should be possible.

But, what about this regarding freedom…
Denis Diderot (October 5, 1713 – July 31, 1784) said ““Man will never be free until the last monarch is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”
We are near the end of the era of church and then state tyrannies (although the Muslim world has yet to catch up). Church doctrines can now be influenced (painfully slowly via Synods) and Secular doctrines via democratic means. But there is a third frontier… information and ideas.

So here’s a question… What would a Cyber-Parliament (a democratic method of facilitating change for Netizens) look like?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 09:58 AM
RE: World Goverment
It would look like a star wars convention =p All the members of parliament logging on to their internet avis of various sorts =p That'll happen but not for a little while the current ruling class wouldn't accept the absurdity of avatars for parliament =p

This third frontier is more pressing than the unexplored ocean depths. Now that the governments have finally started to poke at the internet they are learning it's a virtual hornet's nest. Recent attempts to control the flow of information have started to show how deep internet loyalties lie. The most likely way for a worldwide revolution will be due to the physical governments attempting to remove the internet's impact on society. The internet has already succeeded in banding more people together than any government the world has ever known.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Lilith Pride's post
12-02-2012, 10:09 AM
RE: World Goverment
(12-02-2012 09:58 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  ... The internet has already succeeded in banding more people together than any government the world has ever known.

YES! It is the best thing going.
The spread of good information en masse is the great equalizer.

It's all in your head, because there is no other place it could be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-02-2012, 10:36 AM
RE: World Goverment
In order to think about a one-world government that works, we have to rethink both "world" and "government". The idea of raising one of the present forms of rule to dominate everywhere is obviously repellent (just as promoting mad, xenophobic little Yahweh to universal godhead was a terrible idea).
Ideologies, border disputes, dissimilarity of beliefs, traditions, mores and cultures will not end with the signing of a treaty, or any number of resolutions.

But the seeds of a possible, reasonable world government were planted in 1920 as the League of Nations, and continued through the UN. If we went on from there, assigning to the global organization only those functions which the UN has been doing well (in spite of much sabotage from charter members - they know who they are!): world court, conflict resolution, nuclear and other large-scale hazard regulation, health (especially epidemiology in the impending super-plague) food distribution and disaster relief. Currency rationalization and trade regulation would also be very good, but take a bit longer to accomplish.

Under that umbrella, the world needs to continue the present trend of dismantling artificial (forced) unions, such as the USSR, Yugoslavia and the US and replacing them with a looser, voluntary regional alliances, such as Europe. All policing, family law, labour relations and the production of energy and necessities would remain under local control. Local governments on a much smaller than the present scale would be far more manageable in terms of funding and oversight.
As these new entities - city-states - emerged, the UN would have a good deal of diplomatic and legal work to do, both as a test of its effectiveness and to build up its capability and credibility.

If all the peoples realized that this is their best interest - hell, it`s their only hope! - they could pressure their rulers to co-operate. Otherwise, not.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peterkin's post
12-02-2012, 10:44 AM
RE: World Goverment
(12-02-2012 09:58 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  It would look like a star wars convention =p All the members of parliament logging on to their internet avis of various sorts =p That'll happen but not for a little while the current ruling class wouldn't accept the absurdity of avatars for parliament =p

This third frontier is more pressing than the unexplored ocean depths. Now that the governments have finally started to poke at the internet they are learning it's a virtual hornet's nest. Recent attempts to control the flow of information have started to show how deep internet loyalties lie. The most likely way for a worldwide revolution will be due to the physical governments attempting to remove the internet's impact on society. The internet has already succeeded in banding more people together than any government the world has ever known.

I concur, and it's very obvious to realise why both churches and states are nervous about our new freedom, but can you expand?

I'm thinking along these lines...
The principles of change (and forgive me for using Management language but it's what I know best) are Incidents > Problems > Changes.
In the same way you go to a doctor with symptoms or after an accident (or log complaints to the police or call the Fire Service) and then the doc gives you a quick fix (manages the Incident) but if you keep going back he/she sends you to a specialist (Problem Manager) whose job is Root Cause Analysis (reactive Problem Management) and also indentification of possible epidemics (proactive Problem Management) and raises a change request which is dealt with by the surgeon (after impact assessment etc). Tougher / higher risk changes are evaluated by advisory bodies.

This pattern is obvious in secular societies (there is even the parallel in business of special interest lobbying at the evaluation stage) and can happen in theocracies but less likely (see the RCC's cover up of child abuse incidents, therefore ... no change!)

So, I was wondering how that could work in a borderless, atheist/adeist cyber-world.

Cheers
DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: