StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This might be creating a false dilemma, but oh well . . .


Generally, are you a believer in sovereignty, or in universal values? Such as, would you approve of a world government or would you regard it as the worst thing to happen to the human race?

In my opinion, those who argue against a world government generally are myopic; they assume that the era of nations will last forever.

Are you assuming that all nations are headed by some crack pot, military lunatic?

What is wrong with the nation state?

I think national identity either to a country or to a tribe is a central aspect of human psychology.

A world government to me seems to be a thing of science fiction after a planet has travelled to other worlds.

In general, homogenaiety is a bad thing. If we ever get off this world and out into space, world government would probably work. As it is right now, however, it'd be a pretty bad idea. As a species, we don't get along well enough.

There will be a world government, and I will rule.

Seriously, I don't think a world government can really be possible until globalization of trade has been in place for many generations, and every nation has been homogenized into a single culture (I think it will Russo-Chinese dominated, because as soon as one of them is able to tap their natural resources, they will outstrip the US).

Interesting. Have you all heard of a Type 1 civilization? That is what I was implying when I meant a world government of some sort. It seems that a global government would be good if we ever plan to seriously expand beyond our world.

to have a world governament everyone would have to believe and support a unique moral, objective, culture and philosophy. (with the rate the muslim religion's is expansion, who knows ?)
But that is close to the impossible. And quite frankly, no idea of the need of it. This kind of sittuation usually stop new development of thinking way.
And besides, who will world rule the world ? Brain ?

Interesting. Have you all heard of a Type 1 civilization? That is what I was implying when I meant a world government of some sort. It seems that a global government would be good if we ever plan to seriously expand beyond our world.

Okay, I will bite. I have not heard of a Type 1 civilization. What is that?

Theres going to be a world government by 2100. I'm going to see to that personally. And if other countries don't like it, they can kiss my gunports because they wont have a choice.

Well, who's leading this "world government"? Such a government could push unpopular and innefective policies on the world. First, the we need one world culture, and that's going to take a while. I wouldn't want to have European policies on America, and vice versa.

In the future, natural resources wont be worth as much as today because we have other sources. So the reasoning that that would be the reason of them dominating won't happen.

We need something like the Earth Alliance in B5.

Guardsman Bass wrote:This might be creating a false dilemma, but oh well . . .


Generally, are you a believer in sovereignty, or in universal values? Such as, would you approve of a world government or would you regard it as the worst thing to happen to the human race?

In my opinion, those who argue against a world government generally are myopic; they assume that the era of nations will last forever.

To summarise my position, "Someday, but not now, and probably not in my lifetime".

Nation state's and their formation have to do with the efficiency of long distance communication and transportation. Efficient long-distance communication is now available (in the form of the Internet). Efficient long-distance travel is not. Large items must still be shipped slowly by sea. Aeroplanes are expensive to run, and generally limited in carrying capacity.

As the effects of the still recent emergence of the Internet begin to be felt, as general levels of education are increased, as long-distance exchange of ideas because more and more commonplace, as 'taking a global view' becomes standard practice, then the need for a world government will emerge. Hopefully, a viable form for that government will emerge at the same time.

But it is something that should be driven by need, not something which is prematurely imposed.

I don't really agree, Nick. Transportation has little to do with governments. The USA spanned its current size before we had planes, when it took days sometimes weeks to go from DC to San Francisco. The British Empire used to have colonies everywhere on the planet, China, Canada, and Russia are all insanely huge and have been since before planes became fast as they are today.

I think the only way we'll get a world government is if the smaller present government shave something to gain by uniting. A single large military, better economy, education, standard of living, etc will all be incentive. As will be representation. If we are to have a world government, it cant be a group of nations all operating seperately but jointly, it has to be ONE SINGLE GOVERNMENT. No more USA, no more Britain, France, Japan, none of that. All of them must be consolidated into one government. Senators from each, no presidents, prime ministers, etc. No national parliaments.

kojikun wrote:I don't really agree, Nick. Transportation has little to do with governments. The USA spanned its current size before we had planes, when it took days sometimes weeks to go from DC to San Francisco. The British Empire used to have colonies everywhere on the planet, China, Canada, and Russia are all insanely huge and have been since before planes became fast as they are today.

Regional governors had quite a bit more autonomy prior to the advent of rapid communication and travel. However, the point still stands that nations and empires were no bigger than their transportation and communication system could support.

Britain ruled her Empire by way of the sea, the Eastern US had the Missisippi (add and remove s's and p' until it's spelt correctly), China has two massive rivers and relatively gentle terrain, Canada and Russia, for all their size, are rather sparsely populated (and once you get out to the remote areas, I imagine the central government never used to play a significant role - this was certainly the case in Outback Australia prior to the advent of radio and aeroplanes).

Transport and communication obviously aren't the only factors in determining the size of nations, but they are major contributors. In the trend towards world government, if technology ever reaches the point where there is little difference between my deciding to hop the 1000 kilometres to Sydney, or the 20-odd thousand* to London, then the current barriers between nations might start looking a little wasteful. . .

[size=x-small]*that number is probably wrong - if you're really curious, look it up.[/size]