It would have not effect. Sure, superficially, we can call ourselves united... But if people don't separate by race, they separate by sex, then they separate by culture, then by race once more. It's a never-ending cycle. Unless everyone looked exactly the same and we were not capable of higher thinking, we will remain divided.
It is going to happen but it is going to take a long time before it does.....we are all mixing and mashing....and the West is winning, one KFC and McDonalds at a time. DD
I never understood this concept of one side "winning." It wasn't so long ago that the west was in similar ***** hole as the east. Go a little further back and you can argue they were far behind. Combine the discovery of the new world with the industrial revolution and you get the east-west divide today. In an alternate reality, the conquistadors would have gotten butchered by the natives... But I do agree with your assertion that a unified world is become more and more possible because of technology. Forget about differences in cultures, I believe once basic education truly is equitable across the globe, we'll see the end of major conflicts.
I have never met met Northside Storm or Franchise Blade. I wouldn't have a clue if they were transgendered blue smurfs. But I've know a lot about their financial ethics and would trust them to represent me in a political committee on the subject. As long as they don't go golfing with Jack Abramoff. Ottoman could be committee chair, moderator and parliamentarian. I jump up and down about Ray Kurzweill, virtual reality and singularity in 30 -50 years... but right now, with PAC's, your politics are being influenced if not directed by virtual personalities. Mass communication will create a mass consciousnesses and commonized ethics. And it won't be about how you look in reality.
Right, because the World Wars and the Cold War wouldn't have happened if people had just been more educated. I guess I'd modify my response slightly. I'd accept an OWG - one where America rules it. And only that. I'm a nationalist above all, and a OWG where their laws would be above American laws is one I would never accept.
The next step: Facebook Seeks Free Love Among Data Center Giants NEW YORK — Facebook is dead serious about building common standards for efficient hardware in the data center. On Thursday, the social networking giant launched the Open Compute Foundation, an industry association that aims to reduce the cost and environmental impact of the computers that run great swaths of the Internet. The foundation formalizes an effort the social media giant began in April, when it started the Open Compute Project (OCP) In creating the Open Compute Project, Facebook “open sourced” its designs for a new data center that underpins its massive social networking service, and the foundation hopes to encourage other Internet icons to do much the same. The idea is to publish everything from the layout of server motherboards to the design of the warehouse-like buildings that house and cool the servers. http://www.wired.com/wiredenterpris...op+Stories+2))&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher
This. Unification of the entire human race will only happen with the arrival/discovery of a non-homo sapien "challenger". That is really the only threat that could like cause a true unification, and only if that challenger shows no preferences to any particular creed, race, or group of humans on the planet. Humans have a natural instinct to fear, mistrust, and fight anything that is not the same as they are. It is a form of natural selection. Without a species to fulfill that role en total, we degrade to fighting other humans who are different in whatever way we deem reprehensible. That is the whole premise of Watchmen.
Why should countries be reqresented equally? People should be represented equally. But countries don't have to be represented equally. They bring different quantities of people and different resources to the table. Why shouldn't we differentiate between countries based on various factors? Should a country of 1 billion have the same number of votes as a country with 250 million people? Should a millitarily aggressive government not face any obstacles for entry into this government? Should a country that has brought more value to people all over the world not be assigned a better status than those who sit back and act as cost centres for the rest of the world? Don't forget that there are still way too many countries where the government is not representative of the people (some would say pretty much all countries are like that). Why should those people be bound to their government in a world government system? Screw them. Make people the base currency, and then maybe we'll start doing things that are good for people, rather than things that are good for countries or money or 'important' people. All in all, I think creating a unison of countries before creating a unison of all the people in those countries is practically handing over the freedom of all unrepresented people to an unsurmountable force forever, the type of power that requires world civil war to take back. Are you prepared to actually create the organ of power which can only be terminated via a type of global civil war? IMO, each country's size in this world government should reflect the size of the population of that country pure and simple. This government should do nothing but penalize those who carelessly risk de-stabalizing the world economy, and reward those who are financially responsible and add value to the world economy. Why should people's slice of this pie be watered down/up based on the political strength of their legitimate/illegitimate government? People first. Governments should have have no business in a world government, in fact a world government should be totally independent of national governments in order to be able to act in a fair and independent way, challenging member governments rather than begging for their money and being their slaves. The UN is a running joke obviously, but it's a useful weapon if you can get them to vote in your favor - ofcourse, that's assuming they are not voting against the more powerful countries, in which case you're screwed. To use experiences from UN's existance of examples of why world government would or would not work is proposterous. It is a biased organization, that's not even a subject for discussion, therefore a horrendous experiment to test global unison since it naturally discriminates against others through concentrated voting power. This idea may seem like it's way in the future, but it should be way in the past. The world government should have a randomly rotating people's elected representative, and since we have left that seat vacant forever, the government millitary which currently dominates the world seems to become de facto president of the world, with allies receiving benefits. The fact that the position of President of the World Government is left vacant, and the role is illegitimately filled by whichever country happens to be most powerful in the world at that moment causes huge problems for us already. This is something that every government in the world doesn't want because it means increased independent oversight and monitoring - which is ultimately why the idea is made to seem outlandish and unrealistic in the media. As far as people are concerned, I'm sure everyone is willing to at least start working on this now, and implement it in 20, 30, 40 years. Is that not enough time? Is that too long to secure everyone's independence from these atrocious national governments, some of which are biased, corrupt, greedy, wreckless? Should this not take precedence over a lot of things since it could have sorted out so much of our problems? People. We don't all have to agree on a set of morals. We just have to agree that people are different yet they should have equal say regarding anything that affects them anywhere in the world. Borders shouldn't be this much of a barrier towards achieving that goal.
Nobody would join a union in which they are given a heavy disadvantage. The formation of the US was only realized because colonies like Rhode Island were given an equal say in affairs. At best a House of Reps + Senate esque combination would be the only viable option.
I think there are many many ways to achieve better direct participation, and I'm really indifferent to the method as long as it results as little filtration as possible. Then again, given what you've said here, how come the UN exists? Voting is not equal, and people want to be members. As long as every person understands that their political participation is the equivalent of anyone else's participation in this government, I'm sure they would be fine with it. 'Rhode Island' (to use your example) doesn't have to approve. The people of Rhode Island have to approve. Rhode Island will never approve, because that means less money and freedom for the government of Rhode Island, and more political independence and autonomy for the people of Rhode Island. How can any person NOT accept "everyone in the world gets one vote"? Aside from national governments (directly) and the financial industry (indirectly but most influential), I can't see anyone objecting to that. My understanding is that one of the main selling points for states joining the US union is that the law actively protects small groups from being discriminated against by larger groups?
So,it's not going to be a parliament. It's going to be an AI arbitrator in the free market of ideas that prccesses every human transaction on every scale. Corporations can't hide profits , terrorist can't buy bombs, factories have to meet standards, the environment is monitored in minute detail from space, every emmission is known, everyone can be located, almost all information is publicly available, anybody can say anything about anything, credibility will be earned. But you will be able to do anything you want. The moral laws would have to be pretty inclusive to be world wide. It's a free market, everyone can pound the table for their view but with a million minorities , no one can force any predominate view. It would Be you know, secular humanism, unless the world is swept by a.religious fervor. It just needs Facebook to become aware.
Conservatives. They are already creating a stir in America by recommending Literacy tests for voting.
There's that uncomfortable fact that... you have to weed out the "bad seeds" among humans. Purification and domestication of humans. Eugenics. Someone decides who stays and who goes. Its not building the system then humans adapt into, its you create humans INTO the system to make the system work. There's "efficiency" for you.
If you think it's impossible, you probably think the world is flat too. Anything is possible. Will we see a 1 govt world in our life time? No. In 300 years? Maybe.
It may be in leaps and starts with temporary lapses back of abject horror but civilization doesn't trend backwards. The feudal pyramid is simplicity and the egalitarian democracy is complexity. That's the way things go. (Dubes always sees entropy) YallMean might argue that a socialist democratic dictatorship is even more complex (I can't, I don't understand how it works) Why we lost 2000 years from ancient Greece I think is a story of about how power and information could be controlled versus when it can't be controlled. The American Revolution Pamphleteers were the internet bloggers of their era.
