I think the main problem is SEX, as it often is Doesn't make sense? Let me explain then: Every year, as populations grow (due to people having sex) governments also grow, and become more and more complicated. Like agent Smith said in the Matrix, humans are like a disease, multiplying and consuming every natural resource on the planet, we are destroying ourselves... but now I'm getting a little off topic Just imagine having a single moderator for Bit... it would be overwhelming, too much work for one mod to handle... so ok, have two mods... still too much work, have three.... but all three can follow the exact same policies as each other, like robots! Good luck with that, they'd be humans Forget world government, you can't even regulate the mod's of a website in such a way
All countries have at best an abstract idea of nationalism. The reason why it still persists is because of the whole us v them that EVERY animal has. Unless there was a very (and I mean impending doom on world very) compelling reason to unite against a common enemy, we tend to stick to our own packs and sub-packs. It's not that it's impossible or impractical (although it usually ends up as so), it's just that on a personal level it's hard to even relate to the guy down the street. What makes you think it would be easy to relate to a person across an ocean? And if there's no empathy or any subject we can relate to. Well there's no motivation to join together.
There's another problem: TAX Even if we were to create a super complex government, one which could somehow take into account all the diverse needs of every single country on earth, no matter what type of population, geography, industry, etc... it's going to mean more government departments, and more regulation authorities = much more tax payer's dollars or much more worldwide debt to pay for this NWO. Unless there is some miracle, there will also be many rebellions for governments to pay for as well. I don't think the world needs to pay extra to create some sort of universal OS, that runs on everything. NWOS 1.0 for your phone, tablet, laptop, htpc, desktop, server, mainframe, car, oven, fridge and toaster.
I don't think we will get one anytime soon if ever. I am however interested by how such an organisation would operate were it to come into power. I would guess that it would work in a way similar to that mentioned by Malvolio which is in essence how the British Empire was run. The Empire managed to successfully govern a quarter of the population of the planet with an incredibly small staff of civil servants working within the countries that they controlled. Other problems aside, I suppose it should be technically feasible based on a similar model that was exported across the globe.
What was the size of the population when the British Empire was running a quarter of the world? And by successful, do you mean just to be in power, by whatever means necessary?
Well at its height the British empire contained about 458 million people and covered 33,700,000 km2. Look, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to start a debate about the empire. All I was referencing was an example from history whereby a relatively small number of people were responsible for a staggeringly large population within different countries. I wasn't implying that we should go back to a similar situation.
Controlling land by itself is pretty easy, it's controlling the people that's the hard part. The current population of the world might hit 7 billion by the end of the year, that's ~15 times the size of the British Empire's short lived peak. Another advantage that governments used to have, was that the internet didn't exist - control over the media was so much easier back then. And out of the 458 million people, how many were actually being successfully governed? By successful, I mean people weren't living in poverty or fear, but there was at least a small amount of prosperity. I'm definitely not implying that we should go back to a similar situation either.
That arbitrary line in sand contains a cultural identity which can be vastly different to its neighbours though and that is the issue. If you take the UK as an example the current government won a national election but received practically no votes in Scotland. The result being we are governed by a party we didn't vote for and does not represent our cultural values. This is just within one small island where are our similarities far out weigh our differences. Expand that up to cover the entire planet and how do you make sure people feel represented?
I think it's a given that a global government would have many positives, but would in turn face an immense amount of problems and obstacles, but since when has that stopped the progressive and brilliant human race? All too often we seem intent on putting ourselves down, and placing a huge amount of negativity on what we do, what we have done, or what we may do in the future. I for one think that we are amazing, and that we *will* triumph over the majority of our problems and issues eventually simply becuase we are always trying for something better. If a global government helps us to achieve that, then tell me where I sign up. I couldn't give a toss about the cultural differences between England and Zambezi if it means we get to cure the majority of current diseases or make serious inroads into scientific development via combined and centrally coordinated efforts. Why does everyone always seem to focus on the negatives? Don't ask 'why?', ask 'why not?'
Something I wouldn't mind people considering, is the long term issues surrounding a united human front/Government, relating to future expansion of the human race. Let's face it, we're going to expand into space within the next couple of centuries, and with that - colonization. Now, what would happen if colonies were founded before the creation of a unified Earth government? There are multiple answers to this, but I just thought it was something to consider, seeing as a unified Goverment is certainly not going to happen few at least a few generations.
What I see is that as power becomes more centralized, the low classes become more akin to slaves. This is mostly apparent to me with the EU. A few years ago you got paid extra for working bank holidays, night-shifts, overtime etc. Now people are getting paid minimum wage for working unsociable hours, no extra pay for working bank holidays, and often no pay at all for over-time. Companies are less inclined to hire people on full-time contracts, instead they offer casual contracts to people working full-time hours. If you suffer an illness while on a casual contract you wont even get sick-pay. There are no more "rights", only privileges that slowly get stripped away.
I think we're going off at somewhat of a tangent here. I was only using the British empire as a possible example because it was the closet we've ever come to this sort of thing. Well the people were being successfully governed in that the empire was working an the countries weren't descended into anarchy, I'm making no claims about the living standards of people. Anyway, this was just a side point and has little to do with the actual discussion here.
Who will you vote for? It's a good idea, but like many a good idea, annoying little things like human nature tend to get in the way. Most people, are to varying extents, nationalists and always have been. It's not going away soon. If it does happen it wont be because a group of people have engineered it, it will just drift into being over a loooong period of time, the cumulation of lots of small steps that eroded national divisions.
Agreed, people will always make groups/packs/tribes. Even within a world government there will be such packs: People of a certain island, people of a certain continent, people of a certain coast. Some relations are not about laws or governments and can't be abolished or reshaped by them. We are both members of the North American Pacific Coast tribe, remove one of "our" states from the US and we're still members of the same tribe. Add a resident of Victoria, BC and we're still the same tribe. Add a fictional tsunami along the entire coast and I'll feel a lot closer to that Canadian of the same North American Pacific Coast tribe than someone from New York City simply because we're in the less relevant American tribe. And even with motivation the reasons for joining together will only change aspects of our governments pertinent to the problem. A global threat of war? Unite the world's military, no need for world wide traffic laws or health care laws. A global threat of disease? No need to change how our militaries interact, only a unification of scientific bodies and health care systems. And even then such changes would need only be temporary. No one would want them, they'd simply accept them upon realizing that it was unification or death. Solve the problem and take out the "or death" and you'll see everyone split up into their groups again. Going the opposite direction, that arbitrary line in the sand doesn't mean you have to be opposed to those on the other side, you're simply in a different group/tribe/nation/etc. You in the UK and myself in the US are on different sides of the arbitrary line yet manage to co-exist on the planet, we successfully manage to accept that we have differences and can keep our differences within our own arbitrary boxes. Is there truly a need for a world government to force this interaction by law? Many of the advantages of a world government seem to be possible with separate nations through world peace, something which seems equally as likely in our lifetimes or the next century.
Considering the UN doesnt really work that well, how will a world goverment work? Alot of countries hate each other, it would never work theres too much history and idiots out there.
Ugh... Still so much negativity. All you guys saying 'oh no, that'd never work, there'd be too much negativity'... The wheel? That'd never work. It'd roll away. Fire? That'd never work. People might get burnt. Electricity? That'd never work. What's wrong with steam? Democracy? That'd never work. They might vote the wrong guy in. Fly to the moon? That'd never work. Far too expensive and dangerous. Sail around the world? That'd never work. Everyone knows the world is flat and on the back of a Giant Turtle. I'm sure I'm exagerrating now, but you guys are all terrible pessimists. I'd hate to be stuck on the Poseiden with you lot! Yeah, I know it's not something thats going to happen whilst Im alive, but surely a coordinatory effort between ALL peoples on the planet, with a representative voice for all parties could only be a good thing? Something perhaps approaching a Senate, rather than a single dictatorship (not that I'm against such a thing, Bwa ha ha haaaa!) Stop thinking about how one part will take advantage of the other - that happens with or without Government. Start thinking about what GOOD could be achieved instead. If everyone thought about how our combined and coordinated efforts could actually HELP the world, such as with the current economic crisis, then perhaps the idea will be more palatable. Imagine there was a single currency the world over. Massive amounts of issues regarding the devaluing of currency worldwide and the knock on effect that has upon finance within indidivudla countries would be eliminated overnight. Yep, it brings it's own share of issues, but a standardised financial system would also eliminate the leeches and parasites who seek to make money off of the market and so negatively effect entire countries economic stability... Is there just ONE other person who's gonna take a positive approach? No one ever achieved ANYTHING great by saying 'Oh, no. That's far too much like hard work...'
greypilgers, do you think the world would benefit from the British empire having another crack at it? What do you say about the UN? Are we being negative about it, or does the UN prove, that the world becomes less co-operative as time goes on/as the population increases? Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if the world could be successfully run with a simple solitary government, but that's as unrealistic and naive as saying that the citizens of the world could co-operate without police. We're talking about governing humans remember, and we're not in a disney movie.
Hmmm... Just because an, or some attempts at something have failed/met with mixed success, doesn't necessarily mean the whole idea is bunk... Surely the clue is in the name? United Nations. Not necessarily One Nation, but United Nations, with a common goal? BTW: LOVE the Futurama picture - brilliantly funny...
Its not so much being negative, its looking at the obvious to you're question. Even the largest empires forged in human history have not managed to control the entire planets population under one power. You're idea wont work as money and debit keeps countires and peoples seperated, unless you have one giant military superpower that slowly takes over the world under its protection then you wont see a world goverment, everyone has their own agenda.
