|
| Thread: Will there ever be a world government? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 11, 2015 03:00 PM |
|
|
Poll Question:
Will there ever be a world government?
As a republic, federacy, confederacy or any other form of state yet unknown to us, with or without local rebellions and hubs of power, do you think there will ever be a single governing organization with jurisdiction over the whole world?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 11, 2015 03:05 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
I hate the sci-fi trope where in the future, all humans nations have come together as one in one grand galactic alliance of unity, peace and prosperity. I just feel like that's not a very realistic scenario and sci-fi should imo be based on potential realities rather than being just fantasy in space.
Are there any examples of fantasy genres where humans are not all clustered up in one nation? The only ones I can think of are Starcraft and Freelancer.
Stevie said:
EVE.
Whatever the future might bring it's not unity. Not under man.
artu said:
I think it's very probable that a single state will be the case in distant future, nations wouldnt vaporize, of course, but rather transform into provinces of a united governing entity. The UN, as powerless and dysfunctional as it is, can be seen as the very first baby step of this direction.
Not to mention in an interstellar civilization (which is much less likely than a single state considering the vast distances between even closest stars), national borders of a planet would indeed seem like sidewalks of crossing streets.
xerox said:
I believe for sure we will be more united than now for many reasons. It being more efficient to pool the costs of colonizing space collectively (though there would still be competition between states), borders indeed not being as significant, perhaps there being a necessity for humans to be more unified due to powerful Alien factions and such. But I don't believe that we will end up with a world government. There will always be failed and rogue states. Countries like China and Russia are great powers that are going in a completely different direction of governance than the EU and US. I don't see these becoming part of some democratic space federation.
artu said:
Hence, the word's "distant" future, the contemporary ideological differences of regimes will be quite insignificant 20000 years from now, for sure. It's impossible to guess what they will be replaced with but I am quite sure they will all be considered ancient according to those day's mentality, technology and infrastructure. Just 3000 years ago, what you now refer to as single entities as China, Russia, Europe were hundreds of disconnected tribes, speaking many different languages and worshipping their local pagan deities...
xerox said:
I was thinking more like 500 years into the future rather than 5000. I canšt even imagine how much progress we will have made at that time.
blizzardboy said:
I dunno. Look at the world in 1915 and look at the world in 2015. It's indisputable that the world has taken gigantic leaps towards a higher degree of unity in just a single century. In 1915, it would have been hilarious to say that a man like Putin, who annexed a singe little peninsula of land for the first time in Europe in decades, is one of the most hot button figureheads in the world. People were getting machine gunned by the millions in 1915.
Of course, trends can reverse themselves, and in our age of nuclear technology, they can reverse themselves in a matter of seconds.
JoonasTo said:
Not completely. Traces of advancement would still remain after a nuclear holocaust, even if in ruins. It just takes a few survivors and things would go back the way they were in a relatively short time. A complete reset is practically impossible.
mvassilev said:
One world government is unlikely, but we could see something that's as different from modern states as modern states are from ancient monarchies.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 03:19 PM |
|
|
I highly doubt it. It is easier to keep some parts of the world in poverty with our current system. But perhaps, once every part of the world knows how to create nuclear bombs and such, that our powerful leaders might suddenly be interested in stability over gaps between rich and poor.
Who knows.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 03:22 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
I dunno. Look at the world in 1915 and look at the world in 2015. It's indisputable that the world has taken gigantic leaps towards a higher degree of unity in just a single century. In 1915, it would have been hilarious to say that a man like Putin, who annexed a singe little peninsula of land for the first time in Europe in decades, is one of the most hot button figureheads in the world. People were getting machine gunned by the millions in 1915.
Of course, trends can reverse themselves, and in our age of nuclear technology, they can reverse themselves in a matter of seconds.
Well, actually, that example is a little flawed, since WW1 saw more than one empire dissolve into many nation-states but the thing is, the de facto web of relationships and hierarchy of power between them evolved into a tighter network.
An example, the president of the US is no more just the president of the US, he's on the phone all day with the world leaders, his decisions affect the whole world but his election is not subjected to the whole world and that is not a very feasible system to obtain in the long run.
Business, communication and transportation is already globalized and in a more efficient way each passing decade. History has shown us, once a new efficient platform of trade and transaction comes along, sooner or later new regimes and systems evolve to handle that platform. The new platform is the world, of course this also has a history going back to the Silk Road but imagine the level of interconnection 5000 years from now and how inefficient our existing systems will be in such a world, it would be like a feudal lord trying to run Wall Street.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 03:54 PM |
|
|
|
I veted Yes and the only reason is because I fear one they may came where the business globalization will find ourselves being all part of the same corporation, having been sold by the people whe stupid and lazzily elected for governers.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 04:52 PM |
|
|
I said No because I think Greed will always hold too strong a grip on Mankind. Look at today, Money is power and probably controls more about our Governments than most sane folks would like to accept. i.e. Corporations are ruling my country and in few ways are the people.
I suppose 1 Corporation could gain a monopoly on everything but I doubt that for the same reason...Man and his self-serving ends.
What I think now is that all the world is more akin to a Greece before Athen's move to a REAL Democracy.(not the fluff we have today)
i.e. From another perspective about Unity, here's my personal gripe; I DO follow <ahem> The Way and what did Many-Men do to that simple message?...separated over petty issues to fight and grab for selfish-ends again. <I've already claimed the corruption of the One Church. No one jump on board please; I mentioned what is supposed to guide the people "within" the Church and not Religion.>
<imvho> If love and self-sacrifice (by example) and stern warnings about NOT serving Mammon and placing ALL people first cannot win the Whole of the Church, what chance do you think there is for a United World driven by self-serving Consumerism?
As ever in history...sadly, force might prevail to some degree. I for one am alarmed with both the development and USE of Drones but I know that deserves to be treated as a separate topic.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 04:59 PM |
|
|
A world government doesnt mean a government without greed though, I dont know why so many people make that jump... There were greed among people when we were disconnected tribes, there is greed when we organize nation states. This is rather a matter of what will be more practical for those greedy politicians. 
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 05:03 PM |
|
|
artu said:
This is rather a matter of what will be more practical for those greedy politicians.
Doesn't that hinge on GREED.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 06:15 PM |
|
|
artu said:
As a republic, federacy, confederacy or any other form of state yet unknown to us, with or without local rebellions and hubs of power, do you think there will ever be a single governing organization with jurisdiction over the whole world?
No.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 06:25 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:29, 11 Jan 2015.
|
I do not think we will end up in a scenario where the UN turns into a sort of world government with the Nato as a sort of world police army enforcing its legilsations. Rather, I think we'll see a lot more cooperation between existing sovereign states like how it's done in the EU, Nato and UN. Those organizations do not strip governments away from sovereignity, but they're rather means to share sovereignity. I think that's way more likely than governments (and voters for that matter) sacrificing all national sovereignity. Just look at Europe.
It's turning increasingly more homogenous and while there's cooperation and shared sovereignity in the EU, Europe is still essentially composed of nation states. These states have voluntarily sacrificed some of their sovereignity to the EU. There's nothing pointing towards the EU becoming a sovereign state and there's already significant Nationalist opposition to today's EU overextending its powers to much over nation states.
Areas where I expect there to be more international cooperation and where there already is some today (especially in the EU) are the economy, migration, conflict resolution, humanitarian efforts, enviromental regulations and space exploraiton. Basically areas where common interests exceed national interests. Which means things like taxation, the military and culturally grounded legislation are likely to stay at the national level.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 07:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The world is coming to an end you fools!
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 07:01 PM |
|
|
Yes, Xerox, for the time being but I don't think they'll keep on making sense in the distant future and once again, I don't think nations will vaporize but rather transform into provinces with jurisdiction over internal affairs. That is kind of what's happening with the EU anyway on a very primitive level.
If nothing else, there will certainly be a world government with jurisdiction over environmental issues and regulations about pollution because it's already an issue that can not be handled within national or regional borders. If my factories causes the sea level to rise on your shores over another continent, we'll need a global tool of legislation to solve that.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 07:34 PM |
|
|
artu said:
If my factories causes the sea level to rise on your shores over another continent, we'll need a global tool of legislation to solve that.
Or just a day of carpet bombing. See? no need for a global, unique government.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 07:48 PM |
|
|
War is an expensive thing to be considered a permanent solution, not to mention in the distant future, probably most countries will be technologically advanced enough to retaliate in a very dangerous manner.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 09:06 PM |
|
|
|
Of course there will be a world government one day. If not in 20 years, then in 50, if not in 50 then in 100 or 1000 or 1.000.000 years, and if not a HUMAN then an alien or follow-up species government.
|
|
GunFred
Supreme Hero
Sexy Manticore
|
|
posted January 11, 2015 11:49 PM |
|
|
Undoubtly yes...
It is going to take something very serious for the world to become irreconcilable.
____________
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2015 12:23 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:24, 12 Jan 2015.
|
artu said:
Yes, Xerox, for the time being but I don't think they'll keep on making sense in the distant future and once again, I don't think nations will vaporize but rather transform into provinces with jurisdiction over internal affairs. That is kind of what's happening with the EU anyway on a very primitive level.
The EU has very limited legislative power of its members. It basically comes down to economic regulations and even then, that's influenced a lot by the individual member states rather than the European parliament or commission. It is in no way a government close to say the federal government that the US has. I do not believe that we will have a federal world government in that sense because I don't see national governments submitting to the force of a global monopoly on violence.
Quote:
If nothing else, there will certainly be a world government with jurisdiction over environmental issues and regulations about pollution because it's already an issue that can not be handled within national or regional borders. If my factories causes the sea level to rise on your shores over another continent, we'll need a global tool of legislation to solve that.
I doubt there will be a jurisdiction about. Who is going to enforce that? A global UN army? I don't see national governments allowing that to happen. More likely climate change will be dealt with through technological achievents and innovation aswell as governmental soft power (i.e. "Sign this carbon emissions regulation or we won't trade with you") IF that is in the interest of a government. Keep in mind that global warming doesn't hit everyone equally. Western countries are likely to be a lot more able to deal with the consequences than say most African countries.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 12, 2015 12:35 AM |
|
|
Actually, it's the opposite, countries that are industrially developing fast right now such as China and India will have to be regulated more, they are much more populated and their technology is less advanced. So, in order to make them agree to a protocol, you'll have to set some global standards. And since you can't invade China or India like some backwater country, you need consensus.
This is not something you can "enforce" with military power, even if you could, it would be much more expensive. And you are still thinking in short terms, anyway, when you say things like "who will enforce that." The world will change and so will its means to enforce. Who will be enforcing that is a very reasonable question at the moment, yet, I am not talking about an artificial UN force that will by-pass national military, I am talking about national mechanisms of decision making merging into something else.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 12, 2015 12:48 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 00:53, 12 Jan 2015.
|
The world changes but the pursuit of power does not.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 12, 2015 01:00 AM |
|
|
|
And once again a world government does not mean Utopia. You can pursuit power by trying to be part of a global legislative instrument. Also, a world government happening doesn't mean, it will be the only means to achieve power. A duke in Europe today, can still have power both in terms of economical and political influence, yet, he wont try to achieve power like a duke did in 734. He will act within the national legislation, which already started to merge with a continental legislation.
|
|
|
|
