One Nation Earth

Nipok, no matter how many boundaries you take away from people, they will build more. It's part of human culture to differentiate yourself and identify yourself with a smaller group within a larger one. We do not all have to become socially identical to become socially equal. Even if you take away people's identity with nations, there will still be identity with class, and with race, and with gender - probably even a more intense identity than before, thus worsening the issue on those fronts. We are already living in a global context, whether you acknowledge it or not. Effecting social change comes from manipulating the precendece of various social identities, not by iradicating one and intensifying the others.

"-"

Ash, I am most certainly an idealist. Extinction to me is the end of our evolutionary chain. Without forethought and subsequent efforts it is most definitely inevitable that our sun will go nova and our planet will be destroyed. Whether it be virus, plague, war, lack of oxygen, lack of water, lack of sunlight, famine, or a meteor that comes first really does not matter. If we want to avoid every one of these catastrophes and many others we must learn to bond as a species and a planet.

Can I preach what I believe, sure.

Do I believe we can do what I preach …?
To that end I find much sorrow in being so strongly convicted

"...give me a united incorruptible single world order that is truly by the people, of the people, for the people, and void of any closed door sessions..."

... and what would that world order be that was "united", "incorruptible", and without "closed door sessions"? How would it come into existence, and how would you insure that human-beings would not be "corruptible"? Actually, closed door sessions are sometimes the best way to get anything done. It probably would have been impossible to have forged the U.S. Constitution if the sessions had not been closed and the participants sworn to secrecy.

So far as I'm concerned there is no better form of government than that we have today in the United States. I doubt than any sizable number of Americans would trade our system for any other. For any American President, Senator, Congressman, Court Justice, or soldier not to defend the Constitution would be a violation of trust and sacred oath. Can you imagine other nations giving up their own governments to adopt the U.S. Constitution? The U.N. has shown no more ability to effectively manage world affairs than the League of Nations.

Nipok:

I understand your admiration for your country, but US legal and constitutional system is not the only that provides individual freedom in a democratic context.
I am European and I know the constitutional system of countries like German, Netherland, Sweden, Portugal, Norway and some others, who provide, not only in their constitutions but also in ordinary laws, the guarantees of individual freedom with an perhaps larger extension that US.
I must also remind you that in these countries racial or religious conflicts have a very reduced expression, and women have total legal equality, not only as citizens but specially in the family legislation.

As always, Asherman, it is a pleasure to read your work. Welcome to A2K Nipok! You've made some brilliant points as well.

As I posted earlier, I am in the one or none club, believing that we are currently heading towards a One Nation Earth, but believing we are heading for extinction faster. We must either slow the rate of one, or accelerate the other if we wish to survive (of course I refer to the future of the species, not us).

I agree with the others that it is petty lines in the sand, differences in religious beliefs, etc. that currently take up our time and resources. I also agree that these preferences are not going to go away in time to save our species, if ever. History leaves little doubt that humankind will forever bicker over petty things. There isn't time to list all of the individual conflicts, let alone to solve them. I don't believe there is necessarily a need to either. Instead, I believe we need a more sweeping solution that encompasses the real problem with them all. What is the common denominator?

Violent intolerance.

Remove that, and you've removed the danger in virtually all of the problems that separate us.

If I am correct, and violent intolerance is the source of most of the problems keeping humankind from evolving into a global civilization that takes care of everyone; than the solution is equally simple. Simple in theory, but will take an iron will and a very long time to achieve.

Intolerance for Violence.

From top to bottom and across the board we must take steps to eradicate this phenomenon from humanity. Starting right here at home; we should enact laws that demonstrate and enforce a zero tolerance for violent crime. Murderers, rapists, molesters, wife beaters and even the common bully need to be dealt with severely enough that they change their ways or be eliminated from the gene pool permanently.

IMHO, 95-99% or more of the people of this planet would never, could never, be guilty of the intentional slaughter of innocents. Whatever percentage is left, needs to be dealt with; with extreme prejudice, consistently, until violent crime, at any level, becomes a rare phenomena.

I realize many idealists will not be able to reconcile the difference between random violence and the systematic violence I propose as a solution to it. No worries. These people are far too principled (downright decent, really) to violently oppose the solution anyway.

It is my opinion that violence is only justified to prevent violence. There is no more evil person than he who strikes the first blow. He who strikes the first blow, regardless of color, religion, ideology, etc, etc, etc, is a cancer on the human race and should (must?) be treated accordingly.

Of course that's just my opinion.

Nipok, in re. "Lets take the top 1 percent of the entire world population (speaking of smart people) and create a world arbitration council. A partially executive, partially legislative, and partially judicial body that can only carry an equal number of votes to the number of members that make it up."

Have you ever had any association with MENSA? If your experiences mirror my own, then you probably wouldn't be suggesting letting us "bright" people within a hundred miles of a political policy council. Often those smarter than the norm folks can not tie their own shoelaces. The arrogance and paternalism is stifling, and with really very little reason. Folks with efficient brains are just as lazy, and inclined towards selfish criminal behavior as the bottom percentiles of the curve. Even worse, these cohort (and an ill-defined one at that) is probably the most opinionated group on the planet. Just try getting a compromise, the very essence of good government, in a room filled with bright people all convinced that their idea, no matter how wacky, is the best one.

I thought that in a group like MENSA I would finally find a group of people who were comfortable and nice to be around. Boy, was I disappointed. Some of the most effective policy and decision makers I'm familiar with weren't great thinkers, but they did have a wonderful ability to understand the dynamics of human interaction. Harry Truman wasn't probably as bright as Jefferson, but one Truman, in my estimation, was worth a carload of Jeffersons.

I'm still far from convinced that our species is on the road to perdition and extinction. War isn't really the threat that it was a couple of decades ago, and it may be even less of a threat in the future. The threats of famine and disease are the most likely major problems we may face in the next, say hundred years, but neither is likely to cause human extinction. Global warming and cooling are almost certainly affected by human behavior, but they are natural cycles and are unlikely to cause the extinction of Homo Sap. The most probable cause of extinction is probably being hit by a large astroid like that which did in the dinosaurs.

I have grave reservations about homogenization of human-kind. Natural variation in our biology and social structures seems to me a "good" thing. However, modern transportation and communications systems are replacing regional variation with something like world-wide systems. People have access to goods from all over the planet, and so their expectations are quite different from those a few hundred years ago. Almost instantaneous communications is a paradigm shift of major proportions. American individualism, materialism and notions about what is proper dominates the world's airwaves. American ads raise the demand for technology like automobiles, refrigerators, cosmetics, medicine. American ideas about the value of individuals has altered forever the expectations of even the most remote and controlled societies. Where can one go today and escape the booming sound of American popular music, or the ever present cell phone that can do everything but the dinner dishes? The effects of an emerging world culture are greatly desired, I think, by most private individuals, but is terribly threatening to existing power elites.

Those trends have been picking up steam for over fifty years, and I see no sign of slowing yet. Personally, I find much of the emerging world-culture repugnant, but then no one asked for my input. The trends are driven by the masses, if they like Rap then we will have Rap. The desire for automobiles in the PRC is already putting great strain on world resources, and that trend is just taking off ... wait until most Chinese demand a second car. Automobile production in China, a place that still uses high-sulphur coal for much of its energy production, has virtually no smog requirements. Imagine another 80,000,000 cars on the planet spewing out noxious gasses. Anyone trying to stop, or significantly alter that trend in the PRC has no chance at all.

The global economuy has already expanded without homogenizing everyone. It's had some interesting effects on places, but the only things its really homogenized are the big cities like NY, which are effectively cosmopolitan (meaning that they are all the same because they have a little bit of everyone, not that everyone in them is all the same). America is one big country, but people living in different parts of it are still very different. Even in much smaller countries that you would expect to be more tightly knit, this is true. Think about how many empires have tried and failed to colonize everyone to their way of thinking. It'll never happen.