One Nation Earth

To me, that's a frightening thought, extra medium. The 'one world' idea is nothing new. It is frequently espoused by megalomaniacs who hate anything 'different.' Homogenizing humanity can lead only to regimentation. And, as MichaelAllen has already said, we should celebrate the differences, not try to iron them out. The mind-numbing sameness that would result from such a move would far outweigh any perceived benefits.

The entire concept sounds strangely Illuminati to me. I would prefer that we move towards more localized diversity, with a willingness to share with others.

.............In defense of my viewpoint, let me add this:
(1) You are really talking about a different phenomenon, where a group of people have voluntarily (mostly) relocated to a new venue and, because of the inherent benevolence of the government at that venue, continue to flourish without a loss of identity. This is not the same as imposing a one-world order on existing cultures in situ. It reminds me too much of the harm done by Christian missionaries to indigenous cultures throughout the world in the 19th Century.

(2) While I mentioned specificaly the dilution of cultural identity in my post, another -- possibly selfish -- factor to consider is economic. Roughly 80 percent of the world's population lives in what we in the West would consider substandard housing. About 50 percent suffer from some form of malnutrition. Some statistics I remember reading very recently indicate that the United States currently possesses 59 percent of the world's wealth. While I do think that some of this should be spread around, I really wouldn't take kindly to my personal standard of living being significantly lowered in order to get someone on the other side of the world out of a grass hut and into a brick council flat. Selfish? Sure, but I bet most of us really feel that way down deep.

(3) And, finally, there is the matter which Asherman has already brought up -- the bigger the government, the more chance for corruption. And this would have to be the mother of all governments. Even with the absolutely best of intentions, even stipulating that only the most honest, upright and able administrators would govern, the beurocracy required to maintain this behemoth of an administration boggles the mind.

I share the concern of those who abhor the wastefulness of war, famine and pestillence (not to even mention the inherent inhumaneness of these things). I do not share the enthusiasm for a one-world centralized governing body as the solution to these problems. In fact, I view the current emergence of the European Union with some alarm.

1. I disagree that current trends lead inevitably to extinction if unaltered. We don't know where the trend lines will lead, but they almost certainly will not continue ad infinitum. Long before the species commits suicide, Mother Nature will intervene and thin the herd. I strongly suspect that a major world epidemic and/or famine will occur in the not distant future. Reduce human population by a third, and almost all of the trends that disturb folks will be at least mitigated, and may they may vanish entirely for many generations. Alteration of disturbing trends might also happen in less dreadful ways. If our species can discover a clean and inexpensive alternative to energy production, imagine how many of the world's problems would shrink to relative unimportance.

The danger that War will lead to human extinction I think is currently quite remote. Even during the height of the Cold War when nuclear arsenals and their delivery systems were many times greater than they are today, the extinction of life as a result of spasm nuclear war was low. For the best and most authoritative thinking on that subject see Herman Kahn's "On Thermonuclear War", and "Thinking the Unthinkable". Nuclear devices have been used only twice against human targets, and that at the beginning of the Atomic Era when understanding of the effects of nuclear weapons was almost non-existent. Today the only real danger of an exchange of nuclear weapons is by emerging nations, rogue states, or fanatical terrorists. In each of those cases, the weapons are likely to be small and limited in number. The effects, while locally devastating, would have almost zero effect even regionally. The use of biological agents by rogue states or terrorists actually presents a much larger danger than the spread of nuclear weapons. Unleashing Small Pox again on to the world could easily kill upwards of one third of the entire human population, but only a suicidal action by terrorists is worrisome ... especially now that Saddam is out of the picture.

2. As can be seen by my comments above, it is vident that I reject the second proposition (that only the creation of a single world government capable of enforcing world-wide policies designed to make the world safe, secure and peaceful) as being our only hope for escaping extinction.

Central Planning has a really terrible track record. The old USSR had central Planning, and it destroyed their empire. Human planners are often wrong, and it should be self-evident why that is the case. Not all relevant information is available to decision-makers, and othes important information isn't recognized until long after it can make a difference. People make mistakes, and when those mistakes are implemented on a world-wide basis the negative effects are potentially much worse than if we just "muddled through". Anyone whose dealt with the political complexities of even a small village can appreciate the difficulties in trying to master truly powerful politics on a world scale. Instead of having a small number of interest groups fighting for supremacy, the numbers of powerful contending forces would have to be balanced. The result of the process wouldn't be the "best" solution, but the solution favored by the most powerful interest group. Of course, that problem already exists at the national level, but if a nation goes wrong there are others that counter-balance it and provide an "escape" hatch if disaster follows. Where would one "escape" a really grand world screw-up if there was only one, all powerful world government? Where do dissenters escape to, if world government turns out to be a tyranny?

You say the world government must be, "(de)void of any possibility for corruption". Good luck. So long as humans remain human they will find a means of corrupting any system for personal, or interest group, benefit. Governments are headed by humans, and every human has the capability of doing really terrible things, sometimes with the best of intentions. Humans have been known to seek unlimited personal power, and to dominate all others. How would a world government so completely guarantee that never to happen? The best system I know of is based on the representational democracy established by the United States Constitution. Is it perfect?

Even when the Chief Executive is faultlessly performing his duties and responsibilities, perhaps half the nation is convinced that he is a blight who must be removed from office in a time of great trial. In our history strong leaders serving in times of crisis are often the target of sizable opposition. There was a serious effort to replace Washington as General of the Revolutionary Army and the accusations against this the best of all our Presidents during his terms in office were almost as bad as those we now hear against President Bush. Lincoln himself expected to be voted out of office, and replaced with the more pacific minded Little Mac, during the Civil War.

World government would, in my opinion be the worst solution possible, to problems that may not amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

What is it that you believe we humans are going to do in the next 900 years that will lead to the extinction of our species?

If Bush is re-elected I will dedicate myself (and resourses) to resisting much of his agenda. He is the worst president we have had in many generations, a menace to the country and the world.
Interesting, Ash, how we can disagree so completely on some political matters yet agree as much as we do on philosophical/religious matters.
At the same time Frank Apiso and I disagree on some philosophical/religious matters but I find myself completely in tune with his stated politics.
Life is complex.

ONe thing that puzzles me is why some people are so nationalist (or patriotic). Many countries have only existed in their current geographical and demographical shape for a few decades or a few centuries at most.

When you look at the long age of human civilisation (thousands of years) and the way societies have constantly changed shape with war, political union (both voluntary and forced), famines, droughts, floods - that some people think that how it is today is the best way it can be, and that it will not and cannot change - well, I'm at a loss to explain it.

Grand Duke wrote:

....

England's Green & Pleasant Land