Unity+ Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 There are many conspiracy theories that surround this idea, and they talk about the formation of the New World Order, or a one-world government. However, nobody seems the question what the problem with a one-world government would be. So, is there any reason to not have one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 If it goes bad, where do you escape to? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 I'd hate to see what the parliament ( hey, I'm Canadian ) would look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pavelcherepan Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 There are many conspiracy theories that surround this idea, and they talk about the formation of the New World Order, or a one-world government. However, nobody seems the question what the problem with a one-world government would be. So, is there any reason to not have one? Too many groups of people with greatly varying cultural backgrounds, beliefs, religions and traditions. It's less noticeable on a scale of a single country, but even then especially with larger countries you have huge regional differences and separatist movements as a result. Take China or Russia as an example. This will be by orders of magnitude more visible with a world government. It would be extremely hard to develop laws that would be acceptable to all groups. Or if you make laws that differ greatly between regions then the whole system will be more like a confederacy which is not exactly a single entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 How much suffering and ignorance could be wiped out if most of the world's military budgets were reallocated to more humane purposes? Schools and medicine, funded by the public, for every human sounds like a government that would attract followers. I'd love to see a world where people who want to live healthy, progress, and learn can do so with as little difficulty as possible. Unfortunately, there are many volatile mixes out there that we may not be able to overcome. People who cherish this life and want to do everything possible to make it better, would be trying to negotiate with people who think this life is meant for suffering, and that the only investments should be in a particular religious afterlife. Corporations will constantly try to avoid regulation while maximizing short term returns on investment until they're shown/forced to use better, more sustainable long term practices. And politicians are unlikely to want to give up any power, although I really think it's the link between politicians and corporations that needs to be overhauled. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted May 27, 2015 Share Posted May 27, 2015 Power corrupts... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted May 27, 2015 Author Share Posted May 27, 2015 Unfortunately, there are many volatile mixes out there that we may not be able to overcome. People who cherish this life and want to do everything possible to make it better, would be trying to negotiate with people who think this life is meant for suffering, and that the only investments should be in a particular religious afterlife. Corporations will constantly try to avoid regulation while maximizing short term returns on investment until they're shown/forced to use better, more sustainable long term practices. And politicians are unlikely to want to give up any power, although I really think it's the link between politicians and corporations that needs to be overhauled. I don't see how the people trying to reach the afterlife feel that this life is meant for suffering. We may cause the suffering in very many instances, but I don't see how the fundamental aspects of a majority of the religions promote that we are to suffer, rather than try to rid the suffering caused by humanity. What is the source of this thinking, in regards to how these people came up with that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Re: Thread title - How would you handle division and allocation of resources, especially food, water, and energy? Edited May 28, 2015 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) .... And politicians are unlikely to want to give up any power, ... Burhundi, Turkey, Russia, to name 3...even Sepp Blatter can't let go! My Preciousssss! Power corrupts... Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Edited May 28, 2015 by StringJunky 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 I don't see how the people trying to reach the afterlife feel that this life is meant for suffering. We may cause the suffering in very many instances, but I don't see how the fundamental aspects of a majority of the religions promote that we are to suffer, rather than try to rid the suffering caused by humanity. What is the source of this thinking, in regards to how these people came up with that idea. I'm sorry if I implied that ALL people trying to reach an afterlife feel that way. But there are a great many people who are taught that they'll suffer in this life, but reap the rewards of faithfulness in the next. Is this not so? Those folks may not want to see a world government succeed, or at least won't invest much in its success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 I'm sorry if I implied that ALL people trying to reach an afterlife feel that way. But there are a great many people who are taught that they'll suffer in this life, but reap the rewards of faithfulness in the next. Is this not so? Those folks may not want to see a world government succeed, or at least won't invest much in its success. No, I was just stating the fact that I don't know where these people got the idea that life is for suffering. Where is the origin of the ideology. Re: Thread title - How would you handle division and allocation of resources, especially food, water, and energy? Although I don't have the answer, I think a solution can be developed. In the past, there was no such thing as the State, but here we are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 28, 2015 Share Posted May 28, 2015 No, I was just stating the fact that I don't know where these people got the idea that life is for suffering. Where is the origin of the ideology. Judaism has a heaven for those who stay faithful to the 613 laws, which is an extremely onerous proposition if you've ever seen them. Christianity has a promise of a perfect afterlife if you don't give up under pressure. "Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him." James 1:12 NIV And we know Islam has its sacrifice-earthly-pleasures-for-eternity-with-virgins concept. I think it's a consideration. I can imagine working things out amongst ourselves when it comes to water, food, and energy. But we have trouble now with ideologies that don't match up between people who need to share a region. I've never wanted anyone religious in charge of nuclear weaponry, since it's difficult to know how such people feel about the end of the world (evil war, or devoutly wished-for consummation?). When people who believe in such things are weighing the choice between a handful of decades of life vs eternity in the afterlife, I think it will affect the way they conduct themselves politically. I suppose the real question is, could we get the world's countries to all agree on a separation of Church and State? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted May 28, 2015 Author Share Posted May 28, 2015 (edited) Judaism has a heaven for those who stay faithful to the 613 laws, which is an extremely onerous proposition if you've ever seen them. Christianity has a promise of a perfect afterlife if you don't give up under pressure. And we know Islam has its sacrifice-earthly-pleasures-for-eternity-with-virgins concept. I think it's a consideration. I can imagine working things out amongst ourselves when it comes to water, food, and energy. But we have trouble now with ideologies that don't match up between people who need to share a region. I've never wanted anyone religious in charge of nuclear weaponry, since it's difficult to know how such people feel about the end of the world (evil war, or devoutly wished-for consummation?). When people who believe in such things are weighing the choice between a handful of decades of life vs eternity in the afterlife, I think it will affect the way they conduct themselves politically. I suppose the real question is, could we get the world's countries to all agree on a separation of Church and State? It's weird because I would think that one who is willing to leave "God's" creation hindered by human effect would be more of worthy of hell than anything. Edited May 28, 2015 by Unity+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 No, I was just stating the fact that I don't know where these people got the idea that life is for suffering. Where is the origin of the ideology. I suspect the origin of that particular ideology is found among the countless people throughout history who suffered for most of their lives with no release in sight but death and couldn't believe that God would inflict such misery on them unless it was a necessary part of receiving a big reward in the afterlife. It also has the added benefit of meaning that all those people who lived more luxurious lives and were often the cause of the suffering but never got any real comeuppance in life would get theirs in death when they didn't suffer enough to get into heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 I suspect the origin of that particular ideology is found among the countless people throughout history who suffered for most of their lives with no release in sight but death and couldn't believe that God would inflict such misery on them unless it was a necessary part of receiving a big reward in the afterlife. It also has the added benefit of meaning that all those people who lived more luxurious lives and were often the cause of the suffering but never got any real comeuppance in life would get theirs in death when they didn't suffer enough to get into heaven. My thought on suffering is that a majority of it is caused by humanity itself(besides natural disasters and such). I think this describes my thought: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 It's weird because I would think that one who is willing to leave "God's" creation hindered by human effect would be more of worthy of hell than anything. Well, I don't want to go any farther afield with religious considerations, since the best change there will take a lot of time. I think the only way to correct ignorance is with teaching and time. It will probably take several generations of slow progress, as people see the prosperity of those who cooperate instead of hate. If we tried to change people overnight, their prejudices and intolerance would become more entrenched, and I don't think a one-world government would be successful. This will be more of a social evolution revolution, where better communication and cooperation ensure that more sustainable and adaptive ideas get passed down to our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 (edited) Well, I don't want to go any farther afield with religious considerations, since the best change there will take a lot of time. I think the only way to correct ignorance is with teaching and time. It will probably take several generations of slow progress, as people see the prosperity of those who cooperate instead of hate. If we tried to change people overnight, their prejudices and intolerance would become more entrenched, and I don't think a one-world government would be successful. This will be more of a social evolution revolution, where better communication and cooperation ensure that more sustainable and adaptive ideas get passed down to our children. If you want to change the world start with the kids... give them the dream. It's too late starting with the adults. That's my 2 penny worth. Kids minds are more receptive and plastic. Edited May 29, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 30, 2015 Share Posted May 30, 2015 Although I don't have the answer, I think a solution can be developed. In the past, there was no such thing as the State, but here we are now. Perhaps "the problem with one world government" then would be that said solution hasn't yet been developed / that question hasn't yet been answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eswit12344 Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 Then there would be too much power to very few people its against the constitution and like another guy said if it went wrong where would you hide. Also economically we would be screwed up. And it will go wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 A simpler answer to the thread title? Syria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What would be the problem with a one-world government? They could put me in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 What would be the problem with a one-world government? They could put me in charge. Not much of a conversation if you're going to answer your own questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
playground Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Well - but thats just one thing, hmm, hard to say, but too much weirdness, too much not going to the base problems of eqach individual, different states or regions, doesn't matter how you call it, have different needs and demands - and who should supervise all that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now