- John Kruse-Kanyuck
- Anchorage, AK
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
The idea I'm proposing is a unified global community; The people we've globally accepted as "The smartest" all proposed it, why not us.
It's generally accepted that we are a divided people, but that's a destructive way to shape our future. In my opinion, a globally unified peoples would be able to conquer the most difficult tasks.
One currency, a balanced economy, a global scientific front, ever moving outwards and thinking ahead to the future of our species. If we were to move into space it would be as a whole people, all endeavoring to push the human race into the stars, to explore what we never have, and find the best for our people. Care for everyone, equally. No more losing a loved one to a curable ailment because you simply can't afford a treatment. No war. That explains itself.
As a global community all of these things are reachable. I implore all of you to expand and reason about this. Thank-you for reading.
Marco Franco
It was due to a serious planing, working, commitment and the idea of a united Europe that we as a society made huge progress. But that came at a big cost, and now we are seeing a lot of people realizing them. Lost o sovereignty, yes a country can do it's law, but they can't go against the union programs, and we are getting more and more involved.
A world government would lead to two options:
- A big assembly, like a Parliament, were decision are made at a small pace, and most time do not coincide to the world necessity or,
- A dictatorship, were the power is concentrated in a small group of individuals, who can rule at their own pleasure.
Thank you.
Nigel Bamber
The network can make rapid decisions, but its' lack of central power mitigates against self-interested dictatorship.
Sal Rabah
http://thenewsocialsecurity.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/the-new-social-security-position-paper/
Nigel Bamber
When I thought about the shifts required, I then started to discover that a lot of them are already happening. There is a lot of evidence for these changes, throughout the TED talks. They do lie, however, in a lot of widely varying areas of life and different disciplines.
I decided that these changes would be more evident if they could be "tagged" in some way as having potential to lead to a cooperative civilisation. I've been pursuing this top in some detail on my blog.
http://cynapse1000.weebly.com/blog.html
Would appreciate any feedback any feedback, contributions or comments.
In the short term, we only have one finite planet available to us, and our competive growth culture cannot continue if we are to survive as a global connected civilisation.
Taking the extreme long view, movement into space is a necessity for humanity. As Douglas Adams said "We've gotta get off this rock." We just have to survive the short term first!
Brian Flick
Just because competition (between countries) got us where we are today, doesn't mean that where we are today is the best of all possible worlds. I won't get into why I think that it is the best of all possible situations. But nonetheless there would actually be more competition between individuals if there were a shared worldview, and more collaboration on important projects. Therefore, we would live in a better place if there were more individuals who wanted to make a difference in the world.
And about the argument that a single government is highly corruptible... That may be true, but there is a way to counteract that built into the idea that no government is more important than the global good. If there were no reason for governments compete, there would be a forced acceptance of a policy of general transparency. No reason to suppress information about politicians or what is being done.
If capitalism prevailed there would be more money in the budget to advance society. Education and Healthcare would benefit immensely, and eventually the population would boom to a point where we would have no choice but to move to space. Even if we somehow managed to cut down on our non-renewable resource intake, it would require a lot more of them, then we already have. Competition for resources is an issue that has caused many wars and smaller scale fights.
"THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS"
Marco Franco
Your talking about a world with no competition. And that leads to no innovation, no scientific discoveries.Is that a world were you want to live?
Secondly, a single government is highly corruptible (dictatorship), and again it lacks competition:
- think about Soviet Union, what lead it to the end was not the communist way of thinking, it was because it was alone, for the good or bad decisions, there was no competition. And it ended when it started competing with the US.
- the raise of the west during Industrial Revolution was due to the competing environment of European countries.