This conversation is closed.

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.

  • Jun 14 2012: Bravo. I was just thinking about this topic! Although Marco has a good point, but I don't think competition would be erased if there were a unified society. When I do think about this topic, it is hard to imagine the ideals that could be shared by everyone, in order to organize a group of people worldwide. Religion comes to mind, which is not always a good thing considering the things that have been done by these groups to convert people to their way of thinking. But, you make an excellent point; if we were to move into space there would have to be a collective society.

    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"
  • Jul 4 2012: Excellent points of views. And Brian, yes, I do think collaboration is much better than competition, I am a European citizen and EU is all about collaboration. And like Durão Barroso said recently in the European Parliament, it was Europe's division and the sense of superiority that led to both World Wars, Napoleon Invasion and so on. Those were Europe's darkest times.

    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.
    • thumb
      Jul 5 2012: Those two risks are why I think we should explore the emergent properties of a global peer-to-peer network to manage our affairs.
      The network can make rapid decisions, but its' lack of central power mitigates against self-interested dictatorship.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2012: How about fairer society via leveling the value of contributions of individuals. Check it out here:

    http://thenewsocialsecurity.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/the-new-social-security-position-paper/
  • thumb
    Jun 14 2012: After seeing Jeremy Rifkins TED talk on an empathic civilisation, I started to wonder if a collaborative, rather than competive global civilisation could exist and what changes in society, politics and economics would be required if it were to work.
    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!
  • Jun 14 2012: At first your idea looks like a really good one. But what about that thing that made us what we are today. COMPETITION.
    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.