TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Would you support the US government if it decided to take over the world?

Wars, gaps between countries, and the lack of human unity are holding us back. Would you support the US government if it took over the world? With one government to rule over the entire world we could put together an united human effort toward certain goals and accomplish them much faster. We could focus on increasing the quality of life for all humans on earth, space exploration, and other projects that are unable to occur today.

What do you think?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 22 2011: Einstein liked the idae of one Governing body. He thought it might lead to peace.
    as an Australian I'd be right behind the good old US of A. As our country's policy would probably dictate. As an individual I'd like to back New Zealand.
    • thumb
      Nov 22 2011: In the world of human security, New Zealand has been able to position outside the 'norms' of state regime on a number of issues - my assumption on this is that New Zealand is such a small isolated and low populated country (heavy with self sustainable agricultural community) that she seemingly held the position of Utopia in the terms of democratic benevolence. Early settlement and acknowledgement to Indigenous rights, multi-cultural and yes even being able to instate an anti-nuclear sovereignty!

      But the reality is that the benefits of geographic isolation were soon overwhelmed by the global footprint of other countries and climate change beyond her control. As member of UN and democratic first world, New Zealand was "allowed" to do many things as any ant easily stepped on. As long as she didn't get too carried away and left her battles to the sports ground.

      That is she was 'allowed' to disband her army and reform it as a peace corp. This was not a display of non loyalty to democratic trade partners and alliances - in the past the small army support presented alongside others in the fight for democracy and to protect fellow man under threat - along side their friendly rival counterparts. And due to their smallness and tightness New Zealanders were better formed and operated as a 'crack team' of specialists. But then 911 happened and New Zealand didn't want to invade Iraq - wanted to stay with the 'peace keeper' role but was told she would be branded terrorist if she didn't.

      New Zealand protested against nuclear threat from allied tests Muraroa - destabilising the pacific rim & plates. But Rainbow Warrior was blown up as a grim warning to toe the line.

      As other nations sailed into her waters, harpooned and fished her seas - NZ didn't have much defence. Then the crunch came - she had to reform her futile army and purchase a bunch of second hand rusty warships that allied partners wanted to sell - or trade relations would be of the past

      Iconic - only Alone

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.