What form will the future one world gov't take?

Throughout all of history, humanity has been on a trend of forming larger and larger groups. Family to tribe to town to city/state, to state to larger states, to unions of states. Given this trend, eventually the globe will have one gov't.

I am inviting DUers to speculate on the form such a future gov't will take, and how it will come about. Or will it happen at all? Many here seem to think that civilization will collapse and the few survivors will have to learn hunter-gather skills.

As usual, I will withhold my own specualtion until later as I want people to speculate independently without responding to my speculations.

nt

space aliens.

Mainly for peacekeeping and perhaps environmental coordination.

But it will not work without a strong policy to raise the relative economic well-being of the poorer countries.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it; but I doubt the ability of current regimes to save us from the impending disasters of global warming and oil peak. I think global culture will probably not survive these, even if the human race itself does.

While the international system is definitely rolling towards an ultra-globalized "one world" culture, there are also growing nationalist/tribal movements that seek to resist uber-globalization. The homogenous one world system would be in line with the decline in the power of sovereignty that is currently being seen across the globe. If you're interested, there's a great article in Harper's this month, I think it was called "The Fall of Globalization"

The idea of larger entities constantly forming is not entirely correct. There is a lesser, yet significant break-up of larger groups throughout history. That being said, because of the increases in population and in technology, what you are saying is occuring. It leaves only three options: (1) a bush-type empire that has economic control over the globe, and which contains the seeds of its own self destruction; (2) a UN -style attempt at a confederacy of states, which tries to juggle conflicting interests, but is never quite able to prevent re-occuring "tribal" (ethnic, religious, etc) warfare; and (3) my favorite, people become enlightened, realize how ridiculous the concept of "leaders" is (they are simply the obnoxious rich and often violent kids you disliked in school) and we live in the world best described in the song Imagine by John and Yoko.

If anything, we are beginning to see many of the problems associated with continuing centralization of power. As power consolidates, it becomes less and less reachable by more and more of the people.

If you think that our government in the United States is currently overwhelmed by elite influences (just look at the blatant hypocrisy in our trade policy, for starters), a "one-world government" would be exponentially worse. There would literally be no power for the masses of the planet.

I would actually advocate the opposite -- a decentralization of power. If, after such a trend, we were able to establish true democratic processes and political freedom -- rather than the mirage of such that we currently have -- then we might be able to build up toward some sort of world confederation, rather than an all-out world government.

As it stands right now, any world government would be built on auspicious footing, democratically-speaking. It would undoubtedly tilt much further toward tyranny than freedom -- and therefore would be extremely difficult to justify, unless you are one of the elites who stands to benefit from creeping tyranny.

We should be striving away from concentrations of power. We, the people, should be the ones with the power.

True democracy is dependent on the power being at the hands of the people.

Social Power and Political Freedom by Gene Sharp. It's a pretty good analysis of how power functions and is validated in modern society, along with ideas for establishing a more just and democratic society. Sharp is quite clear that the only option for this is nonviolent confrontation and noncooperation, and he calls on the need to study past instances of this in great detail in order to develop real plans for implementation and expansion of such measures in the years to come.

One of the points of hope in it is the premise that all power -- whether it be in a democratic republic or an authoritarian dictatorship -- ultimately flows from the governed. If the people are willing to endure the hardships necessary to remove their consent, then that power center has the simple choice of bending or dying.

I will look it up next.

I've been reading about this subject mostly by Chomsky, Zinn, and Parenti, but I'm always looking for something new.

Of course, it will be much, much bigger.

Similar to current Amerika.

The oil crash will wipe out 90% of the current world population leaving only small enclaves of the super rich behind security fences and a few small localized farming tribes in the rural areas.

If I recall correctly (from my student days), Sinclair state there would be no world revolution (in the workers' sense), that companies would just buy into each other until eventually there would be just one corporation that would operate everything.

I don't think he promoted this idea, just that it may be the way of the future...

.
.
.

ALL efforts by previous potential "dominator" have failed

Democracy over 6 billion people ? - nope never work

Too many different cultures and ideologies to deal with

and any such "government" will always try to impose it's own values on people that will not accept them . .

China would be a complete mess if they tried full democracy - well what IS full Democracy,:shrug: - - the US hasn't got it for sure, and even our multi-party system in Canada is full of flaws - -

BUT

IF a "world" government does manage to evolve itself, it will slowly degrade, and people will rebel and we will basically slide back into "tribes" so to speak.

IF, and it's a BIG if a "world" government was to evolve and survive, I believe it would have to be along the lines of an Autocracy, a "benevolent" dictatorship if you like, where the rule was the RULE - but we had very benevolent, compassionate, and intelligent rulers - -

and I don't see too many candidates with those qualities out there, because the ones with the POWER to achieve world order, don't have the right "qualifications" or "attitudes"

That's my opinion anyhoo

I mean you can talk about Global warming and other global problems that the organization can fight; but most issues aren't global issues. Perhaps it would only deal with the big issues; but the other possbility is an ossification of what currently is going on; Europe and the United States would make all the decisions, the third world would basically have to do what we say.

Still American National Pride and Chinese National Pride stand in the way of this right now.

For those who like to predict doom for humanity; I'd say that while we have a lot ot be concerned about there are other factors that one has to put in as well. Such as Human ingenuity; Human's didn't just invent the Nuclear Bomb; they also invented Penicillian. Maybe when our back is up againt the wall we will come up with the next big thing. This isn't to encourage complacency, but to discourage despair.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

hand-picked Kings ruling various regions of the earth. All of the top positions would be held by people related to the Emperor's father, the Emperor Emeritus G H W Bush, (relationship based upon ownership share of Carlyle).

If we ever have one world government I fear it will be something like this.

n/t

I think mankind will go to the stars divided. There will be alliance blocs and nothing more. Face it, trying to get 280 million people to agree on something is darn near impossible. Trying to get 6 billion or more is silly.

by nuclear war.

NOT that I want that for this Earth here.

But you probably are right. The corporations will run amok among the stars next. :(

will be the undisputed lord and master over all of us Homers.

Ned Flanders loves God.

Christian Reconstructionists want to be God.

It's too creepy.

We're all going to die horribly.

Won't last though. Nothing ever does in the long run.

Chinese dynasties didn't last. Egyptian empires didn't last. Whatever this country is becoming won't last.

Also, the larger and larger the group, the larger and larger the eventual war. We've seen the bloodiest wars in human history in the last century.

Then we have all this military technology, and robots will soon be fighting us, and they won't have any human control.

All I've seemed to conclude is that existence is a struggle against itself. I hope that we can all someday learn to just live with one another. I'm not holding out hope. But that's the only hope that keeps me going, because other than that, the future doesn't look great to me. More people, more conflict. Not that less people means less conflict.

It's a screwy world. Life shouldn't be perfect, but I don't think it should be like this either. It would be easier if our brains weren't where they're at at this point. Maybe if we were just simply living the laws of the jungle like a tiger or a lion, it would be easier. It's kill or be killed. I don't believe humans should act that way anymore, but we still do, and there's nothing that would lead me to believe that will change in the big picture.

One world government? Yeah, it's probably coming. But it won't work, for a number of reasons. It won't last, for a number of reasons.

But hey, life can get pretty boring after a while. Maybe after coming together to take the one world government down, we'll all see that we all have a lot more in common than people seem to realize. But that will probably just lead to more war eventually.

::sigh:: Life.