tkr4lf wrote:
But, if that's the worst of it, that the elites would be doing what they're already doing now, then why not go for it? Think of the benefits. Less war and violence. Sure, there would still be terrorists, and probably some areas of the world would get super pissed about a decision the world court made, and would rebel, but otherwise, a one world government would eliminate wars, yes?
No. By "going for it" who is going to decide how the world government is going to be set up?
You probably wouldn't mind if it was set up modeled after the American model, but the Chinese, Russians, Islamic worlds won't go for that will they?
You wouldn't want a world government modeled after the Chinese method I would think, or Russian? You might be able to tolerate one under a European model but I can sure as hell bet you wouldn't tolerate and Islamic world government model.
So to get there involves, you guessed it, one hell of a war. Then of course if you look back through history and what were at the time a "world government" in such that what was known of the world was ruled by one government (Rome, Egyptian, Chinese dynasties, etc etc) and they all pretty much ate themselves and ripped themselves apart. Sometimes through external forces but most collapsed from internal pressures.
A one world government wouldn't be any different except that the scope of it would be so large that it won't last long and the fallout after ward would be devastating IMO.
Just look at how the colonial powers kept the lid on old hatreds among people who were always traditional enemies and once the colonial rule ended those traditional enemies started slaughtering each other wholesale.
Now you might think "We'd have a big conference and hash this stuff out" but then you get a bunch of elites together and they have to decide which of them is going to be giving up the most power. These are bonafide sociopaths for the most part, that won't go very well.
There is no reason what so ever that the world can't get along with lots of little countries each unique in it's own right. Fences make good neighbors so the saying goes. That way individuals who may not like how things are in their own little area then have a place to go where there are like minded individuals who share the same customs and beliefs and the mode of government they prefer. So long as we all stay out of each other's gardens. That's always been a problem though because all too often the leaders are all pretty much sociopaths.
Any rational, peaceful individual, which pretty much encompasses the vast majority of people on the Earth, have little disagreement with the concept of the non-aggression principle. If every nation lived under that principle there isn't a need for a world government.
Now if you believe that the vast majority of people are generally peaceful and really just want to live their lives and not bother anyone else, then you have to wonder why we are always fighting among each other. I don't see how one world government in and of itself would prevent that.
IMO there is just too many other things that have to be figured out first before we can reach the level of trusting ourselves with a one world government and I don't see us figuring that out anytime soon.
But that's just my opinion.
tkr4lf wrote:I guess we need to get to work on discovering the matter conversion technology.
Dude, you may laugh about it, but that would be a major game changer. Even in Gene Roddenbury's Trek Universe it was the replicator that really made it all possible. That was the single most important tech because mankind now no longer had to labor for resources.
That's the problem we have now with limited resources. It takes time and energy to extract, grow, create all the things we need to survive and build civilization. There is always "want". With energy matter conversion that all changes in an instant. The only thing needed to be gathered is a whole bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons and you create whatever you may need whenever you need or want it.
With all that free time and without ever having to worry if someone is going to come along and just take what you've labored for, was when mankind finally had the time, resources and will to start delving into other things, like starships and exploring the galaxy. With replicators there was no need for money, what do you need money for if anything you could ever need is just a push button away?
Without that money aspect and the corruption that comes when one is in control of creating money, there goes greed. Pursue medical advances to lessen fear and man you got a recipe of major cooperation between people and finally the free time to actually pursue greater knowledge.
Today, even with a one world government there is still going to be want and people get pissed off quick. A one world government can't be counted on to be more efficient at delivering resources anymore than our governments of today are very efficient at pretty much anything (except perhaps whipping up anger and killing people).
A replicator would change the entire dynamic. So yeah, get rolling on figuring that out. I'm pretty sure it's at least theoretically possible if Einstein was right.
<shrugs>
