Intelligent Discussion of News, Politics and Current Events
You are not logged in.
I'm not sure if this conversation has been had here yet (or for that matter, if there is any conversation that hasn't), but I've been thinking about this topic lately. Over the course of our history on this planet, do you think humanity is trending towards a unified, global civilization; perhaps towards a grouped governance? Do you think it's likely that in 2 or 3 thousand years there may only be one government? Or perhaps none? What do you think will succeed nationalism? Are we already in the preliminary stages of it?
Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-16-2008 12:53 AM)
Offline
Look toward history. There's always been an ebb and flow of cultural melding followed by a neo-nationalism of some sort. Old tribes get blended, remixed, new tribes spit out. When communication, travel and trade are new and promising, we tend to look toward more homogenized societies. But as communication, travel, and trade falter, societies become fragmented and introverted.
I think it must be a law of nature that growth (whether physical, fiscal, social, or whatever) has max capacity load and eventually becomes unsustainable. When that happens, downsizing occurs because smaller = easier to manage and maintain.
Last edited by Seabird (07-15-2008 06:26 PM)
Online
I'm not going to make this a biblical discussion, but the prophecies therein say that we will eventually become a one-world government.
Before that happens, the old Roman Empire has to reunite in a 10 nation federation (likely happening in the EU) and America has to go downhill enough to not be a player (or at least not a major player). That may or may not happen soon, depending on how stupid the voters get this upcoming election -- and how big the plans are of the terrorist nations that have vowed to wipe us from the earth (that we continually ignore).
Will all that come true? We'll know when or if it does -- but it will probably not look like anyone thinks it will -- just like earlier prophecies... Typically, only by looking back could anyone ever realize that they had actually been a part of a fulfillment of any sort.
A couple of my own predictions (remember, you heard them here first!)...
1) Jerusalem will be declared an International city -- replacing Geneva as the home of the world government.
2) The UN will relocate there once that happens -- or as a part of that happening.
Offline
Seabird wrote:
I think it must be a law of nature that growth (whether physical, fiscal, social, or whatever) has max capacity load and eventually becomes unsustainable. When that happens, downsizing occurs because smaller = easier to manage and maintain.
In biology, this "downsizing" usually occurs when organisms have exhausted one or more of a system's resources. Do you think there is a constraint, or resource, that is capable of limiting the growth of political systems (nations)?
Perhaps that constraint is the flexibility of political systems to cope with human variation of beliefs.
Perhaps humanity has little faith in the value of the nation/nation-state to the individual, because we know it is because of our individual differences in beliefs, that we cannot yield collective solutions that we are individually satisfied with. It appears to be a dichotomy.
Last edited by Charles Taylor (07-16-2008 03:53 AM)
Offline
The nerd in me is going to come out now... there will never be a complete government speaking for the whole world unless we run into someone else out there who is not human in which case we'd need a unified voice for dealing with them. Also, until some bug eyed tentacled thing shows up at our door step, humanity will never be able to see that our similarities far outreach our differences.
Offline
Charles Taylor wrote:
It appears to be a dichotomy.
It is. And the more individuals you add to the system the less effective it typically becomes.
Offline
Iron Sun 254 wrote:
Also, until some bug eyed tentacled thing shows up at our door step, humanity will never be able to see that our similarities far outreach our differences.
So you were hoping for Hillary to win?
Interesting spin...
Offline
Charles Taylor wrote:
In biology, this "downsizing" usually occurs when organisms have exhausted one or more of a system's resources. Do you think there is a constraint, or resource, that is capable of limiting the growth of political systems (nations)?
Sure. It's a matter of simple efficiencies. I can't point to a singular resource issue because when we're talking about the whole world, it's just too complex for me. There are too many variables. Take the rapid globalization over the last 20 years. I expect that to start winding down over the next 20 due to increased transportation costs. I predict that we'll return to more localized economies.
Perhaps that constraint is the flexibility of political systems to cope with human variation of beliefs.
Interesting thought, but I don't know if I buy it. The Romans had the most liberal and flexible political system in the known world at the time, and their downfall preceded perhaps the greatest fragmentation in Western History.
Perhaps humanity has little faith in the value of the nation/nation-state to the individual, because we know it is because of our individual differences in beliefs, that we cannot yield collective solutions that we are individually satisfied with. It appears to be a dichotomy.
Oooooh... Careful. That sounded almost conservative. ![]()
Online
Seabird wrote:
Oooooh... Careful. That sounded almost conservative.
NPB - Your distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistence is ...entertaining but fleeting.
Online
zukiphile wrote:
NPB - Your distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistence is ...entertaining but fleeting.
That needs to be the tagline.
Offline
Charles Taylor wrote:
Over the course of our history on this planet, do you think humanity is trending towards a unified, global civilization; perhaps towards a grouped governance? Do you think it's likely that in 2 or 3 thousand years there may only be one government? Or perhaps none? What do you think will succeed nationalism? Are we already in the preliminary stages of it?
Local differences should always drive some degree of home rule. The interesting question is whether there is any way to resist the trend we've seen in the U.S. of growing Federal power at the expense of the States. That trend argues strongly against any sort of world governance that goes beyond what we currently see between Canada and the U.S.(easy document requirements to cross boundaries, fairly open trade, common treaties.)
As a practical question, how would we have to amend the U.S. Constitution to yield any authority to such a global government, and wouldn't that in and of itself be an incredibly difficult thing to justify? I have a difficult enough time justifying why people in California have so much influence over my life here in Ohio, through the U.S. Federal government. Extending that influence to Thailand makes no sense to me.
Strong Federal government even within the U.S. is difficult to justify, unless you're stamping out something like slavery. On a world scale, I'm all for stamping out slavery, without submitting free nations to the influence of those governing less free nations, or even submitting free nations to the influence of people less accustomed to ruling themselves well.
Offline