One world government

[MadAce]

So every nation on earth would just love to sacrifice part of their identity and independence on some set of ideals which may or may not work in The long run? Then why hasn't it happened? And why hasn't the whole global warming thing been internationally legislated out of existance through the use of carbon caps, green technology, etc.

Giving up identity has nothing to do with a unified government. It's not a requirement, nor is it necessarily a result.

People think that nation = state. Well, that's quite logical since most people live in a nation-state. But there's no rational reason for the state to interfere with the culture and vice versa.

I don't expect you to understand my views. I'm after all anti-democracy and pro-"technocracy".

[General_Neox]

A one world government would require

a) an epic fascist campaign set in motion by a powerful nation to conquer the entire world.
or b) The UN having much much much much more power and authority. To a point where they can create and police international law and oversee all its dealings.

[JuliusCaesar]

So every nation on earth would just love to sacrifice part of their identity and independence on some set of ideals which may or may not work in The long run? Then why hasn't it happened? And why hasn't the whole global warming thing been internationally legislated out of existance through the use of carbon caps, green technology, etc.

Giving up identity has nothing to do with a unified government. It's not a requirement, nor is it necessarily a result.

People think that nation = state. Well, that's quite logical since most people live in a nation-state. But there's no rational reason for the state to interfere with the culture and vice versa.

I don't expect you to understand my views. I'm after all anti-democracy and pro-"technocracy".

I've become a lot more cynical since I was active here, and my views, believe it or not, were technocratic, though a lot more generous. All of my ranting on no one likes this or that idea had nothing to do with my political views, only that it seemed that whatever generated buzz or toonces liked was added into the game. (in anycase, I don't really see how nations versus culture has to do with technocracy)

Now politically, democracy is just a giant, HUGE web of manipulation which requires more skill and a more devious nature than running Nazi Germany, and itself has little to do with freedom or lofty ideals.

But anyway, in theory you are correct, governing doesn't have to interfere with culture. But it does. Look at theocracies in the middle east. Their legal system is more or less based on a set of cultural and religious beliefs. Assuming that the nation isn't the state is somewhat ethnocentric, if morally upstanding. For one world state to exist in governing the world it would have to encompass all sorts of different cultural attitudes in governing, tribal, democratic, despotic, and so forth, in order for it to be accomplished with minimal fuss, war, death, etc. This, if done against all odds, Would probably lead to a bureaucracy more inefficient and illogical than the most spoiled teenage pop idols.

And putting a theoretical situation in an discussion for or against a world government (in terms of feasibility as I have brought up) is kind of irrelevent since if it can only exist in theory, it can't happen

[MadAce]

So every nation on earth would just love to sacrifice part of their identity and independence on some set of ideals which may or may not work in The long run? Then why hasn't it happened? And why hasn't the whole global warming thing been internationally legislated out of existance through the use of carbon caps, green technology, etc.

Giving up identity has nothing to do with a unified government. It's not a requirement, nor is it necessarily a result.

People think that nation = state. Well, that's quite logical since most people live in a nation-state. But there's no rational reason for the state to interfere with the culture and vice versa.

I don't expect you to understand my views. I'm after all anti-democracy and pro-"technocracy".

I've become a lot more cynical since I was active here, and my views, believe it or not, were technocratic, though a lot more generous. All of my ranting on no one likes this or that idea had nothing to do with my political views, only that it seemed that whatever generated buzz or toonces liked was added into the game. (in anycase, I don't really see how nations versus culture has to do with technocracy)

Now politically, democracy is just a giant, HUGE web of manipulation which requires more skill and a more devious nature than running Nazi Germany, and itself has little to do with freedom or lofty ideals.

But anyway, in theory you are correct, governing doesn't have to interfere with culture. But it does. Look at theocracies in the middle east. Their legal system is more or less based on a set of cultural and religious beliefs. Assuming that the nation isn't the state is somewhat ethnocentric, if morally upstanding. For one world state to exist in governing the world it would have to encompass all sorts of different cultural attitudes in governing, tribal, democratic, despotic, and so forth, in order for it to be accomplished with minimal fuss, war, death, etc. This, if done against all odds, Would probably lead to a bureaucracy more inefficient and illogical than the most spoiled teenage pop idols.

And putting a theoretical situation in an discussion for or against a world government (in terms of feasibility as I have brought up) is kind of irrelevent since if it can only exist in theory, it can't happen

It's not because something does happen that it should happen or that it will always happen. It's not because something is theoretical that it will always stay this by virtue of at the present time being theoretical.

There's no need for cultural attitudes in government as solutions do not find their origins in culture but in reason. The (more or less) perfect government is a paperclip maximizer with a clear goal. This system should do anything and everything to accomplish this goal. It's just a matter of defining the correct goal.

I'm honestly countign on people's apathy. People in democracies and other failed systems accept so much crap as is that I bet they're willing to accept so much crap that I'm sure that given the right manipulation they will accept actual constructive government.

[JuliusCaesar]

Well madace ur right there doesn't need to be culture involved. But there always is by virtue of culture being a function of the future based on the decisions and actions of the past. The most culture free government I can think of is the soviet union, but even that has a culture of resiliency and...um...oppression, built into it (and we all know how that went). Literally every human culture of the past has or had it's culture as a part of it, cultures both totally independent from each other's influence and isolated have evolved in such ways. It's part of the human factor in government.

And madace you don't necessarily need apathy in your revolution, just fanatical support of a minority can start a revolution and see it through.

[MadAce]

Well madace ur right there doesn't need to be culture involved. But there always is by virtue of culture being a function of the future based on the decisions and actions of the past. The most culture free government I can think of is the soviet union, but even that has a culture of resiliency and...um...oppression, built into it (and we all know how that went). Literally every human culture of the past has or had it's culture as a part of it, cultures both totally independent from each other's influence and isolated have evolved in such ways. It's part of the human factor in government.

And madace you don't necessarily need apathy in your revolution, just fanatical support of a minority can start a revolution and see it through.

A proper government doesn't have human influences.

As for the fanatical minority... Not going to happen. Very, very, very few people think as I do.

[JuliusCaesar]

"A proper government doesn't have human influences"?

Should we be governed by robots?

[MadAce]

"A proper government doesn't have human influences"?

Should we be governed by robots?

Of course.

[JuliusCaesar]

Lol there are so many things wrong with that statement.

Ethics: I'm not even going to get into it, check scientific american's website I'm pretty sure they had a piece on the difficulties in programming ethics.

Practicality: not for a bit before it's doable, techwise.

Social Implications: it took the catholic church hundereds of years to apologize to Galileo. It will take even longer before anyone capable of implementing this tries it.

I don't have much else to say, other than we will long be subjugated by china Nazis or sent back to the stone age following WWIII over oil before this happens.

[MadAce]

Lol there are so many things wrong with that statement.

Ethics: I'm not even going to get into it, check scientific american's website I'm pretty sure they had a piece on the difficulties in programming ethics.

Practicality: not for a bit before it's doable, techwise.

Social Implications: it took the catholic church hundereds of years to apologize to Galileo. It will take even longer before anyone capable of implementing this tries it.

I don't have much else to say, other than we will long be subjugated by china Nazis or sent back to the stone age following WWIII over oil before this happens.

You (of course, what did anyone expect) misunderstand.

I'm trying to explain that the government I'm advocating doesn't have personal bias and is completely and utterly rational. Or actually as much as is possible using the most modern technology.

If you have the "perfect" self-correctng, adapting system (possibly even containing humans) that will carry out a set goal in the most efficient way possible then it is simply a matter of giving this system a goal. The system won't have obvious things we associate with any known governmental system. No actual politics, no backstabbing, no favoring the rich, the old, the powerful, ... Just one will, one goal.

We actually have a few elements that will be useful in this process. Meritocracies and companies have shown us the way in how we should regulate the human element. Not sufficiently, but it's a matter of fine-tuning.



BTW, robots have made scientific discoveries, are about to run armies, design bridges, run financial and social simulations, can be soldiers, are more efficient at manufacturing than humans, ...

If you want something done right you extend the human will by artificial means. Yet strangely enough we're still in the bronze age with our political system.

Utterly inefficient.


BTW, stop using the argument that because it won't happen I am wrong. That doesn't make any sense.

[WeGotDeathStar]

Socialism has failed on every corner of this planet, A one world govt will never work either.

Look at the EU, not even 15 years old and it is set to collapse. A nice idea on paper but when practiced it proves to be a failure every time.

Nothing new people hating on the United States, jealousy will do that to people..It's just human nature i guess.


The United States has done more good hands down for the world then any other country has ever done since the creation of mankind. For the rest of the fascists that want to believe otherwise so be it, the school system does a great job forcing it's agenda on children that don't understand how the world really works.

Keep paying money to go to college, all you are learning is how to become a better sheep not to better yourselves or anyone else for that matter.

[MadAce]

Socialism has failed on every corner of this planet, A one world govt will never work either.

Firstly, where has socialism failed?

Secondly what the fùck does socialism have to do with a single world government?

Look at the EU, not even 15 years old and it is set to collapse. A nice idea on paper but when practiced it proves to be a failure every time.

Not a single country in the EU is socialist. And who says it's about to "collapse"?

Nothing new people hating on the United States, jealousy will do that to people..It's just human nature i guess.

Who is hating on the US? And why should anyone be jealous?

The United States has done more good hands down for the world then any other country has ever done since the creation of mankind. For the rest of the fascists that want to believe otherwise so be it, the school system does a great job forcing it's agenda on children that don't understand how the world really works.

That's complete and utter BS. The US hasn't done BBQ. Nor has any other country in the world. Mankind as a whole does stuff. Nation-states are artificial constructs invented by the elite to make poor and undereducated people more convincing cannon fodder and more docile.

Keep paying money to go to college, all you are learning is how to become a better sheep not to better yourselves or anyone else for that matter.

Look who's talking.



This is relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsPDT5qHtZ4

[JuliusCaesar]

Yea death that was quite silly and irrelevant, but where was I....

Madace you keep pointing to some perfect system where human influence will be wiped out and it will be completely rational, completely unbiased and all that fun stuff. And while I agree with a lot of your ideas there is just one flaw.

NOTHING IS PERFECT

Absolutely nothing, nada, nothing biological, mechanical, or anything humans have ever dreamed up or created or partaken In has ever been perfect. NEVER FOREVER. So while you say my entire argument is based on me just saying your wrong, well it is realy that simple, nothing is perfect therefore this probably won't happen as easily or intellectually or peacefully as some of your refutation suggest, becase governments are rather complicated things for the most part, and when you have that many cultures, governments, ideals, and societies coming together all at once, or even one by one, it won't go like clockwork and adhere to your ideas and principles. Plus, you mentioned in you think very differently from other people. While this does t change bearing on your ideas, it just casts doubt on the process and objectivity you espouse.

[MadAce]

Madace you keep pointing to some perfect system where human influence will be wiped out and it will be completely rational, completely unbiased and all that fun stuff. And while I agree with a lot of your ideas there is just one flaw.

NOTHING IS PERFECT

Actually I've always claimed (or intended to) that the system would be as rational and unbiased as possible.

Absolutely nothing, nada, nothing biological, mechanical, or anything humans have ever dreamed up or created or partaken In has ever been perfect. NEVER FOREVER. So while you say my entire argument is based on me just saying your wrong, well it is realy that simple, nothing is perfect therefore this probably won't happen as easily or intellectually or peacefully as some of your refutation suggest, becase governments are rather complicated things for the most part, and when you have that many cultures, governments, ideals, and societies coming together all at once, or even one by one, it won't go like clockwork and adhere to your ideas and principles. Plus, you mentioned in you think very differently from other people. While this does t change bearing on your ideas, it just casts doubt on the process and objectivity you espouse.

Saying nothing is perfect is in itself quite a massive platitude. It depends entirely on your definition of perfection and the context you're talking about. One might say that the process of evolution has always produced perfection as it is impossible to say how some species could have evolved differently and better given the circumstances it has evolved in. If you have a problem and two possible solutions then the solution which solves the problem at the lowest cost might as well be called the perfect solution as if you knew about a better one you would've chosen that one.

I argue that perfection is the best that you can get. Are we currently getting the best that we can get? Most certainly not.

[JuliusCaesar]

I tried to avoid that by defining the particular definition of perfection used, so I will say this instead.

There is no human system in any form of life, economy, government, etc, that is completely and totally ultimate, in the sense that it is purely this or purely that, because we as people have free will. Saying that we can make a government that will satisfy the currently diverse beliefs of the world that will be COMPLETEY free from bias and all you have mentioned isn't possible.

But one world government might be pointless anyway, I'm reading Jihad v. McWorld, a book from the mid nineties that describes how the global economy and nationalistic forces are both pulling the world apart, yet bringing it together in a sort of cultural void. While it is somewhat dated, some of it's predictions are spot on and are very relevant.

The closest thing we might get to a world government is that governments become so weak and pointless that they all wither and die off, though the book offers ways to avoid that and I don't particulalry believe in a lot of things it says, just another possibility to consider.

[MadAce]

I tried to avoid that by defining the particular definition of perfection used, so I will say this instead.

There is no human system in any form of life, economy, government, etc, that is completely and totally ultimate, in the sense that it is purely this or purely that, because we as people have free will. Saying that we can make a government that will satisfy the currently diverse beliefs of the world that will be COMPLETEY free from bias and all you have mentioned isn't possible.

Actually I've always claimed (or intended to) that the system would be as rational and unbiased as possible.

But one world government might be pointless anyway, I'm reading Jihad v. McWorld, a book from the mid nineties that describes how the global economy and nationalistic forces are both pulling the world apart, yet bringing it together in a sort of cultural void. While it is somewhat dated, some of it's predictions are spot on and are very relevant.

Nationalism, like culture, is a choice of the individual and thus has little to do with proper government. People should be free to choose their religion and other ideologies. Government has no point in having a say in this.

A complete separation between culture and state is required.

The closest thing we might get to a world government is that governments become so weak and pointless that they all wither and die off, though the book offers ways to avoid that and I don't particulalry believe in a lot of things it says, just another possibility to consider.

Frankly I see now way for the nation-state to die save for quite unhealthy ways.

But in the end I believe it will be a very soft transition. The 21th century will be the first century of truly noticeable exponential increase in several things. There will be a massive discrepancy between those people (or rather, at a certain point, sentient entities) that are on top of the exponential curve and the normal human beings.

Yea, I'm kinda talking about the singularity.

[JuliusCaesar]

Lol moore's law and all that? I think those kinds of predictions are kind of overblown.

[MadAce]

Lol moore's law and all that? I think those kinds of predictions are kind of overblown.

Moore's law is kinda crappy. The general point still stands, but it's too specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth




I employ you to simply extrapolate the trends you've seen in the past 50 years. Its mind-boggling to say the least.

[JuliusCaesar]

You are right technology and society have changed faster in recent times than they have in centuries, but I ascribe this to the advent of mass media and information technologies leading to collaboration of ideas and faster sharing of them, along with the larger population of the developed and developing world.

As for the future, if anything, I see a future dominated by profit, where great things do not exist or have no place, and the concern of the Everyman is, how will this make me happy?

[MadAce]

You are right technology and society have changed faster in recent times than they have in centuries, but I ascribe this to the advent of mass media and information technologies leading to collaboration of ideas and faster sharing of them, along with the larger population of the developed and developing world.

As for the future, if anything, I see a future dominated by profit, where great things do not exist or have no place, and the concern of the Everyman is, how will this make me happy?

A future dominated by profit?

You haven't been paying attention. We're close to a post-scarcity economy.

[JuliusCaesar]

Exactly bud (I just baited you :O),
citizens of the developed countries of the world (ie US, UK) will neither be able to nor want to live in a post scarcity economy. You think the fat, entitled majority of Americans will want to pay $10 for a gallon of gas? Or how about electricity being a luxury good?

We went to war over a fanatical, fundamentalist organization's isolated and (honestly, in the full scope of things, insignificant) attack, 9-11. I'm going to get a lot of hate for that but so be it.

You think we won't go to war over the natural resources that will be denied to us by nature and ourselves, but abundant in those countries who haven't been developed enough to exploit them?

It will be labeled one thing or another, painted with some ideology or another, but it will happen thanks to the wonderfully ignorant public. And the beauty of it will be that no one will have learned anything until the very end of it all, at which point one or two or three major governments will be left to duke it out, ending in either total nuclear annihiliation, or a sort of extensive trade or political arrangement.

[MadAce]

Exactly bud (I just baited you :O),
citizens of the developed countries of the world (ie US, UK) will neither be able to nor want to live in a post scarcity economy. You think the fat, entitled majority of Americans will want to pay $10 for a gallon of gas? Or how about electricity being a luxury good?

We went to war over a fanatical, fundamentalist organization's isolated and (honestly, in the full scope of things, insignificant) attack, 9-11. I'm going to get a lot of hate for that but so be it.

You think we won't go to war over the natural resources that will be denied to us by nature and ourselves, but abundant in those countries who haven't been developed enough to exploit them?

It will be labeled one thing or another, painted with some ideology or another, but it will happen thanks to the wonderfully ignorant public. And the beauty of it will be that no one will have learned anything until the very end of it all, at which point one or two or three major governments will be left to duke it out, ending in either total nuclear annihiliation, or a sort of extensive trade or political arrangement.

Before you start baiting people it might be wise to get your vocabulary in order.

In other words: you don't understand what a post-scarcity economy is and I suggest you learn.

You are suggesting it means the exact opposite of what it actually does.



What did you say your level of education was?


BTW, I fully agree 9/11 was insignificant. And that the public is ignorant.

[JuliusCaesar]

Ah I see, and I'm in junior year.

Well in that case you are wrong :O
there will be more scarcity in the future, not less. No shortage of services or soft goods, but a lack of the resources behind the system. If not by sheer lack of resources, but competition for them.

If china was at our level of development per capital, we would run out of known energy reserves in 5 years.

[MadAce]

Ah I see, and I'm in junior year.

Well in that case you are wrong :O
there will be more scarcity in the future, not less. No shortage of services or soft goods, but a lack of the resources behind the system. If not by sheer lack of resources, but competition for them.

If china was at our level of development per capital, we would run out of known energy reserves in 5 years.

We won't use less resources in total. We will use less resources per person. At a certain point just enough to keep your body fed and your mind hooked up.

[JuliusCaesar]

We will use less resources per person. At a certain point just enough to keep your body fed and your mind hooked up.

LOL madace I'm not optimistic enough to believe anyone in the developed world will accept that.

Like I said, nuclear war will thin out and unify the world through it's terrible effects.

[Mel'Kaven]

Wow you two are.................

[General_Neox]

We will use less resources per person. At a certain point just enough to keep your body fed and your mind hooked up.

LOL madace I'm not optimistic enough to believe anyone in the developed world will accept that.

Like I said, nuclear war will thin out and unify the world through it's terrible effects.

More like separate everyone and turn them in to blood-thirsty resource deprived clans...

It really depends on whether or not u think people r rudimentarily good or evil

[MadAce]

We will use less resources per person. At a certain point just enough to keep your body fed and your mind hooked up.

LOL madace I'm not optimistic enough to believe anyone in the developed world will accept that.

Like I said, nuclear war will thin out and unify the world through it's terrible effects.

It has nothing to do with optimism or otherwise.


They'll voluntarily hook up. They'll WELCOME the transition. They'll be wanting to do anything to get it.



The fact that we're able to have this conversation speaks volumes.

[JuliusCaesar]

Lol that is why it's called the garbage chute.

[nine-breaker]

For a while I have been saying that we need to get over ethnicity and start looking at each other as "another human" humanity is our race, not black, white, latino, or asian. The only way to do this is to abandon religious ties (not religion itself) and get everyone under one culture. As for a government, I think that Science should be the ruling party. I would elaborate more, but just checking in from lunch break.

Nice to see everyone again.