Is A United World Ever Possible?

StormLiongStormLiong Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
<div class="IPBDescription">as in a real one world, one country idea</div> The United Nation is suppose to be a platform for a united world in essence. All countries will work out their differences there and hopefully no major wars breakout.

So then why do we have veto power in the council. Why do some nations ignore UN policies on enviroments and human rights? I think most nations just look at the UN as a mere formality to make everything look nice and united.

The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader with a world wide policies that are actually followed and enforced. The EU is the closest to this (although the president has no real power). Their policies are followed by the member nations throughout. To the point that some nations like Britain feel that their politics are more controlled by the EU than by their own local goverment.

Which brings me to why the united world will never be possible. For nations to relinquish local control to a higher body is ridiculous to them. IE. To have a free open market policy, the US will never allow that. Thats how it is in the UN now as I see with nations have their own personal agenda in it and not thinking the bigger picture.

Probably the most realistic united world system will be like the US where there is Federal law and State Law. In this case of the united world, you would have international law and national laws. But the united world body handles world defence and other matters of international interest.
«1

Comments

  • Rapier7Rapier7 Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
    StormLiong, the United States would never permit free, open markets? Are you kidding me? Of all the post-industrial nations, we've got the most capitalist system in the world. And that's ****ing awesome.

    Of course a United World is possible, seriously, read a sci-fi book. No, seriously. Starship Troopers is a good start. A world ruled by citizens (people who VOLUNTARILY serve in the military) would be feasible, since citizens understand their rights and responsibilities, and are large and powerful enough to uphold those rights and responsibilities.

    The question isn't if, it's when. The fastest way there would be a growing, massive economic trading bloc that was eventually assimilated into a coalition of markets and semi-autonomous political entities.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    Science Fiction, while often uncannily accurate, is always markedly different from what the actual future turns out to be.
  • AllUrHiveRblong2usAllUrHiveRblong2us By Your Powers Combined... Join Date: 2002-12-20 Member: 11244Members
    In a capitalist society no a single world state is not possible. If the world became stable and united under one flag, there would only be one single economy, therefore no new markets for capitalism to exploit, therefore there would be no expansion. Eventually without any room for expansion the economy would stagnate and sag. A single world economy would have to be a much more stable one that does not rely on the creation of new markets, some form of socialism perhaps.
  • Code9Code9 Bored and running out of ammunition. Join Date: 2003-11-29 Member: 23740Members
    I figure if there is a united earth, it will only be after humanity has colonized at least one other celestial body. People just aren't happy unless theres an "Us" and a "Them". Heck people aren't happy in the first place.
  • Rapier7Rapier7 Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
    Who said having a United Earth means no colonization of space?
  • theclamtheclam Join Date: 2004-08-01 Member: 30290Members
    Possible? Yes. Desirable? No.

    The best thing about having several nations is that people have to ability to determine their own political system. In a united world, with 6+ billion people, your vote really doesn't matter. Power would be concentrated in an even smaller group of people.

    In the United States, we have three branches of government: executive, judicial, and legislative. We have three branches in order to keep checks and balances in place, to make sure no individual or group becomes too powerful. We also have a federal system, so that individual states can tailor laws to fit the people who are governed by them. I think that the separation of people into nations serves a similiar purpose.

    I think the UN is supposed to unite the world, in the sense that it was created to keep peace between nations. Diplomacy and non-violence is one of the main goals of the UN for international relations. I don't think it was created to unite the world into a single state.

    <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->StormLiong, the United States would never permit free, open markets? Are you kidding me? Of all the post-industrial nations, we've got the most capitalist system in the world. And that's ****ing awesome.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    The thing is, if all the nations of the world merged together, I doubt our economic system would be as capitalist as it is now.
  • Rapier7Rapier7 Join Date: 2004-02-05 Member: 26108Members
    Are you kidding me? The Gilded Age was all about high tariffs and shunning international trade and that was the most glaring example of abusive capitalism we've ever had in the States.

    Capitalism isn't about trade between sovereign political entities, it's about expansion while each generation entrenches itself firmly within the Establishment. So for capitalism to survive, you have to colonize space. Or obliterate the earth so we have to keep rebuilding civilization.
  • semipsychoticsemipsychotic Join Date: 2003-07-09 Member: 18061Members
    It will NEVER be possible. People will stubbornly cling to their nationalistic ideals until they are broken, crippled, and dead. You may have a world under one flag, maybe, but the world will never be united.
  • MrRobotMrRobot Join Date: 2004-09-27 Member: 31961Members
    I think it could happen, but only if we exclude a handful of rogue countries like USA and Luxemburg(they're evil i tells you D:'). Kick them out and i think the rest of us can all get along.
  • MistenTHMistenTH Join Date: 2003-01-01 Member: 11706Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    Star Trek's federation is one such ideal concept. Humans all live in peace and harmony. Everyone is assigned a set amount of credits for food, transport and luxuries. All humans work towards the greater whole.

    Money has been eliminated in the federation. However, the federation is very rich, and still uses currency when dealing with external empires, just not within themselves.

    Pretty similar to what allyourhive said. A socialist or communist like system, but with external stimulation from a capitalist like system with other empires.
  • CMEastCMEast Join Date: 2002-05-19 Member: 632Members
    In a united world all wars would be 'civil'. They'd happen just as often though.
  • the_x5the_x5 the Xzianthian Join Date: 2004-03-02 Member: 27041Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+May 13 2005, 07:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ May 13 2005, 07:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Science Fiction, while often uncannily accurate, is always markedly different from what the actual future turns out to be. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Well said. I can add to that with another quote:
    <!--QuoteBegin-Winston Churchill+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Winston Churchill)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The empires of the future are the empires of the mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  • juicejuice Join Date: 2003-01-28 Member: 12886Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+May 13 2005, 07:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ May 13 2005, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.

    Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it...
  • TommyVercettiTommyVercetti Join Date: 2003-02-10 Member: 13390Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
    <!--QuoteBegin-juice+May 14 2005, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (juice @ May 14 2005, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+May 13 2005, 07:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ May 13 2005, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.

    Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    a) Mars
    b) Antarctica
    c) Canada
  • PvtBonesPvtBones Join Date: 2004-04-25 Member: 28187Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-TommyVercetti+May 14 2005, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TommyVercetti @ May 14 2005, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-juice+May 14 2005, 06:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (juice @ May 14 2005, 06:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-StormLiong+May 13 2005, 07:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (StormLiong @ May 13 2005, 07:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The ideal united world would be one where you have a single world leader. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Lol. Or not. That's actually quite scary that someone actually thinks it would be a GOOD thing to have a single world leader.

    Also, what if the world government sucks? There's nowhere to go if you don't like it... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    a) Mars
    b) Antarctica
    c) Canada <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    but what if the world government IS Canada? (cue thunder) <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    A singular world state could only work under a communist political party. A capitalist world state would never work (read: fantasy).
  • MavericMaveric Join Date: 2002-08-07 Member: 1101Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Renegade+May 14 2005, 10:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Renegade @ May 14 2005, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A singular world state could only work under a communist political party. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Yup. And since people dont want to share power and wealth, it will never work as long as that system can be abused.


    TBH it'll take a 3-mile wide chunk of metal and rock to make us forget our pathetic differences (which we ourselves made) or a bunch of little green men with rayguns... <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  • AlignAlign Remain Calm Join Date: 2002-11-02 Member: 5216Forum Moderators, Constellation
    Or a death star.

    Looking at how things are now, I'd say that a "united world" could only ever be formal, ie nothing would really change; too many would be opposed to any ideas the leader(s) would get that are either against tradition or religion.
  • RenegadeRenegade Old school Join Date: 2002-03-29 Member: 361Members
    edited May 2005
    Not to mention there are several barriers in the way of forming a global state, language not the least of them.
  • BreakthroughBreakthrough Texture Artist (ns_prometheus) Join Date: 2005-03-27 Member: 46620Members, Constellation
    Eliminate all differences (<i>especially</i> religion), and it's even remotely possible. We're divided by differences, not joined by them. If we can eliminate them (which will <b>never</b> happen), then we can call ourselves united.
  • RobRob Unknown Enemy Join Date: 2002-01-24 Member: 25Members, NS1 Playtester
    If you ask me, you guys are pretty narrow-minded. In the grand scheme of things, human beings have just begun their foray into life, and in the last couple hundred thousand years, we've advanced far from our roots in the high grass of golden planes. Communities of 13-15 of us have grown to towns of a hundred or more, warring between eachother, to cities of thousands, even millions these days, to countries of hundreds of millions, all with common mindsets.

    Sure, right now, we have petty passions and pride that whisper in our ears to betray, mistrust, and hate. We can't get along, but to say we NEVER will is pretty speculative. Along the lines of saying we'd NEVER be able to travel at speeds of 50 miles per hour, becuase that would kill us instantly, or that we'd NEVER be able to fly.

    In another 10,000 years, we may focus our energies toward other things besides monotary or political gains. Maybe even sooner than that, if we don't kill ourselves before then.

    But make no mistake, conquering the known world has been a sought after prize through the ages, and no amount of liberal thinking on our parts is going to assuage that lust for power in the heart of man, at least for now.
  • BreakthroughBreakthrough Texture Artist (ns_prometheus) Join Date: 2005-03-27 Member: 46620Members, Constellation
    Everything you see today is because of moral values, how people evolved. What you all say, what I say. Why do we wear clothes? Because that's how someone made it (well, to stop making fun I suppose <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> ). Why do we use cutlery? Because it's cleaner. If you believe in a God, why are you going to stop believing in it for peace? I myself don't. Religion divides people. Cultures divide people. People divide themselves from eachother with invisible and visible barriers. It's the way things are. I myself don't think it'll change, but that's my own opinion. You can read it, agree/disagree with it, I don't care. That's about the only thing my parents did right - teach me that nobody can say anything to me and that it wouldn't matter.
  • StormLiongStormLiong Join Date: 2002-12-27 Member: 11569Members
    Probably even if the world was invaded by aliens the world wont stay united if everyone says because of the differences we have in this world (skn color, religion etc) .

    I can imagine one country submitting itself to the aliens while another fighting against it. (well assuming the invading aliens take prisoners)
  • GrendelGrendel All that is fear... Join Date: 2002-07-19 Member: 970Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Playtester
    Let's start on an <i>educated</i> world first. People will co-operate only if they are able to see the benefits.
  • lolfighterlolfighter Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
    Indeed. But education is bad. The smarter the masses are in general, the harder they are to lie to.
  • MetalcatMetalcat Join Date: 2004-08-11 Member: 30528Members
    edited May 2005
    yeah but religion is even worse, its actually bad as it is right now

    too much religion has never led to any good, NEVER.

    religion make people dumb.

    i read that some people in the USA wanted the bible to be used in school. WTH? do they want another fanatic country like some of the islam ones?
  • DrfuzzyDrfuzzy FEW... MORE.... INCHES... Join Date: 2003-09-21 Member: 21094Members
    As long as theres a group of 10 overprotective moms, no.
  • pip1pip1 Join Date: 2004-09-06 Member: 31430Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Grendel+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Grendel)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's start on an <i>educated</i> world first. People will co-operate only if they are able to see the benefits.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Indeed. But education is bad. The smarter the masses are in general, the harder they are to lie to.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    Well said.
  • SkySky Join Date: 2004-04-23 Member: 28131Members
    National pride > collective government

    Even in Europe, with the EU - a mild form of collective "government". Would you rather be called a "citizen under the EU"...or "German" (insert appropriate nationality)?
  • TrevelyanTrevelyan Join Date: 2003-03-23 Member: 14834Members
    <!--QuoteBegin-Drfuzzy+May 23 2005, 12:16 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Drfuzzy @ May 23 2005, 12:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As long as theres a group of 10 overprotective moms, no. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Group of soccer moms > Global unification?


    I know soccer moms are the purest form of evil... but how would they disrupt such a thing?

    <!--emo&::gorge::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Sign In or Register to comment.