United Earth/Humanity Discussion Thread

[Orcuo]

The idea of our planet/species being administered by one central government has been an idea that has lingered pretty much since the conception of society in one way or another. There has always been that lingering brain thought of “what if one authority took control”. I haven’t really seen any discussion threads over this, so I decide to create one. Let this be a place where we can discuss this idea: Should we do? How should we do it? Why would we do it? Etc.

Personally, I am in favor for one government controlling the Earth (of course, with an emphasis on regional governance present). I’d love to hear you NSGers and your opinions. So without further ado, rant away!

[Turussniya]

We all gon' die eventually.

[Pale Dawn]

One controling power stands against any concept of automony or regional respesentation. Humanity is simply too d8verse with too many competeing wishes and needs. That means you'd either need to turn the vibrance of humanity into gray sludge so that their needs and wants are simular enough to be represented by a single entity or impose a tyrannical rule over all the land to the benefit of the 1 government. Regional representation as suggested would be too unweldly to be effective.

I would work to subvert it openly or in secret until it fails or i die
I Seek would like minded indeviduals and teach my children to undermind it when my time is done.

[Durius]

Since I don't believe a united Earth will be free and democratic, I would say that I hope it never happens. I don't to want bridge my differences and unite with countries that practice FGM, who defend the death penalty, who oppress women and minorities, who don't embrace liberal democracy. And suspect many peoples and countries rightfully don't want to bridge their differences with me either. So, the only option is for an united Earth to happen through violence and suppression of many peoples' wills. I don't see how that can be desirable, even if it were my side the one winning that war.

It might be ironic that I'm saying this as an eurofederalist, but I do believe that most nations in Europe are democratic and share bridgeable values. There are geopolitical reasons for Europe to unite. There are enough common ground to make it possible. I believe we can unite (and staying united) voluntarily, though a lot of convincing work still needs to be done.

I don't see that being possible anytime soon for the world at large. Geopolitics do not allow it. Different cultural values hinder it further. And frankly, having powers with opposing ideas and ideals is not necessarily a bad thing. As much as I like our system and I will defend it passionately, there is no reason to believe it is the absolute right one.

[Unogonduria]

Would be nice, but sadly unnatural. Humans, along with other apes, like Chimpanzees and Gorillas, are territorial animals. Also, administering potential rebellions and uprisings would be a lot harder, because if you spent so much money to build a military base around the bigger cities, people would not only be poorer (if the concept of money exists), but would likely be even more scared for their own safety. Another problem with such a worldwide government would be, that it's probably going to be easily-corruptable.

[The Apollonian Systems]

Literally impossible

[Tanbearia]

I see it as a near end goal for Homo sapiens sapiens, believing that through social and even self-evolutionary means we will create a new version of humanity (Homo deus/Homo sapiens superior something of that sort) to then go out and expand beyond our planet.

I believe it is worth it, since it is the only way for us to guarantee that humanity wont kill itself or die to some disaster without any back up plan, or at least a giant bronze age collapse tier reset if something bad happens, along with also prioritizing continuous development and welfare for all peoples, through which by eliminating a lot of "natural struggles" such as hunger, war, etc we can open up ourselves more sense those hinderances to consciousness would HOPEFULLY be eliminated. As well, perhaps the new humanity we create isn't prone to a lot of our animalistic instincts and issues and acts with a more elevated consciousness.

Also, regionalized zones should be included, just because we are united doesn't mean that culture/languages need to be eliminated, I don't think that it is impossible for multiple to exist under one massive framework.

And it would be nice for us to ensure that the possible trillions of human lives there are to be lived out there happen, and that we can really make a mark on our little space in the universe :3

[Love Peace and Friendship]

Any United Earth would have to deal with the particular issue of the mass inequality between the various groups that would make up its union. Should the world unify Tomorrow, and even more so if this unification is less from diplomatic mastery and more from any great conquest to rival Alexander and Timur, then a United Earth would see much of its territory in different economic situations. Much of the world regions are only somewhat industrialized, ruined from devastating conflict, and/or on the brink of famine. Meanwhile, other regions would be at the height of human prosperity and technological progress, unmatched in economic output and standard of living. Either the United Earth government would have to preform a rescue of such regions at an extreme unpolitically favorable rescue at a scale dwarfing even the Marshall Plan which would likely result in a riot among developed regions, or there would be a mass migration crisis with the newly created lack of borders which would either necessitate an extreme amount of migration controls or cause a riot in the developed world.

I don't consider a world government infeasible, so long as it has far diminished powers and strongly defined freedoms which would protect the cultural and political situations of the countries from fearing annihilation till they are solved through more natural debate, but people tend to like it better when natural economic forces develop others more slowly over time rather than a forceful economic injection. As a result, in order to make a world government possible, there needs to be a shift among developed countries towards furthering rather than exploiting their fellow developing countries through economic support while accepting the eventual decline of their home industries or else any world government would have a mas instability crisis. How likely such a thing is to happen is a guess, though it recent years globalism has faded in favor of protectionism, so it may not be so.

[Ineva]

Cannot, will not, and should not happen.

[Kostane]

We have more in common than we have differences. If humanity ever wants to truly enter the space age, Earth must be united or else we will all die. If space travel becomes a thing nuclear deterrence is over, and world governments will fight again. If we colonize space as separate nations territorial conflicts are inevitable. To ensure a future for humanity, we must either unite or die.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

But then the nationalists would just have to hate themselves.

[Love Peace and Friendship]

We have more in common than we have differences. If humanity ever wants to truly enter the space age, Earth must be united or else we will all die. If space travel becomes a thing nuclear deterrence is over, and world governments will fight again. If we colonize space as separate nations territorial conflicts are inevitable. To ensure a future for humanity, we must either unite or die.

I do worry about what would happen should a unification happen. For example, Europeans have a different notion of what religious freedom is in their country than in America. I do not wish for Laïcité, and they do not favor America's Secularism. So, how would any world government handle a situation where one side tries to overpower the other to enforce their notion of the relation between church and state? How would same situation that fair for countries with even stronger differences?

[Durius]

We have more in common than we have differences. If humanity ever wants to truly enter the space age, Earth must be united or else we will all die. If space travel becomes a thing nuclear deterrence is over, and world governments will fight again. If we colonize space as separate nations territorial conflicts are inevitable. To ensure a future for humanity, we must either unite or die.

Completely disagree. A united government is not a requirement for the space age. In fact, competition is way more likely to foster it than a united Earth ever will. In fact, why would the government of the united Earth even want to pursue a space age if they already control all humans and letting a few moving into space might mean they will eventually escape its grasp and possibly one day bring its dismise?

The more we expand into space, the more disunited we will be, simply due to human nature and laws of physics preventing an effective subdue of independent thought and action.

[Floofybit]

The whole world under a safe and united control is the goal.

[Love Peace and Friendship]

The whole world under a safe and united control is the goal.

Would any world government provide that safety without depriving people of rights or being too unstable to function though?

[Technoscience Leftwing]

If it became possible to form large nations from scattered feudal provinces, then the formation of a single nation of earthlings on the territory of the entire planet Earth is quite possible. And this would be progressive: it could eliminate xenophobia and wars, stimulate the development of peaceful productive forces, and increase the comfort of citizens. The cultural heritage of the past will become an open fund from which every inhabitant of the Earth will be able to take their favorite techniques of art, architecture, etc., and the forced tying of culture to a limited territory and group will disappear. Of course, all this is possible only if the national elites, consisting of the monopolistic bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy associated with it, disappear. That is, under world socialism.

[Ethel mermania]

Will kill or die trying to kill anyone or any force attempting to install a unified world government.

Viva 'la' revolution!

[The Apollonian Systems]

The whole world under a safe and united control is the goal.

Would any world government provide that safety without depriving people of rights or being too unstable to function though?

He doesn’t give a shit about depriving people of their rights.

[Floofybit]

The whole world under a safe and united control is the goal.

Would any world government provide that safety without depriving people of rights or being too unstable to function though?

No. But that was never the idea.

[Love Peace and Friendship]

If it became possible to form large nations from scattered feudal provinces, then the formation of a single nation of earthlings on the territory of the entire planet Earth is quite possible. And this would be progressive: it could eliminate xenophobia and wars, stimulate the development of peaceful productive forces, and increase the comfort of citizens. The cultural heritage of the past will become an open fund from which every inhabitant of the Earth will be able to take their favorite techniques of art, architecture, etc., and the forced tying of culture to a limited territory and group will disappear. Of course, all this is possible only if the national elites, consisting of the monopolistic bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy associated with it, disappear. That is, under world socialism.

Well, wouldn't a world government also need an overarching bureaucracy to administrate its vast territories?

Would any world government provide that safety without depriving people of rights or being too unstable to function though?

He doesn’t give a shit about depriving people of their rights.

Would any world government provide that safety without depriving people of rights or being too unstable to function though?

No. But that was never the idea.

Well if the world government just ends up taking away everyone rights and needing to oppress the world in order to unify it then I hardly find it will be a useful government, bound to fail by the very forces it opposes breaking it over demands for liberty. Or, it will just be too authoritarian to be an ideal government; political and social imperialism over a region necessitates a level of violence and control which would reduce it to little better than an imperialist regime of the past.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

If it became possible to form large nations from scattered feudal provinces, then the formation of a single nation of earthlings on the territory of the entire planet Earth is quite possible. And this would be progressive: it could eliminate xenophobia and wars, stimulate the development of peaceful productive forces, and increase the comfort of citizens. The cultural heritage of the past will become an open fund from which every inhabitant of the Earth will be able to take their favorite techniques of art, architecture, etc., and the forced tying of culture to a limited territory and group will disappear. Of course, all this is possible only if the national elites, consisting of the monopolistic bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy associated with it, disappear. That is, under world socialism.

Well, wouldn't a world government also need an overarching bureaucracy to administrate its vast territories?

If management is authoritarian, there will be bureaucracy. True, this global bureaucracy will not have in its hands the weapon of interethnic hatred and xenophobia, and it will not be able to use this for the policy of “divide and rule”, to pit the poor of different nations against each other. And this is already progress.

If governance is anti-authoritarian, it can be carried out through Internet voting by ordinary citizens of the Earth on various issues, without the mediation of bureaucracy. There is a risk of “tyranny of the majority”, but the risk of wars between nations disappears, the risk of nuclear war disappears. To avoid the “tyranny of the majority,” it is necessary to somehow guarantee the rights of subcultural groups within society.

[Rusozak]

Will kill or die trying to kill anyone or any force attempting to install a unified world government.

Viva 'la' revolution!

But how else will we have fully automated luxury gay space communism as envisioned by Gene Roddenberry?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I don't see a world government rising... like ever.

A large confederation/superstate? Yes, one can emerge under the right circumstances. But not a government that controls the entire world.

[The Two Jerseys]

God no. I don't like the politics of the people 20 miles from me, much less the people on other continents.

[Almighty Biden]

One controling power stands against any concept of automony or regional respesentation. Humanity is simply too d8verse with too many competeing wishes and needs. That means you'd either need to turn the vibrance of humanity into gray sludge so that their needs and wants are simular enough to be represented by a single entity or impose a tyrannical rule over all the land to the benefit of the 1 government. Regional representation as suggested would be too unweldly to be effective.

I would work to subvert it openly or in secret until it fails or i die
I Seek would like minded indeviduals and teach my children to undermind it when my time is done.

I second this. We may not agree on much politically, but let us work together to overthrow the New World Order!