And so it came to pass that every country on earth said they had destroyed all of their nuclear weapons.

Did I suddenly feel any safer?

NO? Why not? Because I didn't believe them.

I believe any claim that one world government would change things for the better for the mass of humanity is naive Utopian nonsense. Humans as a species wouldn't change at all. We would still be the same predominately aggressive, vicious,greedy and stupid animals.


Thought for the day "The one thing we've learned from history is that we've learned nothing from history" (anon)

Pippy,

That was well stated with no built in defense YAY.

I see the problems with government but they, like the economy, have gotten to where they are through an organic process that will continue due to the forces that necessitate both things. Pure democracy will probabaly never happen and is bad idea anyway because giving every dolt on the planet an equal say about what happens seems to be a scary idea to me. Pure democracy is tyrannical to the minority so there must be some checks in there to balance things out.

It is easy enough to say that governent is bad so larger government would be worse but that doesn't necessarily follow. The UN is a step in the right direction in my opinion and will garner more support as time goes on. The World Bank is a good idea too and has been doing good things in third world countries to support efforts to increase sustainable agriculture and education.

The world does not have a scarce resource problem, it has a distribution problem.

The subdermal chip would only have limited information about the user. It would only be used for identity and the point of sale systems, customs systems, and medical systems would use that information to link to other resources like wealth storage, passport validity, and medical information. Given our decreasing geometries in the electronics industry, the chip could be shot into the back of your neck, fleshy bit of your ass, or (my two favorite parts) the back of the hand and the forehead.

Rhizo

---

Padraic,

Ok, so you think a world government is not a good idea; what do you think would work?

It is easy enough to proclaim that something is naive, but you should have the courtesy to offer up a different solution.

And whether you like it or not, it is probably coming.

"The wheel it turns, goes round and round, it makes a low rumbling sound!" Kai from Lexx

Rhizo

Don't we need nukes? What if a huge meteor was heading straight for the planet...

Hey,

Just out of curiosity, because I don't understand what you mean, what is a 'built in defense' in my posts? I don't deny that I likely do do it, but I would like to know what is meant is all.

Quote:The UN is a step in the right direction in my opinion and will garner more support as time goes on. The World Bank is a good idea too and has been doing good things in third world countries to support efforts to increase sustainable agriculture and education.

I hear, and respect your opinions. I am not to sure about the UN. I think of it as in decline, with respect to power and popularity. There are many other organizations and groups that are similar though... It never got the military support it asked for in the beginning (the UN) and has failed to live up to it's designed expectations in terms of a world policing organization. That is just my interpretation. I am very distrustful of the WB, as I feel it has done irreparable damage to indigenous cultures and geographies in the name of modernization, or globalization. It seems to support hydro-carbon based agriculture, a form that is arguably not 'sustainable', and an education that is very one sided. Also just things as I see them.

Quote:The world does not have a scarce resource problem, it has a distribution problem.

I could not agree more. The scarcity issue is, I think, misinformation with the goal of creating a combative and competitive atmosphere. Although we are getting closer and closer to seeing it as a reality... I think the problem with distribution is one of too much instead of too little though. Too much distribution, not nearly enough reliance on any form of economics smaller than a planetary scale... Well put though.

Quote:wealth storage, passport validity, and medical information

These are all things that can be used for good and bad. And so I think that we need to be very careful who we offer this ability to. As I see the general governance today, I have strong doubts that they can help themselves but use such information for purposes against our best interests.

We need global control, but it has to be in the hands of people we can trust. And if the very thing we need is being offered to us, but it appears to actually be a huge step backwards in disguise, we need to fight back. That is my opinion on it all.

Thank you again,
-Pip

(July 16, 2009 at 9:39 pm)LEDO Wrote: One world government?? Who would we fight with? We could de-mobilize militaries and nukes. We could better use our natural resources for peace and better feed the world without national boundries. There would also be a better distribution of wealth. I can see why everyone is afraid. Heck, we might have to give up our guns in my country and be forced to have free health care. Then surely the anti-Christ will rule. Just a terrible idea, go fuck yourself John Lennon.

Greatest post ever. If it weren't so long I'd swipe it for my sig.


OWG seems to be a popular idea here, as long as America doesn't head it up. LOL

Quote:Ok, so you think a world government is not a good idea; what do you think would work?

How should I know? Besides , I didn't say world government wouldn't work.It might be very effective. My skepticism is of Utopian expectations ,which I consider absurd,for the reasons stated. Personally,I'm quite happy with the way things are right now,compared with how they were even 50 years ago.

Quote:It is easy enough to proclaim that something is naive, but you should have the courtesy to offer up a different solution.

Bullshit . I owe you nothing. I pointed out what is to me an obvious flaw in that and all Utopian ideals; the human factor. I don't remember expressing sufficient dissatisfaction with our present system to want it replaced.

Quote:And whether you like it or not, it is probably coming.

In your opinion,not mine.What either of us would like is irrelevant. I'd be thrilled to learn about the evidence you used to reach that startling conclusion. Not that I care very much.With any luck I'll be either dead or at least gaga before such a thing occurs.

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: You usually are very positive with no room for doubt.You are a know-all with no tolerance for alternative opinions.

[expletive deleted] I am! Point out one (just one) claim I have made where I leave ZERO room for doubt.

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: You are old enough to have seen Dr. Strangelove.

So [expletive deleted] what? I don't even like the film.

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: Nonsense. You said that nuclear destruction doesn't matter cause the world will recover iover time.Not much comfort to the here and now and probably complete bollocks.

Actually no, I posed a question, I said, "And if we do go for it so what?" I then qualified it with, "It's not like the Earth will give an flying [expletive deleted] ... it will maybe shake and shiver a bit and then a few million years from now another species will be wondering what the strange race that once lived here was truly like." That was clearly speculative (a more distant philosophical planetary POV rather than one reflecting a rather dodgy species known locally as homo sapiens) and only a complete [expletive deleted] would claim that is me saying nuclear destruction doesn't matter! Of course it matters but the point you appear to have trouble grasping is that it ONLY matters to us!!!

BTW, can I ask you once again to NOT post huge chunks of text for relatively short answers.

Kyu

(July 17, 2009 at 9:50 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: You usually are very positive with no room for doubt.You are a know-all with no tolerance for alternative opinions.

[expletive deleted] I am! Point out one (just one) claim I have made where I leave ZERO room for doubt.

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: You are old enough to have seen Dr. Strangelove.

So [expletive deleted] what? I don't even like the film.

(July 16, 2009 at 7:16 pm)bozo Wrote: Nonsense. You said that nuclear destruction doesn't matter cause the world will recover iover time.Not much comfort to the here and now and probably complete bollocks.

Actually no, I posed a question, I said, "And if we do go for it so what?" I then qualified it with, "It's not like the Earth will give an flying [expletive deleted] ... it will maybe shake and shiver a bit and then a few million years from now another species will be wondering what the strange race that once lived here was truly like." That was clearly speculative (a more distant philosophical planetary POV rather than one reflecting a rather dodgy species known locally as homo sapiens) and only a complete [expletive deleted] would claim that is me saying nuclear destruction doesn't matter! Of course it matters but the point you appear to have trouble grasping is that it ONLY matters to us!!!

BTW, can I ask you once again to NOT post huge chunks of text for relatively short answers.

Kyu

You said " maybe " MAD " is responsible for us still here ( in response to my claim that " despite MAD " etc.etc.
I maintain a nuclear strike would be countered by a retaliatory strike, as in the film.
I wasn't talking philosophy, just how disastrous for us here and now nuclear destruction would be.

I like to respond to what appears so that any newcomer can easily grasp the context.

(July 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm)bozo Wrote: You said " maybe " MAD " is responsible for us still here ( in response to my claim that " despite MAD " etc.etc.

And that is STILL a question not a claim.

(July 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm)bozo Wrote: I maintain a nuclear strike would be countered by a retaliatory strike, as in the film.

And I said I didn't like the film or some such. I disagree.

(July 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm)bozo Wrote: I wasn't talking philosophy, just how disastrous for us here and now nuclear destruction would be.

I was.

(July 17, 2009 at 12:31 pm)bozo Wrote: I like to respond to what appears so that any newcomer can easily grasp the context.

Last time I warned you other moderators agreed with me so, if you do it again, I will put you on moderation. You've been warned!

Kyu

Padraic,

I wasn't proffering up a world government as a utopian scenario so much as just where I see the world going. The evidence is from textbooks I read while in school for my business degree and relies heavily on my own interpretation.

Oh and I said this, "It is easy enough to proclaim that something is naive, but you should have the courtesy to offer up a different solution." I never said you "owe" me anything, I just said it would be courteous.

My ideals center on just increasing utility for most and I see a unified economic and governmental system as a way to do this. I don't think I am painting a fairy tale image of utopia but keep setting them straw men alight! Them words ain't mine.

I am serious though, if you see another path I would love to discuss that. I am always thinking about ways to increase equity in utility distributionl. For example, money, how can we modify it so it automatically tracks with reality without the propensity it has shown to become infected with rampant inflation and become hopelessly worthless?

Rhizo