@boilingFrog said in #10:
> Why is this world's human population managed so brutally ?
>
> Why is there such a focus on war, famine and disease ?
>
> Why are there so many good questions ?
>
> And so few good answers ?
Hey Vsauce, Michael here
Observe the operation of the UN and that will give an idea of how the next step would look.
To have a viable World Government would require Human Nature to be taken out of the equation, and there's only one way I can think of to achieve that.
@clousems said in #8:
> Lichess won't let me type a two-character answer, so here's the long form:
> No. No no no no no. No-no. Bad. No. Hiss. Bad. Bad. Very bad. No. Nope. Bad. No. For the love of John Saxon, no!
@FC-in-the-UK said in #1:
>What do you think of the idea of a global government?
Imposible.
Countries, nationalities, they are no issue really. The problem are the cultural differences. There are countless of groups that cant/wont (for cultural reasons) even recognize or give status of human to some one else.
Try getting rid of that difference and many will be saluting you with a "Heil"
Human nature arguments : I don't know, thousands of years ago humans used to live in small nomadic tribes. Back then the idea of having a government ruling over huge pieces of land in which people live sedentary would probably seem as implausible as a global government seems nowadays. And yet we did it. For better or for worst?
@clousems said in #8:
> Lichess won't let me type a two-character answer, so here's the long form:
> No. No no no no no. No-no. Bad. No. Hiss. Bad. Bad. Very bad. No. Nope. Bad. No. For the love of John Saxon, no!
I second this sentiment, but with added indignation and furious drive! NO!!! A "One World Government" would without a doubt be a Boundless Despotism which Man has never seen before, and I can only hope and pray will NEVER see that kind of BEASTLY MONSTROSITY take hold of our beautiful Earth.
@ak_saha @george_mcgeorge care to explain why you downvoted #1? I didn't say that I was for a world government. Or against, for that matter. I just listed arguments for and against in an objective way. Which is considerably more than you did.
I don't really think it's as far fetched as people make it out to be - a vast majority of the world is governed by the same principle - which is capitalism/maximal profits... even 'communist' countries by name like China are really quite hyper-capitalist. Probably one of the main issues would be incorperating countries with religious/sharia rule (iran, etc.) and countries with near mono-ethnicity that hold intolerant/racist viewpoints towards others (much of Asia, and Islamic lands) - in reality, the US and Europe are the most ethnically diverse and tolerant places these days.
I'll mostly be focusing on 1 and 4 in favour but I also feel compelled to point out that 5 is completely nonsensical.
1 and 4 supposedly in favour of this lunacy are the exact diametrical opposite of reality. The vast overwhelming, not-close-to-being-close-to-being-close, majority of violent conflicts are between groups within a state, not between states.
Different states form precisely because people with different ideas on how society should work can't live together without getting into conflict. That's not going away because you assert that "as everyone becomes citizen of a same state, there would be less drive for nationalism, isolationism, indifference, and seeing foreigners as threats rather than our equals." That's about as facile and divorced from reality as you can possibly ever get. Some foreigners ARE threats if they coexist within the same geographical area. They're not if they live in a different geographical area. That's precisely why most violent conflicts are between groups within a state, not between states.
Worst lunacy ever.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
.
