NationStates Jolt Archive

We often hear of globalisation in an economic sense and the removal of cultural, socio-economic and geographical (borders) barriers, but can we honestly say, given all the world's difference, that there can ever be one people under one government?

In answering this we must take into account the following:

1. Economics - the rich versus the poor
2. Religion
3. History
4. Cultural ties
5. Politics linked to all of the above
6. Individualism and race

Would you want it. If you really didn't like the system where could you go?

It's un(in?)feasible. Think how many different cultures and types of government there are. Would the Americans be happy under a Chinese communist govt? Would the Chinese be happy under an American govt?
Maybe, when we expand to space, globalisation will come naturally to colonies, but on Earth, I don't believe that we will ever have a 1-world government. Well, never have one that we vote for.

Humanity could stand united if given the right circumstances. All that humanity need is something to divert it’s hatred towards a common threat. Something that could quite possibly threaten the very existence of humanity itself. Afterwards there is no guarantee of keeping that alliance intact. Although I can’t divulge when, rest assured that we demons will be on our way soon to take care of that.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man

I'd say yes potentially given enough time, the size of governments has been limited by communication and control... I don't think that there will be a single centralized government but quite possibly a fedral government of sorts. Of course there shall always be areas of differing opinion and it isn't something well see in our lifetime (as in the next 100 years) maybe not even this millenia... and it shall be a slow process of treaties, mandates, international incidents, and lesser organisations but it is quite possible...

i don't think it is possible, and i certainly wouldn't want to live like that.

But what if not everyone wants a federal govt? That is the first thing. Too many people want too many different things for the whole thing to be viable in any of our lifetimes. Or any of our Great-Grandchildrens, for that matter.

Even then we would have problems...

We would have appeasers, warmongers, collaborators, the "I don't care" crowd, the nuclear fans, the brave souls who would fight these "demons" and of course those who flee in terror!

Unification in a global sense is unachieveable, especially when people with individual nations cannot get along!

I don't think that such a governing body would be "united" I think they'd fight like cats and dogs but I think it would be an interesting society in general, but I do think that it isn't something that will happen for a very very very very long time... and there will always be people who wouldn't like it. (I mean in the states you still have people who form their little militias against the federal government)

Personally, I don't believe that's something that we should even strive for. Every culture is so unique and beautiful, and the people of each culture should decide what kind of government work best for them.

I do think that we should strive for more understanding between cultures and nations, and for a world where all cultures and peoples are respected equally.

Thats where We're headed. Or have you forgotten what Globalistion is all about It might not happen officially, But its probably already.

Would you want it. If you really didn't like the system where could you go?

Where can you go now?

Not only feasable, but inevitable.

Although it wont happen for at least 150 years probably..

You give absolutely no way in which it is inevitable. Please explain why you think it is inevitable.

I'm not flame-baiting here cause I'm not in the mood for an argument but the world will only be united after the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when every knee shall bow at his name and all sin shall be cast out, that's my belief anyway, I can't claim it to certainly be true cause I haven't got the concrete evidence, but that's what faith's all about isn't it

Don't we already have something like it called the UN?

I'm opposed to globalization. It's possible, but extremely undesirable.

----------------------
Free your mind!

Governments already have too much power over us as it is. Trusting a few people with the responsibility of the entire world would be disastrous.

Governments already have too much power over us as it is. Trusting a few people with the responsibility of the entire world would be disastrous.

Simply put (because its complicated and I also don't feel liek writing an essay):

It is inevitable because it is already happening. Our populations are growing bigger than our borders can sustain. Moving to other nations and bringing their ideas, ideals, religions, socialist - communist -democratic - theocratic ideas with them. Many countries are becoming cultural melting pots because of migration. This in turn will have the ppulations of these melting pots having more compassion for other countries because of these ties. Race is becomming less and less of an issue because of this as well. Everyone is needed to run a country.

Our economies are merged and merging more all the time. The world bank is basically the new govt.

The internet is bringing everyone together on such a huge scale that borders dont even really exist. This goes for many types of media as well. Television/movies/music is being shared across countries borders.

A new world govt would be more open to a new democratic process whic would work for the many rather than the few, because we have models failures and accomplishments to learn from.



I cant think of anythign else right now

Some very good points Gods Bowels

I just can't picture it happening naturally myself, OK so physical, cultural, social borders are slowing fading away but there will always be the superpowers, the terrorists, and those wishing to resist either, or both of these groups.

Allow me to use this example again. China and America. They are both fundamentally opposite. The melting pot you describe is not happening. Other cultures are not merging. People migrate, then stay with their own group when they arrive (Chinatown in America, all that stuff)
Other nations ideology is still utterly different from everybody elses, so it's not happening any time soon.
World govt would be excessively inefficient if it occured, as the different ideology would mean nobody would agree on anything, and nothing would be done. Them when that happens, many nations would seccede, and we'd be back at square 1. Why bother? It's an undesireable end result anyway.

yeah, I can't understand why people think it's so desirable
I think it's really important that we maintain differences in culture and tradition, it's what makes the world such an exciting place to live in

I understand where you are coming from and I am just speculating as can we all.

I believe that the superpowers arent as against each other as they make it seem. Also many regimes are puppets of other countries.

Terrorism will exist as long as there are groups who are oppressed.

I am also not saying a one world govt. would happen anytime soon. I think it will take a long time for people to realize that we are all one people on the same boat and can more easily work together towards common causes.

If you understand synergy you will understand that when one person helps another just to help them and not to get something back out of it, then you automatically get somethign out of it, which is an ally in one sense or another. You can put this in any contxt you want.

Yes there are some people who are ungrateful and there are those who are power hungry and there are those who seek to exploit. So what? if life was easy then what fun would it be. If nothing was a challenge life would be boring. our nature is to alwasy improve on things so there will alwasy be problems we must over come.

I also believe that yes as a one world govt. tries to take over, that there will be those who will resist. I think it will be somewhat like the united states, in that each country will belike a state with its own laws and some general world laws. The world bank will see to it that countries will comply because their economies will depend on it.

i know I hardly make any sense but this is just the way I ramble.

I can see where you are coming from, but the loss of sovereignty is not something that most people don't like to hear about. If you found that whatever country you live in (U.S?) Was to become just a state of a new nation, would you necessarily be happy about it? Not to mention the Countries that have thousands of years of history. I doubt they would like to be assimilated by a larger force.

As I have said before, when off-world colonisation becomes more commonplace, the colony worlds will likely be one government. I think Earth will always remain segregated though. It's neither a good nor bad thing, just the way I see it to be best to keep everyone friendly.
Anyway, in 150 years, like you suggest, mars and moon colonies will likely be a reality.

Just to finish, what would your reaction be if you found that the capital that should represent you would be in another Country?
Assuming you are American, what would you think if you found the capital was to be in Moscow?

Don't we already have something like it called the UN?

That would be nice wouldn't it? Unfortunately the UN is rather a tootheless tiger - especially since the U.S. deliberately sabotages it by refusing to pay its agreed-upon UN Membership fees. Look at the genocidal massacre in Rwanda and how the U.N. was completely powerless to stop it even though it had the mandate and troops to do so.

The U.N only works if the nations involved want to play by the rules. It's similar to the league of nations, and it was useless too. It let Mussolini declare war on anyone, and then it just fell apart.
I think it's because no-one really has the guts to stand against anyone. If we see a country do something we don't agree with, we may bluster and mutter about it, but what will that do? If nations were more assertive, organisations like the U.N would be more efficient.

But what if not everyone wants a federal govt? That is the first thing. Too many people want too many different things for the whole thing to be viable in any of our lifetimes. Or any of our Great-Grandchildrens, for that matter.

Agreed. In a random group of three or more people we couldn't agree on a flag, or the need for one. There is also the underlying need of most to belong to a tribe of some sort, even if it's the anti-tribe tribe.

It's sort of ironic but have you ever listened to "radicals"? How come they all seem to dress alike and voice remarkably similar opinions? I guess it's just a tribal thing.

:shock:

Well, first off, for any true world government to be enacted, one of two things would have to occur: World War Three or the discovery of a huge external threat, such as space aliens. Any such government would eventually wither and then collapse after the elimination of the external threat(s). Unless of course, we develop interstellar travel, in which case it would be desirable to have a unified Earth. That, however, will happen far in the future, if it ever does. I say that a world government is at this point neither feasible nor desirable. Can you imagine how quickly this government would start to oppress its citizens? Especially after internal tensions grow and threaten to fracture the world once again. Society would probably stagnate, anyhow, as competition drives progress.

you guys make good points.

I had not thought about some of that.

but I who really knows what teh future will bring? Who can say how long the U.S. will actually last as teh only remaining super power.

It's all just a guessing game really.

Exactly Dolphins. However, given the possibility of colonies on other worlds, Earth would, and should, remain exactly as it was.
All of the old nations would govern themselves, and their colonies, (though it would kind of be control in name only, as most colonies, given transmission, and travel, retrictions, would have to really self govern)
With all of the other nations now being so close to each other, relatively, it would be better for communication. (The way I explained this is fuzzy and poor. I'll try to clarify. Central government for each nation would be on Earth. However, most nations would be colonial, and have their territory flung out across the solar system. Keeping the capitals so close makes travel easier, and contact between the new colonial nations easier, making a multi-government Earth just as desireable, if not more, in the future. (about 150-200 years.))
Although all this talk of space colonies seems far fetched for an RL debate, it seems the most relevent to me.

We often hear of globalisation in an economic sense and the removal of cultural, socio-economic and geographical (borders) barriers, but can we honestly say, given all the world's difference, that there can ever be one people under one government?

In answering this we must take into account the following:

1. Economics - the rich versus the poor
2. Religion
3. History
4. Cultural ties
5. Politics linked to all of the above
6. Individualism and raceConsidering the fact that 'economic globalization' is by nature imperialist, the political version would by nothing more and nothing less than several bloated empires built on economic exploitation and brute force, not a 'single world government.'

The resistance to the corporate colonialism commonly known as 'globalization' on the other and is budding international social, political and economic movement. If we are ever to have a true international federation, it will come from the mis-named 'anti-globalists'.

I can see where you are coming from, but the loss of sovereignty is not something that most people don't like to hear about. If you found that whatever country you live in (U.S?) Was to become just a state of a new nation, would you necessarily be happy about it? Not to mention the Countries that have thousands of years of history. I doubt they would like to be assimilated by a larger force.

As I have said before, when off-world colonisation becomes more commonplace, the colony worlds will likely be one government. I think Earth will always remain segregated though. It's neither a good nor bad thing, just the way I see it to be best to keep everyone friendly.
Anyway, in 150 years, like you suggest, mars and moon colonies will likely be a reality.

Just to finish, what would your reaction be if you found that the capital that should represent you would be in another Country?
Assuming you are American, what would you think if you found the capital was to be in Moscow?

As a New Yorker I sure wouldn't mind the UN moving there. Man, the parking spaces alone . . .

Only kidding. The melting pot theory is interesting but each group tends to stay to their own. No matter how they try to integrate it via legislation Generations away from immigration Irish hang with Irish, Italians with Italians, Koreans tend to want to be around other Koreans, Jamacians want the Jamacian community, etc and so on.

:shock:

although it is a nice idea and very idealistic, its unfeasible.

it really is.

there would be immediate successions, it would turn too easily into a police state, it would be insane. it wouldnt work.
especially with the extreme different cultures and values.

it just wouldnt. not until the world became more uniform.

and we dont want that, do we?

That's what I say. It would be nice if melting pot theory (to give it a stupid pseudo scientific name) worked, but it doesn't. Salad bowl does however, that is, all the cultures mix, but they don't merge, retaining their uniqueness. That is what is happening in America.

I can see where you are coming from, but the loss of sovereignty is not something that most people don't like to hear about. If you found that whatever country you live in (U.S?) Was to become just a state of a new nation, would you necessarily be happy about it? Not to mention the Countries that have thousands of years of history. I doubt they would like to be assimilated by a larger force.

As I have said before, when off-world colonisation becomes more commonplace, the colony worlds will likely be one government. I think Earth will always remain segregated though. It's neither a good nor bad thing, just the way I see it to be best to keep everyone friendly.
Anyway, in 150 years, like you suggest, mars and moon colonies will likely be a reality.

Just to finish, what would your reaction be if you found that the capital that should represent you would be in another Country?
Assuming you are American, what would you think if you found the capital was to be in Moscow?

As a New Yorker I sure wouldn't mind the UN moving there. Man, the parking spaces alone . . .

Only kidding. The melting pot theory is interesting but each group tends to stay to their own. No matter how they try to integrate it via legislation Generations away from immigration Irish hang with Irish, Italians with Italians, Koreans tend to want to be around other Koreans, Jamacians want the Jamacian community, etc and so on.

:shock:As a New Yorker that has not been my experiance.

Impossible. It's in our nature to divide and destroy ourselves. One world government is out of the question.

Engalaas. Whilst it is your right to put your opinion out in any way you wish, just saying that isn't going to convert many people. Could you prove to us why it is impossible, without the whole "in our nature to destroy ourselves" thing.

Personally, if you truly mean "one people" as in one culture (other cultures are dead), then yes. Since I assume you don't, no. Think of the many fundamentalist governments, monarchies, communist nations, dictatorships, democracies, corporate-corupt-bribe-ocracies, etc. etc. Unless one race is left after a nuclear war, then no.

Wow, I must have been more thorough in my arguments than I thought. Once again, I agree, and have posted that. These to me, are all very good reasons why one world gov't won't work.

Read 'Age of Consent' by George Monbiot. Not only is International Democracy a good idea, its vital if we want to save our liberty.

Could you define international democracy? It is a very vague term.

Could you define international democracy? It is a very vague term.

Ergh, I have no idea where I put that book. But basically, some form of Globalised democracy, like the UN but the whole world votes. One man, one vote for the whole world.

Just a global government then. I'd have to read it to see the view though, because at the moment, I certainly disagree with it.

Well I would say (having read all the posts) that there are some good points, however I will point out one fundamental flaw in the globalised outcome:

History repeats itself and there will undoubtably be major conflicts and indeed a third world war (please nobody claim we are in WW3 this is not the place for it :roll: ). In times of war, nations revert back to a very self sufficient, isolationist system.

Pre 1914, globalisation was already underway, however WW1 put a quick stop to that. Highly globalising nations (who specialised industry and relied on trade for a great many essentials) such as Germany found themselves in a pickle and during the war there was a huge push for self sufficiency (essential to the maintenance of wartime economy) - especially in war manufactures (read up on Fritz Haber and the Haber process especially).

In the 1930's Adolf Hitler made Germany self sufficient again (for the most) and this helped him considerably during the first half of the war and indeed helped prolong his defeat until 1944. One of the greatest examples of self sufficiency was Hitler support of ethanol production as a fuel extender - given that germany imported a lot of its oil and was at war with many of the countries which supplied this vital good.

Even today, the United States of America embraces a very self sufficient system which is strongest in the rural sector and defence. Even NAFTA has the "rules of origin" built in to protect North American jobs from overseas economies. Jobs play an important role too - historical development of wage structures and living standards are a prime barrier to globalisation as sharing with the less fortunate is unlikely to happen because this means reducing the top living standards significantly.

From an economic and historical reasoning alone, globalisation is unachieveable, for as soon as conflict and especially a major war (comes round every so often) breaks out...nations revert back to self sufficiency economics.

That is a good point though we are already in WW3 (Joke!)
There is no certainty of a third world war, as by and large, the only nations with a capacity to start it would end it in 10 minutes. This is a powerful incentive to not start WW3, and to attempt all other courses beforehand. I don't really think globalisation was under way pre-1914, unless you mean globalisation under British rule/dominance. We were the only people expanding, and the only superpower at the time. There would be no way, especially in a time where people were even more patriotic and proud of their country, that they would give up sovereignty.
The plus side would be that if globalisation had happened without WW1 impeding it, is that the capital would be in London!

I think perhaps we are coming close to exhausting this argument. Perhaps, when we are finished, we should change it to
"One world government... Is it desireable?"

That is a good point though we are already in WW3 (Joke!)
There is no certainty of a third world war, as by and large, the only nations with a capacity to start it would end it in 10 minutes. This is a powerful incentive to not start WW3, and to attempt all other courses beforehand. I don't really think globalisation was under way pre-1914, unless you mean globalisation under British rule/dominance. We were the only people expanding, and the only superpower at the time. There would be no way, especially in a time where people were even more patriotic and proud of their country, that they would give up sovereignty.
The plus side would be that if globalisation had happened without WW1 impeding it, is that the capital would be in London!

Not completely so.

In fact Britain was an empire in (slow) decline by 1914. Even then the USA was emerging as the driving economic force it is today and Germany too was quite economically powerful.

As for a superpower, the term can be applied loosely. I prefer Empire myself and to that end, there are many nations pre 1914 who fit this description.

Globalisation was in fact underway...free trade was actually a major issue within the British Empire, especially in the colonies. As you did point out - under British rule.

But globalisation before WW1 was not a cultural thing as the argument has become today. Globalisation was purely economic.

In fact one could argue that globalisation dates back as far as 1860 when the Confederate States of America opposed the Union's push for trade liberalisation.

As for ending WW3 in 10 minutes, that is rather misleading. Nuclear weapons are a last resort and WW3 will be fought similar to the way Iraq is being handled. There are only 2 nations with long range nuclear capability and they are the USA and Russia (though one worries about the state of their missiles given Russia's financial situation). Arguments for China, Korea etc having that capability are dead. A global nuclear war is highly unlikely, though a regional nuclear war say between India and Pakistan or China and North Asia is possible given the level of those nations' technology.

Only Britain, the U.S and Russia really have the capacity to start world war 3 off, so I believe my point still stands.
You are incorrect about the decline of the Empire in 1914. It actually hit its peak in 1920, then deteriorated very fast (unfortunately, but lets not get into that.) Too many nations fit into the term superpower for it to be useful. I would call anybody a superpower, who, in a fair fight, could take ANY one nation out, or force a stalemate. Britain is the only one to fit the bill.
I don't think that WW3 will be fought like Iraq. There would be far more large scale battles, and less guerilla warfare. Also, it wouldn't go all Americas way. (but lets not get into that either.)
Nations were also far less dependant on other nations economy.
Economic powers, such as Japan, and America, (to a lesser extent now, U.K) could initiate some kind of economic M.A.D. That is, if you wipe them out, theeconomy will suffer so much, that it would do irreperable damage to the world.

The lack of free trade in the colonies kept Britain strong, though the colonies probably did not like it.
You can argue an economic globalisation nowadays, but back then it didn't have nearly so much relevance.
It's like arguing an economic globalisation in medieval times.
(Of course, I may be wrong, but I think I am right.)

I don't think that it is feasible. There are just too many people.

Perhaps a loose confederatoin would work; local autonomy could remain.
Otherwise natural human tendencies to territorialism, jealousy and ambition would drive any union apart.

We could be more cooperative, with multilateral agreement on industrial standards, some wage equity, environmental protection and so on. This would benefit developing countries by improving quality of life while tending to include more social costs into their labor and exports which would protect the economies of developed nations.

Essentially, a working U.N. This is as close to one world gov't as I want to get.

Perhaps a loose confederatoin would work; local autonomy could remain.
Otherwise natural human tendencies to territorialism, jealousy and ambition would drive any union apart.

We could be more cooperative, with multilateral agreement on industrial standards, some wage equity, environmental protection and so on. This would benefit developing countries by improving quality of life while tending to include more social costs into their labor and exports which would protect the economies of developed nations.

No...see that wouldn't work. Who is going to make countries do this? Will we threaten war if countries don't agree? And who are "we" anyway? How would all this originate?

The entire concept is doomed from the off.

What he just proposed was the U.N, with a little more power. Not really a one-world gov't, just unification on a few points that have nothing to do with ideology. Just common sense.

What he just proposed was the U.N, with a little more power. Not really a one-world gov't, just unification on a few points that have nothing to do with ideology. Just common sense.

Since the UN has no power, that argument is dead.

Fine, the U.N with some power. Happy?
(I hate pedantics.)

I can see where you are coming from, but the loss of sovereignty is not something that most people don't like to hear about. If you found that whatever country you live in (U.S?) Was to become just a state of a new nation, would you necessarily be happy about it? Not to mention the Countries that have thousands of years of history. I doubt they would like to be assimilated by a larger force.

As I have said before, when off-world colonisation becomes more commonplace, the colony worlds will likely be one government. I think Earth will always remain segregated though. It's neither a good nor bad thing, just the way I see it to be best to keep everyone friendly.
Anyway, in 150 years, like you suggest, mars and moon colonies will likely be a reality.

Just to finish, what would your reaction be if you found that the capital that should represent you would be in another Country?
Assuming you are American, what would you think if you found the capital was to be in Moscow?

As a New Yorker I sure wouldn't mind the UN moving there. Man, the parking spaces alone . . .

Only kidding. The melting pot theory is interesting but each group tends to stay to their own. No matter how they try to integrate it via legislation Generations away from immigration Irish hang with Irish, Italians with Italians, Koreans tend to want to be around other Koreans, Jamacians want the Jamacian community, etc and so on.

:shock:As a New Yorker that has not been my experiance.

My experience has been a bit different than yours. I live in a very diverse area. There are common interests but there is also a tendency among most (not all) to gather with their landesmen (persons?) for those common bonds. As a 3rd generation Irish/Sicilian, and other quantitatively lesser blendings, I am more the exception to the rule. Jordaxia's "Salad Bowl" analogy is very apt. I enjoy the diversity of cultures but do not identify with them.

I have found my culture is being a life long New Yorker. My identification is not with my forebearers roots but with New Yorkers. So then while my assimulation is roughly complete, I am an American who is first a New Yorker.

:shock:

It would never work. Some of these 3rd world countries hate capitalism and think its immoral. While western civilization couldn't live without capitalism.