Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Uno Mundo


Westside Steve

Recommended Posts

Not any time soon, but ultimately, probably. Whether civilisation will ever reach that point, I don't know.

 

It seems to be going that way a little bit, with the United States being separate entities that are ruled by a common president; Europe is heading the same direction in a different manner, and there is an EU president; China has been a conglomerate of provinces for millennia; the old USSR countries will either join the EU or Russia.

 

There's four power blocs right there that over the next few centuries will either do everything to become top dog, or work together for the betterment of the planet (where's your money?)

 

ASEAN is doing similar things, we just need Africa and South/Central America to join the party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't happen at this point - cultures are too different.

 

Much more local governments can keep the people happier - as they all want different things in different parts of the world.

Which is what you have in every developed country anyway, so that's not such a huge obstacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely see a time in the future where we have a one world government likely as we start to expand out into space. Until then, we will continue to have our own borders and cultural identities that make it impossible to ever have something like that. I hope I am dead and gone by the time we are talking one giant government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine the corruption that would be involved in something like this. How would voting work? Biggest country by population size = automatic winner?

Wasn't it written somewhere about one ruler for all the people being the end of times?

I'd imagine countries would still elect their own president (or whatever) and all those heads of state would make up a congress and elect a leader amongst themselves

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Logistically impossible

No doubt that's true today. Imagine 300 years ago without the electoral college?

 

Communications in time will make it possible for every human being on earth earth to vote.

Soon enough most people will speak a version of the same language.

 

I think it's a fucked up idea but...

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right except the governors would select the president. Which would probably actually be a better system than we are currently using.

That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what happens here, in a small version. Each of the 650 seats in parliament is independently elected, and then those 650 elect their leader, and whichever party has the majority of seats forms the government. Or, gets first crack at a coalition.

So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that there will be a lot of very serious changes to the planet and humanity before a one world government is feasible.

(imagine trying to tell the citizens in the thirteen hundreds how things would be today.)

But I don't think that would be impossible. Adolf Hitler won the election in Germany.

The world could easily become a dystopia. Remember boys history did not begin 100 years ago.

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how would you fellas feel if a muslim was the supreme leader or whatever title and he wanted to implement sharia law throughout the world. I've been out and never want to see a new world order myself. I just see a mess of corruption myself.

I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect by the time the world is capable of putting the differences aside to appoint a world leader, religion will have dwindled to almost non-existence and atheism will be an unspoken requirement for office, as christianity is now in the US.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pipe+dream

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope athiest is never a requirement for anything as I see athiesm as sort of a religion unto itself. Most self identified athiests seem to be insulting, loud mouthed,nihilistic jackholes that go out of their way to push their beliefs on others and ridicule people of faith. (Hint: I'm not what you would call a person of faith) Rather I'd just as soon see religion as not a prominent issue.

It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more a point of being able to trust someone to make rational decisions about things in direct contradiction to their religion. For example, take any religious person who believes their god made the universe and put the earth at the centre (mataphorical, not physical), and that we must exclusively be the only life in the universe because why would god have put life elsewhere? I wouldn't be too happy appointing that person leader of the world in charge of exploring space and dealing with anything we find there.

You know, like in Soylent Green.

 

Brave new world, 1984 etc

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...