When asked what is one of the WORLD’s greatest problems, one may respond"world hunger"…and the one might say: we need to grow more food…another might add: we need to control world population as China is doing.
I believe that with the rapid destruction of the world’s resources…lumber…grazing land…depletion fo the ocean’s fish…and the persistent thirst for oil that cargo ships, aircraft, China and India, the USA and other countries have, there must be global control, which in my opinion would be required to deal with the above issues.
This global body must avoid geopolitics and deal with issues as they involve the entire world.
You might say: Let the United Nations handle it…The food for oil scam proves that that entity is corrupt.
The world government must consist of men and women with one common goal…to do whats best for the world and yet allow as much freedom as possible.
Do you think this idea is workable? or a Pie-in -the-Sky fantasy on my part?
Would like to hear from everyone about this.
In theory, it’s great. In reality, totally pie-in-the-sky.
The bureaucracy of a body that large would become so cumbersome so quickly that the effectiveness of the body would be negated in less time than it would take to actually perfect its’ operation. What’s more, no sovereign country will be willing to submit completely to worldwide rule. There are cultural idiosyncracies to consider; there is history, experience and even climate to take into account. Could you imagine the stark, efficient Germans sitting down to help write policy for the passionate, warm blooded people of South America? No, it’s a great theory, but it’ll never work, and frankly, I’m not sure I’d wanna see it.
There is one global leader, but the world refuses to acknowledge the authority of the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ on Earth.
Now- I don’t actually believe that, but it IS one possible answer. Thing is, no matter who or what the global authority is, it’s not really a global authority without the acknowledgement
of a significant portion of the world’s powers.
I agree entirely with the OP, but I think it’s politically impossible in this decade. At present, there is no important, mass-based internationalist movement in any country. (Most socialist and Communist parties are internationalist in principle, but they always seem to act like nationalists when they get into power.) There are some internationalist organizations with small memberships. See these sites:
I think the European Union has the potential to evolve into a global union if the U.S., Russia and Japan were to join it – but even then, the process might take as much as a century to be completed.
We are all too greedy…that would apply to the world’s populations in general.
Do I care about the abuse and molestation of the world’s resources? whereby our future generations may suffer greatly because of what we are doing now?
I believe most nations would say: Let someone else start or oh, by them we will have populated other planets or discovered something to deal with all these problems.
But, if India, Russia, European Union, USA, China and the like would join in support and give the Global Powers, Brazil may be forced to stop destroying millions of acres of forest land, USA may have to demonstrate interest in issues from the Kyoto conference.l
Lastly, as important as religion may be to some of you…to allow the geometrical birth of newborns in excess cannot continue…This body would be responsible to control population.
If the world’s populations had a common enemy outside earth, just watch how fast the globe would cooperate together.
The UN is its constituent members. If the UN fails in some way, that failure is down to its member countries: Iraq is and was a member of the UN. Does Iraqi corruption in possible collaboration with some UN employees make the UN unsalvagable for evermore? If so, Nixon must have doomed the US.
If its most powerful member utterly ignores the Charter it signed (heck, practically wrote), then the “ineffectiveness of the UN” becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As for the OP’s worries regarding overpopulation, yes, it is a concern. However, of far more pressing concern to many, including the CIA, is climate change from forcing CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations way off equilibrium. What happened? The UN members most responsible for that forcing met to agree a way of reducing emissions. Again, the UN member which was far and away the biggest emitter made the protocol ineffective.
International co-operation is only pie-in-the-sky for one particular industrialised democracy, it seems.
Let me go a third way, at first. I think this idea is at substantial odds with what one might reasonably expect given your posting history. So could you elaborate a bit? Like, how would such a thing form, what would it look like, what would enforce checks and balances on it, etc. Thanks.
So what you are proposing is a centralized all-powerful dictatorship that will make all economic decisions and impose them on the rest of the world by force?
Gee, that sounds like a great idea. Just because the last 99 totalitarian dictatorships were disasters doesn’t mean the 100th one won’t work perfectly. I mean, since the people running the world government are dedicated to doing whats best for the world and yet allowing as much freedom as possible, its practically guaranteed to work!
Totally pie-in-the-sky. What you are proposing means doing away with democracy and establishing a worldwide dictatorship. Just how are the “ruling elite” going to be chosen? By worldwide vote? You won’t get any kind of homogeneous group that way; they will never agree on “what is best for the world”. So who’s going to choose them? You? How do you plan to obtain this worldwide power? How are you going to deal with the vast numbers of people (like me) who would rise in armed rebellion against such a system? Will you kill us all? That would be a great start for your utopia.
Must be movie dialogue. In the book, Rico’s H&MP teacher was LTC (Ret) Jean DuBois. Rasczak was the surname of his lieutenant of his first real MI home - “Rasczak’s Roughneck’s.”
There are certain environmental issues that most people in the world who are scientifically oriented and respected would agree:
global temperatures are rising and will continue to do so
the oceans are being fished out at a rapid rate
living things on earth are becoming extinct at a rapid rate
chemicals, building materials, are being depleted from earth at a rapid rate as
are forest land
This World Body would be designated by the main powers that I listed above similar to the US Supreme Court to handle these environmental issues.
Of course, Norway would want to continue bashing seals
Brazil would want to continue destroying its tropical and forest lands
Do I think its an easy thing to establish and give it teeth and truly consider only the earth without dealing with the desires and "needs" of individual countries?......No way, Jose...............But it must be done sooner or later.
Do all of you who are negative on this idea have any other solutions?
Lastly, in response to Manhattan’s that this idea strays from my usual posts, I am a conservative Republican But I have never agreed with Bush’s religious bent or his ideas on abortion or his environmental beliefs or his spending us out of oblivion.
Why not propose legally binding international treaties and protocols to deal with these issues? Time after time, which powerful UN member refuses these treaties and protocols? What should, or even could, be done about that?
Norway are culling seals for food, sport or to manage stocks or disease. They are not making seals extinct (quite the opposite, they might argue). And it’s only as cruel as bacon production, IMO: climate change it isn’t. As for the Brazilian government, they are doing their best to conserve the rainforest in the face of strong economic factors causing its destruction. Again, who is offering dirt-poor peasants hard cash for their lovely timber?
What’s so hard about signing treaties and protocols? The rest of teh industrialised democratic world does it all the time.
Fair enough. For some of this stuff, there are already mechanisms by which the governments of free people can negotiate treaties or other agreements. For others, you are overstating the problem. For still others, like say a China-style population control system? Bring guns. Lots and lots and lots of guns. You’ll be needing them.
