No chance.
Things can regress just as easily as they have improved. As the US continues its decline in influence on the world stage a host of smaller actors will rush to fill the vacume, leading to conflict.
In what sort of world could there be unification between western liberals and fundamentalist muslim tribes?
Thought so…
Who’s to say a united world would be a good thing? Picture, for example, a one world government run by a handful of the richest people on the planet while everyone else is enslaved to the system through ever increasing debt. I could go into it more, and sure it sounds a little “Orwellian”, but I’m just saying a united world wouldn’t necessarily embody a utopia like many people envision.
If we’d had decent leadership in the US with any kind of forethought along those lines, we might be a lot closer to it today. Read some of the replies from non-US dopers.
Unification doesn’ t have to be by conquest. Just give people enough of a stake in participation to get enough of them playing. Momentum will accomplish the rest.
Many of the new superpowers are friendly to the USA and democracies like India and others like China will be democracies in 50 years.
The latter will be slaughtered and destroyed so no problem there.
It’s my considered opinion that the majority of people alive on Earth want things that are anathema to me.
Certainly a united world government of “majority rule” would be against most Western values. Women’s rights and freedom of religion would be out the door at once.
The majority of the world isn’t against those things. All the countries of the world except for a few emirates give women the vote and most countries grant freedom of religion. Also the world is liberalizing.
I agree, though I could see the world doing a ‘euro’ with euro, amero north, amero south, old iron curtain collective, steppes/asia, muslim with either israel as a hold out or bombed back into a parking lot and no longer separate, a pan africa, a pan asia , and a japan/pacifica/malasia, and a pacifca/australia with the other half of the islands.
I do think that in a pinch, amero north may join up with euro and possibly the old iron curtain collective for sort of a northern hemisphere alliance skirting north of the muslim, pan asian and pacifica. We might ally with the pacifica/aussy/NZ as well.
I suspect we could live to see this, or our children could. I am convinced this is the only logical, pragmatic, functional approach to the problems of the world…Global Federation. It is a brilliant system, imo, and several of the founding fathers saw the US as an experiment, a model for an eventual global system.
The UN was founded, of course, as an experiment with this sort of international self-governance, but lacking any “teeth” to speak of, it can never accomplish the ultimate goal of world peace and cooperation.
The experience with the US model proves that it is not necessary for every state/nation to join simultaneously…many states resisted joining the federation, just as many nations would, but eventually the benefits (free trade and travel between states, unified currency, federal military protection instead of having to maintain your own and defend your state alone, fair representation in the 3 branches, a federal Consitution and Bill of Rights, etc) outweigh the fears and more join. Even if a few declined, that would not derail the endeavor, as the rest who DID join would be able to reap the benefits regardless, and any attack against a member state would be bound to result in suicide for the attacker. (when was the last time one US state invaded or attacked another? The very idea seems ridiculous, but it used to happen before federation. No reason to think a similar arrangement wouldn’t work among nation states)
Is it a perfect form of governement? Nope. Is it better than the chaos we currently have? Yep.
To argue that the world is in a terrible state currently so that reduces or eliminates the chance of a global federation is in error, I believe. If anything, those issues and crisis make it MORE likely we will see some form of this system sooner rather than later.
I hope so. I think we either will see this happen in our lifetimes or we will most likely perish.
Well, first condition would be that any nation/state would have to agree to a federal Constitution and Bill of Rights granting basic rights. That would be a deal-breaker for many states, but given the benefits those who joined would have, I suspect many would go for it in due time.
Key is the concept of “states rights”, as in the US…the protections would be very basic (no slavery, equal rights re’ gender (which the US STILL doesn’t have enshrined:mad:), life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, fair trials, etc…) and nations/states would be able to have their own laws, customs and culture so long as they didn’t violate those basic rights.
And they would have to accept that they would NOT have the right to secede if they disagreed with a majority vote/federal ruling…the US Civil War resolved that.
You do realize that if taken seriously that would mean the end of women getting preferential treatment in engineering programs and family courts, and requiring their military service if there is a draft? Are you sure that these “rights” you’re enshrining are truly universal or only your best approximation of Western/Anglosphere liberalism?
Given the opinions of the vast majority of the world, and the fact that they’d have the ability to impose them through this world government (which like all governments will steadily increase in size), you should be more wary of that statement than you are. (Also, just to point out some more Western bias, why would the precedent of the US Civil War matter a damn to the rest of the world?
I think pro-world-government types, particularly those with limited experience of non-Western cultures, should first come to grips with the fact that the majority of the world is nothing like the US, not just culturally but in terms of social organization and social trust, before imagining a world essentially set up along USian lines.
Good point. We came close to having “European unity” of a very malignant sort under Hitler. I would consider it very dangerous to freedom if the whole world was under the power of any one group of people.
I do worry that it is more possible than ever before for a totalitarian government to succeed nowadays with all the technology now available that could be used to keep tabs on the population and so forth.
Although a united world is the next logical step for us to take, it ain’t gonna happen anytime soon. I think we’re looking at a couple more centuries, if we don’t kill ourselves off first.
On the opposite extreme, This guy advocates radically increasing local autonomy and the number of countries to promote freedom.
Connecticut shelled Rhode Island a while back … like 25-30 years ago. OK, so it was a misfire by the national guard, but they did crater out a road 
I wonder if a unified world is possible simply because of the inherent nature of politics/government. There has to be some power dynamic that favors unification over fragmentation. If a state has no “exterior”, how does that affect the balance of power that government is typically about?
The nearest example I can think of to a society without foreigners on the borders was ancient Hawaii, which until Europeans came had very little contact with the rest of the world. There were periods when a monarch ruled the whole of the Big Island, but also periods of breakup.