O.N.E. One Nation Earth

Post Reply New Topic

i am reminded here that the ecumenical movement still exists in some form. it depends on who the world leader/s are. if it is the antichrist, lord help us. mustapha mond would be mild in comparison.

I wonder why so many here imagine a world-goverrnt would necessarily have to be a dictatorship, and freedoms would have to be curtailed.

I agree that the EU isn't a good example, but that's maybe because it's a neoliberal superstructure that makes local governments into technocratic managers of a status quo not many agree with. It's not accountable to its population, not democratically elected - in fact, it has many hallmarks of a dictatorship through bureaucracy.
And that's not working out too well.

So why would a violent dictatorship even work?

Of course, there are wholly othe concepts of organising human activity than neoliberal capitalism, a pronciple that creates a few winners and many losers who get upset because they can't influence the rules of the game.

I can imagine world-government, but not under an economic principle that rewards dodging taxes and externalising costs and making someone else pay to clean up the mess. I can imagine a world government in a world where contribution to the community is rewarded, where taxes on profits get reduced for providing better employment for workers, where taxes on profit get reduced for taking care of the toxic byproducts of your enterprise, etc.
Eventually, a world government would only have to govern about things concerning the commons, anyway.

But yeah, I can see how religion gets in the way (also quasi-religious beliefs in 'how the world works', such as the ones the the economists hold)

There are over 7.5 billion people in 193 countries as of today.  There are variations on every type of government, philosophy, and religion.  There are countries that have technically been at war for nearly 70 years or more.  There is a broad diversity of ideals and priorities that change from day-to-day.  No one -- from individuals to governments -- wants to get rid of their weapons, whether simple handguns or thermonuclear weapons (or anything in-between).

In simple terms, world-control would be necessary to bring all people and governments to behave less like individuals and more like a global community.  This isn't the same as putting together a Saturday block party, this is organizing millions of block parties all over the world to start at the same time with the same theme, and the stated end-time of "never".

Remember, Marx, Lenin, and Stalin all thought that they could force an evolutionary change in the people of the former Russian Empire, and look what happened -- graft, corruption, enslavement, and an economy that imploded due to lack of internal support.

Do you want that to happen to the entire human species?

I believe we have to have global oversight....especially when it comes to things like genocide and famine.

But I don’t feel a fully “one-world” government would work.

I thought were talking about whether we could conceive of it. That we are currently nowhere near is obvious.
But we are nowhere near an economic or political system that is remotely sustainable without subjugation of billions of people, forcing poverty on them and destroying the basis of the survival of our species.
In other words: I can imagine an alternative. I can't imagine how to get there within a handful of years. But the current state is manmade, not a law of nature. There are plenty of alternatives, and we could argue what we think we need, how to get there in small steps - or throw our hands in the air, and say that nothing can be done.

I worked in India for a while. The sentence 'there's nothing we can do' seemed to be the mantra of my indian colleagues, whereas my European colleagues were all like: "we could do this..., we could do that...". All because we knew that things can indeed be different.

Actually existing communism was a s**tshow like no other, except, right now we're on our way back into a structure that looks more like feudalism than capitalism, because some people are advancing their collective goals (by creating new wats of accumulating wealth, lobbying against restrictions, finding new ways to externalize costs) while the majority has internalized that even formulating goals is already halfway to the gulags.

Pssht!!



I could conceive of peppermint-scented unicorns flying out of my teapot, but that ain't likely to happen, either!

There was a really good video released recently by Philosophy Tube that compared and contrasted Karl Marx against Charles Darwin, and goes into good detail about points like avoiding pitfalls like what we might call social Darwinism and in eugenics. That I don't think Darwin approved of how his theory could be adopted by people calling for Eugenic policies and morally agreed with things like social programs. Karl Marx himself above all wanted people to be free from oppression of people that did not work but just owned stuff, and saw that capitalist would eventually lead to more and more wealth given to the owner class of society as the workers just became slaves to them.



I really enjoyed the video, Olly comes across as a great bloke, but is maybe a little long if you don't have the time watching a man hike while talking about political history in the fight of what is natural and what is moral, and also philosophical theatre.

Due to climate change and other global-scale problems the world coming together is a necessity. It's not a question of one group vs another group. Either everyone wins or everyone loses. Whether the form of that union is a single country or just something like a world parliament it will happen if sanity prevails, at least temporarily. For the people saying it can't work, look at the United States. We don't have the same culture across the country, there are many different kinds of people with different kinds of ideas, each political party absolutely hates the other one's candidates but it's still all one country. The US isn't the best example because we've been too conservative for a long time but that doesn't mean it's impossible. I expect it to take many years and maybe a large disaster but it can happen and I think it should. If we were all working together we wouldn't need to spend money and resources on fighting each other and could instead use them to improve the quality of life for everybody. Humanity has been building towards this. First we were separated into countless villages, then hundreds or thousands of cities or city-states, and now around 200 countries. The entirety of human history has been marked by people coming together in larger and larger groups. It looks incredibly far off but change can happen quicker than you think.

That's exactly what I mean with pretending the current economic and political order is like a natural law.

Your comment is equating the non-existence of a different political order with the physically impossible.
And that's just not right.

Not just genocide and famine. But, outbreaks, environmental degradation, etc.

Fnord brings up a good point about communism. And, what I'm talking about is not a revolution. What I'm talking is evolution.

It is my opinion as technology advances, the environment degrades, we have more outbreaks, and communication and transportation especially advances I see more and more global solutions being required to more and more complex problems. Think about it. This corona virus doesn't respect national borders and with all of the containment and social distancing and the world's current policies the different countries are playing wack-a-mole including China. To truthfully, contain this virus it is my opinion a unified world-wide policy is needed and the only way that will happen if it is managed under one system of goverment that has it's authority everywhere. And, that is a global government.

As more and more of these problems surface and as the world becomes more and more inter-connected I see the cultures over the centuries being influenced and changing. I see all of these issues, scientific knowledge and technology changing the way people think, the way we think. I see English as becoming more and more of the universal language as well.

I don't see O.N.E. happening overnight but by centuries. I don't see it happening though some kind of idealism or political philosophy but through necessity and more of an inter-connected world through more and more advanced technology.

And, I'm all for it!

I don't think there's such a thing as a single system that could govern 7 or 8 billion people unless it was mostly a technocratic thing collecting data on various countries and their chosen systems (liberal democracy, authoritarian, etc.) and constantly giving them feedback on their efficacy as a government, point-scoring internal cohesion, the quality of life for their citizens, even here though - they'd have to be significantly limited in power so as not to fill up with wanna-be world rulers.

That said though, I'm with JK here on the earth stuff:

Diversity:

It What's
For Life.

It's What's
For Continuing
Existence Now.

'Don't Put Your
Eggs All in One
Basket', Most Surely
Applies to 'One Nation Earth';

No Different Than Genetically
Engineering Humans All to be
'Perfect'; All You May Be Left
With Is Dead Lines Across A Page.

Hell Yes; One Will 'Epigenetically
Engineer' Humans Through Politics,
Religions, Philosophies Same; Great Thing
About Different Cultures in Nations; There
is at least Somewhere to Go, if 'Trumps' Win Ignorance Again.

Sadly; All the Irony, As More Than Likely All Borders
Would be Closed to Ignorance of US.

Choice:

It's All
About
Survival;
Now And Then.

As Above So
Below; There
Is More Than One Star Now..

The prove me wrong by establishing your precious One Nation Earth.

Pssht!!

It would have to be extremely - extremely narrow and only interfere in the most specific way like being a bit like a global Uniform Commercial Code or a philanthropic effort making sure that massive human rights debacles aren't going in various places (and we sort of have that with the UN already to the degree that it's functional). In any comprehensive sense though the world is ungovernable.

Maybe we already do have global oversight when it comes to things like genocide?

Ever heard of foo fighters?

We do have globalized capitalism which even integrates places like the DRC.
There's no place Jeff Bezos' dollars don't have power.
We have a framework of global trade. What we don't have are human rights, democracy and peace.

In other words: economically, we have a world government, in the WTO. Maybe we need to just get some guillotines there and introduce a little democracy.