The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Would the world uniting under a single global infrastructure benefit the human race in 100 years?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 63464
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




I would like to first point out that when I say single global infrastructure I DO NOT mean having one person in charge (like having a president of the world) but rather a more UN type council. And in the title it says in the next 100 years , i really mean in the slightly distant future where we (the entire current population of Earth) is dead and our descendants take over. It just didn't fit :P
Before a single global infrastructure can even be attempted, all countries must be on the same level of technology, education, and wealth. An incredibly ideal situation? Yes. However, I believe that such a world is what we are moving towards anyway, as a whole the human race probably not doing a great job in doing so because governments are looking to profit and benefit from someones bad situation but given time I think it will happen.
Assuming that this ideal is reached I believe that the benefits are that all people would be governed by the same law, we would have less racial/cultural/social conflict, 'countries' would stop trying to get an advantage over another because they are all one sovereign 'nation' where only the atmospheric border matters.
As some additional information about how this idea formed in my head: I believe that in order for the human race to expand past our atmospheric border, we need to come together and pool resources without any fear each other and I think we need a singular governmental infrastructure to do so.


A world unified inferstructure with the current world populations descendants is a terrifying and flawed ideal.

first: if we all had the same education, it would be easy to brain wash people. and this would create a monarchy government, and internal conspiracies. Education must be separate from state and church, and unique to cultural aspects and growth.

second: focusing on wealth distracts from reality. If a wealthy man can never become poor he will learn nothing, and if a poor man cannot become rich he can obtain nothing. The ideal situation would have varying wealths. An international infrastructure also does not dictate there would not be boarders, so equal wealth without the rights to travel is redundant. criminals must be contained, and education, wealth and technology does not cleanse society of such peoples. So travel which is the major issue persists.

Technology is sufficiently useless. Society existed prior. What remains significant is the worlds ambition to grow plants. with plants technology is redundant. anyone who wants technology can travel to it and where it is abundant, where as a world wide infrastructure would mean that certain locations would be destroyed against the residence's will, due to a monarchy of "majority rule.", as it happens today within nations, where people are displaced to make way for government projects.

And thus, a world wide infrastructure is not an ideal situation, and I accept this debate.

I will dedicate my next post to making my own subjective and objective arguments for a non-world-wide-infrastructure, instead of rebutting.**
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Con for accepting this debate. Basically my argument starts with the premise that a 'First World World' is possible and has been reached. It is my belief that a global infrastructure is the next step for humanity.

On Education: First, I never said that everyone would have the same education, I said the same LEVEL. The difference I make is that when you say 'same education' I take away that everyone is taught the same thing in the same way in similar looking building and classrooms. However when I say same level, I simply mean that, with the exception language barriers, anybody can be intellectual with anybody from anywhere easily, much like we are now. Just because there is a standard curriculum does not mean that it will be taught the same way everywhere. It benefits us to do things differently, just as much as doing things similarly. It sounds like you would prefer an educational system of private schools? However, even private schools have to follow curriculum guidelines. I will address religion in a following paragraph.

Onto the monarchy/dictatorship issue: I don't think this will be a pressing issue until the infrastructure starts to crumble. This would be because in the beginning, when the 'first world world' tries to global unify there will be descent and people who oppose however at that point, if they fail, A) they have their countries to fall back on, and B) they will have only learned from their mistakes. I think that you may also misunderstand what I meant by a UN style council. Its not like I mean USA will take over the world and the world will be American. More like the world will blend all of its cultures together perhaps, and the original culture is changed but still the dominant facet in its place of origin, and yes there is risk of eradicating cultures all together but that threat is already present in today's world. Ideally, the leaders of that world would WANT to work together to make it work.

Wealth, ah wealth. I am personally not concerned with an individuals wealth, rather the wealth of that nations economy. Essentially: make one dollar be one dollar anywhere you go, regardless of if you use a USD, peso, or yen or anything. Once the value of money is the same regardless of what you use and where you use it then a singular global currency is a logical step yes? As long as a person can own a business then people will always have the possibility of making more money than working for someone. It seems we both agree that a classist system is bound to appear so long as money exists yes?

A global infrastructure would have the same laws everywhere, for better or for worse. I would imagine that the council would come together and write a single set laws, and each state(country) would have flexibility to be unique but not dramaticly different. So why would traveling be prohibited? If anything there would be no customs because if there's anything you can't travel with, say on a plane, it would be for safety reasons, or the item is illegal to begin with.

Religions are great philosophical guidelines for life but because of agnostic beliefs, I find the idea worshiping anyone or anything personally offensive but that me. But from these ideas, in a global infrastructure, I think religion should be disorganized and very personal. So basically if you want to follow Christianity or Islam or Judaism it doesn"t matter because they would (in my ideal) have no power, but are great tools to help through grief or just bad times or whatever.

Crime in a global infrastructure is kind of irreverent. Never did I say that a global infrastructure would cleanse the world of crime. It most certainly would not. It might even make it easier. However the issue with today's judicial system is that it is not uniform. A crime in Africa is not judged the same in USA or the same in Italy or in Argentina. The point is that with so many conflicting legal systems there are too many inefficiencies with the system. If crime becomes easier to do, so does the work to catch them. Political immunity could very well be out the window, for example. So a rival country could not just harbor a criminal from a rival nation for what ever reason. The prison system will still exist and most likely would become a global project.

Now technology... and science(which I should mention go hand in hand)! Im not sure why you say that technology is sufficiently useless but lets see if I cant work with it. Society may have existed prior but it was neither as populated nor as educated, nor as informed(or misinformed). However society itself has evolved, creating new ideas, accepting ones that were taboo before. We can modify human ability with the use of external mechanical and electrical devices that make it so that we can even attempt to solve some of today's problems; but also allows us to communicate across the planet with people we care about(or don't). In my opinion it is not the worlds ambition to grow plants, its peoples love of the planet that causes that, which can in turn become that persons ambition(we can let people like this take care of our natural parks and endangered animals) but the true ambition that really matters is the ability for humans to get into space, find habitable planets and colonize them. Because on the backdrop of space, the universe is the planet, space is the oceans and the planets are the continents. While it may be important to make sure that the earth is still able to sustain life, you must also realize that the existence of earth at all is not infinite, earth will die, and naturally. However it is HUMANS that have to worry about time. We have the possibility to kill every single last human even every last form of life on the planet. One false step and it could be over. Petty differences don't matter at all, humans need to realize this, come together, and unite. The largest reason I think technology and science are reasons that benefit humans is this: look at the USA its military budget is some 5x larger than NASA funding. Through a global infrastructure the greatest benefit that I believe that we would not need to make the military such a massive part of the budget therefore we would have the funds to put to much more beneficial applications like space research, developing new agriculture techniques or finding that illusive super efficient clean fuel.

Your turn con.


The Non-Global-Infrastructure Argument:

Because I have a strong fear of an un-contestable monarchy, I think avoiding a Global infrastructure is most pressing.

Of course the entire world deserve access to all knowledge that has been acquired elsewhere, but in the same manner that knowledge is restricted in any one country, it would surely be restricted in a realistic view of a global infrastructure. And off course one would not take from this globalized version of education that we all share a similar style of teaching or a similar environment, simply the same content (which is a form of brain washing).

And of course, in the same way, I assuredly believe all minerals and materials should be available to all regions of the world, but this too, like education does not require a international infrastructure. It simply requires fair trade, which is determined by peoples willingness to work to acquire such things.

Laws, such as drinking ages, marijuana use, drinking ages, and driving ages are all laws that should be set for districts and not made universal. This indicates the global infrastructure is an impeding threat, because when one district enables people, other districts would use that as a claim to reduce moral standards in other regions in later generations instead of considering the international threat of demoralization.

Religions when observed closely are all the same: Adultery is a sin; humility and charity are necessary; observe the natural order of the world and assist subdue and guide it; there is only one God and thus only One moral standard; and God has shown himself to humanity internally and externally in signs that we can observe such as the third day of creation when the planet expanded form within itself.

Crime is a necessary component to consider because the unrelenting Global government would have no external opposition to govern the extremists who come into power in later generations. The criminals can be in political or social atmospheres and can be even judge wrongly if only one government exists.

Later generation are always the most important thing to consider when considering politics. Not the immediate presumed result.

By have a none Global infrastructure Resources have a much stronger surveillance and the people of the world are restricted more closely to observe what they are doing, and the Idea does not simply pass through council.

Peoples rights would factually in this way be disregarded to make way for government projects. homes, forest recluses, Views someone grew up with.

I think that we can agree that a multi-governing System with close relations and respectful ties would be a much more logical organization. Organizations where none of the Head parties have any authority over one another's districts, but simply watch for human and environmental violations.

If we had a Global organization now, Bondage, homosexuality and other criminal offenses would be made legal everywhere, indicating factually rapists and perverts would be internally everywhere running rampant with jealousy and rage. Now is not the time for a global infrastructure.

When I was in the mental institute of in Vancouver, A man was saying he wanted to peel people with a potato peeler. He was released before i was by a month., after yelling at himself every day int he bed next to me *(we shared a room). The Doctor released him, but would not release me, who am bound by my religion and person views to not injure anyone including myself. That Indian bastard and the British dick didn't even accept spirituality exists when I told them I talk to Angels. They said I was a threat.
So this is a factual issue in globalizing infrastructure.

In this manner. Obviously we have been overlooking as a nation international poverty, but infrastructure does not need to take place to assist in these conditions and is not necessary.

The situation in Africa clearly depicts that no architectural or intellectual progress has ever been made there throughout history. And only countries of a monotheist government have succeeded. Such global reminders should be left as reminders, and allowed to progress from that state on their own after the threats have been removed By our Christian and Islamic Governments so that those people can come to any conclusion they come to that does not empower them to keep doing what They Have Been Doing. (there are countries in Africa where they circumcise women today as part of their pagan rituals)

Agreeably international travel should be simplified, and Passports should be a free commodity, necessary to track pedophiles and criminals. In a Global infrastructure having passports would instill a government conspiracy fear, with multiple governments they would be excepted.

An international infrastructure fails in comparison to a Multi-Government world.

Notably. I do and do not agree that a dollar should be the same everywhere. What is recognized as a dollar yes, should be the same everywhere. and even can be converted into another currency for specific regions to maintain a record and balanced system to ensure corruptness goes recorded and restrained.
But, I strongly believe in the Dollar: Money is the evaluated value of your time as a people. In a family where we all eat at one table, one works less but eats with the family and so earns the same wage. Others may have a family who in the end produces no goods, so a man doing the same job in two countries earns two different wages, according to national success.

Obviously we are considering they should be able to up and move to where the jobs are good if they want to live there.** that is not a portion of the debate.

I am anti-work-union** I do not agree labor unions interfering with government affairs. The union should be government involved, not employer.. arguing with a wage they agreed too. QUIT! if u don't like your job. Go to the government then and say you have no available work, lest I be forced to move reduce my taxes, or postpone them. and if it is a truly American government or Islamic or Christian the government will cease their taxes until work is available {* butt he man can buy no cloths or tools or tv's and entertainment because they chose not to work.

And so. I prefer a non global infrastructure. For various reasons.
Debate Round No. 2


I'm not certain that teaching the same content counts as brainwashing. Example: I went to catholic school from 2d grade to 8th, every week(twice a week in my case because my mom took me on Sundays) we went to church as a school for an hour, on top of having religion class for an hour a day M-F. I turned out agnostic, some people turned out good ol roman catholic, some atheists. Because even if content is the same, the way it is perceived is different from person to person. It all depends on how the teachers treat the students. Ive had both nuns and regular people and even a teacher teach me religion in one class and then biology the next. They all taught me about the bible, but they taught it differently, had different views and they all put me to sleep. The thing about brain washing is that it is basically one person trying to destroys a persons individuality. obviously a mind can be broken, but except for torture or isolation that doesn't really happen. In an educational setting, especially when one has access to such a vast deposit of information, the internet, how can such individuality destroying education possibly come about? And consider this; even if all humans on earth were cloned from the same genes, what happens when that person becomes curious? will they all be curious about the same thing? Want to do the same thing? read the same book? look at the same tree? Perhaps if the human brain had the same programmablity as a computer but it doesn't; this is why i do not believe in the possibility of brainwashing.

Now then. please explain this: "If we had a Global organization now, Bondage, homosexuality and other criminal offenses would be made legal everywhere, indicating factually rapists and perverts would be internally everywhere running rampant with jealousy and rage. Now is not the time for a global infrastructure."
Why do you think sexual deviance would suddenly take over? If you talk some conservative 40-something mother i bet they would say it already has.

and this:"By have a none Global infrastructure Resources have a much stronger surveillance and the people of the world are restricted more closely to observe what they are doing, and the Idea does not simply pass through council."
In what aspects do you believe that the global infrastructure would be opressive? How would they be oppressive? I don't think that there would be a point to giving a the global council its own army. The states (lets also not make the assumption that the current borders will be the borders they have) would have their own armies. maybe there would be a limit to the size of the military? But lets not pull this into the debate.

This one though: "Peoples rights would factually in this way be disregarded to make way for government projects. homes, forest recluses, Views someone grew up with."
I think that by the time we get to a global infrastructure stage of social structure then problems like that would have already been taken care of. Unless for some specific reasons, you believe that these problems will persist with out great-great-great-great grandkids, please explain. But if not, let us assume that these problems are a thing of THEIR past.

And finally: "But, I strongly believe in the Dollar: Money is the evaluated value of your time as a people." I strongly disagree with this statement but will not go into it as i will be posting a separate debate about this in the future. Thanks for the idea.


The Means by which I defend my case is that, People act how they act, and will continue to act how they have acted. In this regard, all the conflicts I have mentioned are defended in that statement alone.

Ridding the world of these issues is not a part of the debate, but their persistence in the event of Global Infrastructure is a relevant portion of my argument against it.

Indeed I agree with conservative mothers.

Brainwashing also includes making people neglectful towards poverty. ** take that into consideration while contemplating what brainwashing is, and how that is relevant to Global infrastructure. Also use this method of referring back to the conservative mother statement.

A global infrastructure would be oppressive because their boundaries are removed, but their positive-community-morals not reinforced. A fact reinforced by every rich person not charged with treason for neglecting their home town, state, country and school friends, peers and acquaintances. People simply don't care*: and Giving a Capitalist society, -which is what you are referring too, by not saying we would be unified as ONE COUNTRY, but instead one infrastructure. - There is factually present and so relevant tot he debate, Oppression.

I recommend a forfeit to acknowledge your personal growth and consideration.
Debate Round No. 3


I really dont care about win or lose in a debate. Seeing as you have the idea that brainwashing is going to make the world mindless sheep, would you care to rebut my paragraph from round 3 about brainwashing?


"And consider this; even if all humans on earth were cloned from the same genes, what happens when that person becomes curious?" ~ Pro.

Pro clearly does not take into consideration that for every individual coming from a different walk of life, seeing things differently and being at a different mental junction in their day, renders this question not only ridiculous but redundant, as it is irrelevant.

Brain-washing: is not a basically 'one person' - as Pro indicates - trying to destroy a persons individuality. Brain-washing is making sure that the people do not involve themselves in the things they so choose. By not providing or providing alternative information to what would otherwise jeopardize their own security. Menopause caused by testosterone ingestion is a prime example o this very thing. We are brainwashing society into neglecting and ignoring and even arguing with the solutions to our problems.

Torturing and isolating people are not forms of brainwashing, those are forms of sedating.

Brainwashing occurs on a regular basis simply by turning the publics attention away from serious issues or secret content to focus on something of a less significant nature. By causing people to neglect themselves, one can be thus brain washed. Or to cut their grass with non renewable resources one could have been brain washed.

simple diversion of attention and mind is Brain washing.

IN addition, Pro indicates that the Internet is a reliable source of information. However information, especially true information is HARD to source on the Internet for an experiences web surfer, never mind a young child, or someone new tot he Internet.
The Internet is a prime source of Brain washing material, because people routinely and casually gossip, spreading lies intentionally. This false source of information is "Brain washing".

In this topics relevance. Brainwashing leads to neglect, unimaginative qualities, stubbornness, and the acceptance of negative things as perfectly-fine things under common law. Brain washing does occur now and thus would occur under a global infrastructure if we used the same population to support the growth and development of such a world.

Idealistically, A global infrastructure would be sound and logical, BUt, This is not an idealistic argument, it is a "In 100 years, would OUR global infrastructure be better?" and no it would not. It would be frightening, troublesome, and filled with horror, just as todays world is.

The Government would neglect the rights of few for the "selfish wanton desires of many other arrogance and ignorant people for the sake of "progress".
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
The learning curve was referencing the Conversation Portion of this Debate** as well as previous arguments** ~ both relevant in this case really..
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
Yes I know, I see I wrote a negative sentence as a positive sentence in the last paragraph, built, the point is still clearly made and discernible, because of the sentence structure, the point made, and my side of the debate.

But if someone votes against me because of that, Then perhaps they should have read the rest of the debate when you clearly depict your vision as NOT being one country, but instead one infrastructure.

learning curve for a few.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
it's 2 hours long.. and it is actually an attack video. Posted to say it's a conspiracy. But all logic dictates these are very productive and logical movements that have no threat against the American people or neighboring countries.

I will afterwards.
Posted by AgnosticPanda 2 years ago
can you post a link to the video?
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
I just watched the a video on the American Progress under Obama. If this is the kind of globalization you were referring to, Then I am completely in favor of Pro in this debate.

I am in complete favor of Obama's agenda.

There is no factual evidence however the USA will govern Africa after the initial aid is sent to their war-torn countries, nor has the USA governed the middle east.

This was very pleasing to me. It was the first time I had heard it.

However, That is not true Globalization** so I, in this bate do not forfeit as of yet.
Posted by AgnosticPanda 2 years ago
you guys know of any debates on here about global governments? Id love to give them a read
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
I am a pro unification and socialism. I am a very much a communist, when considering a communist government is not run by a monarchy, but the most suitable and fitting candidate who must forfeit his power when he is no longer the best suited candidate to serve the nation.

That said, I stand by my side off the debate, a world-wide infrastructure is a threat more than a resolve, because a corrupt government would then have supreme power, and ultimate decisions would be made by a biased unaware minority and there would be no way to overcome them at that point, You need an opposition to all governments.
Posted by daveuprite 2 years ago
It's refreshing to find this issue debated, which it rarely is in mainstream media. Never have the prevailing political structures been less well suited to tackling the great global issues of our day. Massive wealth disparity, the threat of religious fundamentalism and the overwhelmingly vital challenge of climate change are global, pressing, inescapable issues which currently have no appropriate international response. This is primarily because nation states struggle to cooperate whilst the raison d'etre of nation statehood is to compete with neighbours and rival economies for primacy. A putative future with one global infrastructure is a logical and necessary development which one would presume would be equipped to confront and deal with global emergencies. Of course, this is fiercely opposed by libertarians who feel that maximum power should rest with the individual, and who smell socialism in all attempts to combine and organise power at a higher level. But without macro-cooperation and globally effective decision-making how can we possibly tackle the planetary-significant issues that face us? Not by denying they exist and crawling into a personal bunker of baked bean supplies and guns, that's for sure.
No votes have been placed for this debate.