The Instigator
AgnosticPanda
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/10/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 427 times Debate No: 82391
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

AgnosticPanda

Pro

Seeing as this is a pretty out there idea, I will not require sources for information except for statistics. I expect that this debate will be more like an exercise in logic and reasoning than fact vs fact.

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 like some sort of council or congress as the head of government.
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.

Also, I have done this debate before http://www.debate.org...
Please read through this debate before accepting so you have a better idea of where i stand. And yes I copy pasted most of this intro from my past debate. If I have committed some sort of faux pas I do apologize but my beliefs have not greatly changed since then. I will not be copy pasting anything else from the past debate.

Most people can accept but I would appreciate that the person that does can write close to the 10000 character limit about this topic.
I hope for an interesting and gear turning debate.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

In order to understand why a world government is a bad idea, we must first examine the organization known as the state as it exists currently. There is a great mythology surrounding this institution. A common misconception is that government arose through what is known as 'the social contract'. That in order to protect against the 'war of all against all' (as Hobbes put it) we must have one central unifying authority. But the historical reality is different, instead it is as Oppenheimer described, the state is and has always been a tool for exploitation, domination and subjugation. The state is not a benign tool for social organization but is instead a criminal conspiracy through which the political class can loot the economic class. It is an organization unlike all others in society because it claims a monopoly on the use force and it's aggression against innocents is legitimized through a compelling system of rationalization and indoctrination.

While some like to conflate the notions of state and society it would be more accurate to say that the state is at war with society. This is a marked contrast to the market economy, where interactions are mutually beneficial and voluntary. The market is peaceful social cooperation. With the market, everything is win / win but with the state it is win / lose. Someone benefits only to the extent that another suffers. With the state, man is turned against man, brother against brother. It is ultimately a degenerate race to the bottom and a dog eat dog world.

Thus the solution is not to establish a world government but instead of advocate for a truly voluntary society on the scale of the nation; that is to say, to urge anarchy and the elimination of those governments which exist currently.
Debate Round No. 1
AgnosticPanda

Pro

I agree, with what you say con. That as government is today, the corruption in the government causes an inefficient organization that takes money from the people and uses it for less than meaningful endeavors. However, what you end with, that we should advocate for a voluntary society on the scale of a nation, to encourage anarchy, to eliminate government as it is now; while it would be nice to allow anyone to do as they please, it would harm human advances like none other. Perhaps I don't understand what true anarchy is so I'll cite the definition of anarchy as given by google "a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority". Based on this definition, anarchy would cause all of the systems we have set up to fall apart, including the beneficial ones like environmental protection, NASA(and other space organizations), science research, technological development. Our markets would fall apart, with no regulation, prices can be where ever the seller wants, in fact, money would have no value at all, leaving most people without the means to support themselves. In short, anarchy would cause the destruction of everything our societies have created, good and bad. To you I suppose that the bad out weights the good and for me vice versa.

I am a very pro-science person. I like our technology and what it does for us. I like the understanding of the universe based on science. The reason we have what we have is because for a time, we got over our differences, we united, we collaborated. In order to stop future conflict, we must unite further. As a world. A nation is insufficient and inefficient. Governments want to one up each other all the time. Every nation wants more and more. The world needs equality of government, the same laws for everyone. The same money for everyone(not amount but a single currency). The same language. Equal levels of education. Access to the same technologies. Access to the same information.

People will do as people do. Evil in the world is impossible to stop, but so is good impossible to stop. What must stop is peoples inaction against what they view as evil. I think that with a greater understanding of other cultures there will become less conflict between cultures. This may lead to cultures uniting, adding their resources to each other, covering each others deficiencies, increasing their strengths. If countries united, they could share resources instead of trying to make money from the sale of those resources. When there is a massive project that we want to do, there would be no foreign politics that would prevent the use of some resource(human or material). Quite simply, the world would be more efficient.

To allow this to happen, it MUST be a voluntary decision of the people or the governments to allow it to happen. The way I see it. It will either be forced upon us, or we will force it upon the governments. To have everyone agree to unite would require a great threat to our world and way of life. Why must it be forced? Because it's hard to get everyone to agree. There is too much emphasis on the nation and the people in the nation. The rest of the world seems to not matter to many people. When what is best for the nation becomes unifying the world, we will see it happen.

Yes, if this does happen, it can be very easy for a person or a group to take control of the government. But would the military really follow blindly? I would think not. They are human as well and most can think for themselves. Especially when it comes to defending their families. As many people as possible should own weapons as a check against a corrupt government. It is the only thing that will make them think twice. Yes there are WMD's that make small arms a moot point, but at that point the injustice of the system is obvious and the people would unite against the government, they would start a revolution.

There are simply more benefits that arise from a world governments than detriments. The human race has advanced to such a level that colonizing space is a distinct possibility. It is not impossible that there is intelligent life other than us in the universe. There is an insane amount of resources on other planets, moons, asteroids and comets. With those resources, we can stop harming our world and instead say, grab some asteroids and comets for drinkable water and precious and common metals. The return on our expenses would be greater than any in the history of humanity.

Being unfamiliar with anarchist ideas, I am unsure how it would lead to a better life for society. How would anarchy bring us further into the future and not back into the past? While most scientific principles are incapable of being used as a guide for human nature, I think the 2d law of thermodynamics can be, order leads to disorder, but you can only get work out of order. For example, A group of people efficiently work together on a project- order, they will do better work and faster than the same group chaotically trying to work around each other- disorder.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
AgnosticPanda

Pro

AgnosticPanda forfeited this round.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
AgnosticPanda

Pro

AgnosticPanda forfeited this round.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AgnosticPanda

Pro

AgnosticPanda forfeited this round.
ZakYoungTheLibertarian

Con

ZakYoungTheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Uniting has always been a matter of annihilation....
Posted by Juan_Pablo 1 year ago
Juan_Pablo
However, I think one role of such a hypothetical global government would be to ensure that nations across the world are adhering to basic principles of human rights and political suffrage. As long as some form of global government exist, even if it's weak, it should promote human and political rights for all.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 1 year ago
Juan_Pablo
I agree with you that a single global infrastructure would benefit the human race, but only if that global government was perfectly fair and was mindful of every communities concerns--no easy feat.

I think the world needs a global government but something that would mostly work to promote cooperation and peace in the world; there's too much potential for abuse and tyranny in allowing a global government to form that would decide the fate of entire geographical areas simply by pushing a button. Humans are motivated by the quest for power, which is something that could be observed readily and even inside democracies.

A global government sounds like a good idea but would it be just and fair in practice? I have my reservations here.
Posted by markuswashere 1 year ago
markuswashere
I'd like to contend, but I don't meet the criteria. Can you change the criteria? Thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.