Amazon.com Widgets
  • Humanity Vs. The Universe

    If you have studied astronomy at even in the slightest you would quickly find out that the Universe hates life. Even after years of searching the stars we have only been able to identify one other planet, in another galaxy, that could possibly support life.

    On top of the fact that at best we have only identified one other planet that could possibly support our life that planet is so far away that even with our best technology it would take many generations to get to that planet.

    Now add on top of those two facts that the planet has already had an global extinction event, hence why the dinosaurs are no longer around, it makes absolutely no sense to me that our species can not get over their petty differences and come to the terms that it is our species against the universe.

    How many times do we need to hear about near collisions of asteroids , large enough to cause a global extinction event before the leaders of the countries get their heads out of those dark places and work together? I guess that will happen once we have no choice but by then it would be too late and all because we cannot work as a whole.

    We are a planet within mass amounts of non hospitable living space. The only way that we will probably ever be able to travel the stars successfully is if we worked on it as a whole. I only ever see that happening if we had one world government.

  • Humanity can use it's full potential

    As human civilization has grown, many different groups of people have formed, with different forms of governments. In the end, when a government is too tyrannicla, the peope find a way to all get together and revolutionize their country. Humanity is for humanity and i beleive we are all equals who should work together, without war and give a fair go to everyone. My ideal for this world government is where there is a humanist democracy that strives for equality as well as people who work hard getting benefits but te super rich giving back to the poor, with no religion in the government which has libertian principles. Countries would become states that have their own governments where the people vote for teir local government and the world government, each country representing it's citizens interests but overruled by a world government which completely empowers humanity.

  • Sounds nice, but a bad idea.

    The problem with a world government, is that it would probably mean that there would be one currency. We have already seen what can happen to the world economy if one currency out of many goes down (the issue with the Euro), but at least there are other currencies to help the world recover (U.S. Dollar and whatever China's currency is called). If there was one world government, than we would have one currency, which leaves no plan B in case the currency fails.

  • An ideal, maybe........ A reality, unlikely

    In short:
    -Different countries/ cultures have different wants/needs
    - Impossible to get a majority in a world parliament to pass decisions
    - Impossible to enforce all laws

    It's a bit like socialism. A good idea, but in reality a failure and someone will soon take advantage of the weak for their own purposes.

  • A World Government?

    Who exactly decides what the world, as a whole, needs? Warmongers? Sociopaths? Narcissists? The power of such authority, alone, would bring the worst out of the woodwork. No country needs that. Think back in history to those who wanted to take-over the world, i.E. Hitler. I can't think of one known for compassion, humanitarian deeds, etc. A "World Government" is the last thing we need!

  • An ideal maybe.... A reality unlikely

    It would be great if we could all live in a world surrounded by peace, tranquility and where everyone was treated equally. The problem is a world government would never work in practice. For a start the world is far too big to control as one government. Secondly, every culture/country has different needs/wants. There would be now way that any decisions could be made. If you used your idea of individual governments contributing to one larger government, a system of voting would have to be put in place. This would be fine up to a point, but eastern and western countries have very different ideals. The voting system would have proportional representation, and even then a majority would never be reached, leaving the government in limbo. Lastly and possibly one of the most important points. Laws could not be enforced over such a vast area. There would always be one or two local governments who would not agree with a law and would not take steps to enforce it. Therefore a world government is perhaps like communism. It is a good idea, but unrealistic in practice and sooner or later someone will take advantage of the rest.

  • Not yet what we need is a League of Human Rights Democracies

    And specifically "Human Rights Democracies" so no democracies that vote for slavery or vote to round up religious dissidents. There should be a criteria and if you don't meet it you don't get in. A League of Human Rights Democracies could help respond to serious human rights abuses more effectively than the UN.
    The world just isn't enlightened enough yet to handle a one world government. Do you really want China having that much power (if we base it on population)?


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.