Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Tegularius
Posts: 502
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Tegularius »

A world government wouldn't last very long. It could only be governed by satrap type dependencies subsumed under a central government. Depending on the integrity and ability of its leadership if such fail at any time there would be massive insurrections across the entire planet. Based on human nature this scenario is not an IF but a WHEN. To create such a government would require a constitution like none ever written. It would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
marigold_23
Posts: 40
Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by marigold_23 »

Hey Tegularius, thanks for your response. You make very good points.

You're probably right... however, it's not impossible that you could be wrong. It's a thing that's never been attempted with the benefit of modern technology, allowing such immediate communication and transportation... A world government could hypothetically be established which is sustainable and capable of predicting/preventing/responding to internal corruption through a system of checks and balances. Any politicians could be screened for qualifications and immediately replaced by the next most qualified candidate if it appears they have been corrupted or that they are unqualified. A single central military force with the only nuclear arsenal in the world could act as an absolute preventative measure against a Civil War.

I know it sounds like a terrible idea...it is a terribly ungraceful solution...it would probably be unfair and would probably result in untold suffering... but I'm interested in discovering a measure of maximum sustainability for our species as a civilized, globalized, industrialized society...
There are certain qualities of society that were sustainable for the majority of our history as nomadic tribes and as a civilized species which are, rather suddenly, no longer sustainable... war is one. We could survive war as a species when it was between tribes and nations wielding swords and gunpowder rifles... hundreds against hundreds, thousand against thousands...but not hundreds of thousands against hundreds of thousands...millions against millions (20 million soldiers, not civilians, were killed in WWII... that is horrifying). As terrible as a war for the entire planet sounds, it has already occurred twice, and neither war was fought as a nuclear war (nuclear weapons ended the second world war, it was not a nuclear war as we all know. Almost all of the devastation was carried out with weapons which come no where close in terms of destructive capability.)

In my opinion, what is a worse idea than replacing the system of separate rival human nations is that we should not replace it... that we should do nothing... you use statistical probability in your response... such as the statistical likelihood of a unified humanity failing based on the historical failings of large empires....
If that is true we must dash civilization into dust...erase all trace of this technological empire and quickly... because as sure as any statistical evaluation, at our current pace, and divided between nations under a tenuous uncertain peace, and building our technology and our weapons at an exponential rate (directly proportional to the increasing rate of unsustainability attached to human war), and with no relevant change whatsoever in war's statistical likelihood [which is and always has been that war may not occur for a decade, or a century, but it will happen])...if we allow that to continue without ending the cycle of war between real powers ... between NUCLEAR powers... how do you think that story would end? How long would it last... another century? doubtful... two centuries? I'm only seeing one ending to that scenario. Boom, then silence...

Well, then perhaps we could stop our growth, given that we can't control it.

But what's more likely? that civilization is dashed while humanity survives as the hunter gatherer nomads like our distant ancestors or that civilization and humanity are bound together, where the preservation or destruction of one will be likewise for the other? Imagine the very unlikely scenario where our species returns to a nomadic lifestyle... we were nomads and hunter gatherers for the majority of our history, civilization is a rather new thing... what then? this planet is strewn with the detritus of amazing technology spanning a thousand years...people will relearn to use that technology and it won't take them hundreds of thousands of years to go from the stone age to the iron age... given the absolute abundance of forged metal and so much else...it would probably take one thousand years or (realistically) less before these new nomadic hunter gatherers would re-enter the cycle of agrarian civilized society through generational learning. This is all hypothetical of course, but it shows how unlikely it is that civilization could ever be replaced by a less powerful, more sustainable hunter gatherer lifestyle...

And, if we live as a civilization, what are we (statistically) most likely to do, above anything else?... grow...exponentially, until we're destroyed... that is unless some new incredible revolutionary measure is able to control that growth based on an interest in our survival


There is a possibility (however faint) of civilized survival if our species is unified as a single global society.

There is no possibility of civilized survival if our species increases in power without setting up a prevention against self annihilation by internal war... (and as long as there are separate nations with separate cultures and societies this preventative measure is impossible).

I would prefer a slim chance of survival for our species to none at all.
Fellowmater
Posts: 77
Joined: November 23rd, 2017, 11:12 pm

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Fellowmater »

I can only think of drawbacks. One drawback would be the lack of competition. Competition breeds improvement and innovation. Another might be the lack of effective safeguards against tyranny. With the current setup, even if a particular constitution had insufficient safeguards against tyranny, eventually a tyrannical government is outperformed by better governmental systems, and the tyranny declines.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3099
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

UniversalAlien wrote: April 26th, 2021, 9:25 pm The risk of complete Totalitarian World control is always staring us in the face when thinking about any type of World Government
It is? Isn't it about the same as the risk of Totalitarian National control for any individual nation? In other words, in this context of Totalitarian control, isn't it pretty similar to what we already have?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3099
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Tegularius wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:32 pm A world government [...] would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
I suggest that it's only one aspect of human nature. One that is especially visible in Americans, although the sentiment is widespread. Some value the benefits of government much more than do Americans. There would be suspicion, I accept, and caution too, but this is a rational response to something that we have never tried before. I do not see that war is inevitable, provided that we can disarm the Untied States of America (no typo) first. Otherwise, the Barbarian Bois would fulfill your prophecies, I fear.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
UniversalAlien
Posts: 1358
Joined: March 20th, 2012, 9:37 pm
Contact:

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by UniversalAlien »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 27th, 2021, 9:37 am
Tegularius wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:32 pm A world government [...] would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
I suggest that it's only one aspect of human nature. One that is especially visible in Americans, although the sentiment is widespread. Some value the benefits of government much more than do Americans. There would be suspicion, I accept, and caution too, but this is a rational response to something that we have never tried before. I do not see that war is inevitable, provided that we can disarm the Untied States of America (no typo) first. Otherwise, the Barbarian Bois would fulfill your prophecies, I fear.
"I fear" - You should fear
As long as the Constitution of the United States stands - You will not "disarm the United States of America".
Otherwise: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" !!!

You, and any other fantasists may think so, think it will be easy - And yet another quote comes to mind:

"You will take our guns away when you take them out of our cold dead fingers" !

But you see we are not the barbarians - the anti-gun, end the Second Amendment people are.

How so? Biden finally recognized the Armenian Genocide a couple of days ago,
so what you ask?

Armenian Genocide Didn’t Happen by Accident

" Hundreds of news stories have been written during the past month reporting on the 100-year anniversary of one of the darkest events in world history, a two-year killing spree that claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians.

Virtually none of these news stories, however, bothered to mention why the Armenians were defenseless against their rulers in the then Ottoman Empire: because the Ottomans had disarmed them—the same tool that would enable the Nazis, two decades later, to enslave and then slaughter European Jewry......"

https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=7376

{In fact almost every genocide in the 20th Century began with gun control and gun confiscation}

If the single World government is to be the Communist Party, or any other fascist totalitarian world order you can dream up - forget it - Never Again :!:
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 3099
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

UniversalAlien wrote: April 28th, 2021, 6:46 am But you see we are not the barbarians - the anti-gun, end the Second Amendment people are.
The empirical evidence confirms that it is those with guns who are committing the mass shootings. After all, those without guns cannot contribute to this barbaric American custom, can they? So I cannot accept the truth of what you say (above). The evidence says otherwise.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
marigold_23
Posts: 40
Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by marigold_23 »

UniversalAlien wrote: April 28th, 2021, 6:46 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 27th, 2021, 9:37 am
Tegularius wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:32 pm A world government [...] would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
I suggest that it's only one aspect of human nature. One that is especially visible in Americans, although the sentiment is widespread. Some value the benefits of government much more than do Americans. There would be suspicion, I accept, and caution too, but this is a rational response to something that we have never tried before. I do not see that war is inevitable, provided that we can disarm the Untied States of America (no typo) first. Otherwise, the Barbarian Bois would fulfill your prophecies, I fear.
"I fear" - You should fear
As long as the Constitution of the United States stands - You will not "disarm the United States of America".
Otherwise: "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" !!!

You, and any other fantasists may think so, think it will be easy - And yet another quote comes to mind:

"You will take our guns away when you take them out of our cold dead fingers" !

But you see we are not the barbarians - the anti-gun, end the Second Amendment people are.

How so? Biden finally recognized the Armenian Genocide a couple of days ago,
so what you ask?

Armenian Genocide Didn’t Happen by Accident

" Hundreds of news stories have been written during the past month reporting on the 100-year anniversary of one of the darkest events in world history, a two-year killing spree that claimed the lives of an estimated 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians.

Virtually none of these news stories, however, bothered to mention why the Armenians were defenseless against their rulers in the then Ottoman Empire: because the Ottomans had disarmed them—the same tool that would enable the Nazis, two decades later, to enslave and then slaughter European Jewry......"


{In fact almost every genocide in the 20th Century began with gun control and gun confiscation}

If the single World government is to be the Communist Party, or any other fascist totalitarian world order you can dream up - forget it - Never Again :!:

Hey UniversalAlien,
I don't want to get too far off the topic of a hypothetical world government, so I won't take a side here regarding the second amendment in the United States.
As far as I can tell, general disarmament of the populace may not be necessary as a prerequisite to the establishment of a world government (regarding handguns and rifles and even automatic/semi-automatic military rifles [though I'd be more concerned with insurrectionist groups having possession of the later]). However, I think total nuclear disarmament of all provinces aside from the central government's own military, along with the relocation of all seriously destructive military equipment (missiles, warships, jets, tanks, etc... to the central military) or destruction of all other serious military equipment not commandered by the central military would be a necessary step. Each province could have a stationed military protectorate (primarily for keeping order and dealing with local domestic threats), but not so powerful (if it were ever overun) that it's weaponry could be used to wage a civil war against the central government. A civil war in this case would be more devastating than any World War as it would almost certainly be nuclear. So as long as there is no chance of any province having nuclear power, I'd say a world government (with the only nuclear weapons) could maintain it's authority over a world union, and protect itself from break away groups who would ever try to wage war on it (provided it is a stable government with quick response time and kept safe from any internal coup d'etat...).

I also think it would be okay if groups were allowed to beak away, but they could not be allowed to have any serious economic influence or any competitive military.

In fact, I think a more humane society would emerge if prison systems and death row were generally replaced with banishment for serious violent criminals or for anyone who prefers to leave than to stay...
popeye1945
Posts: 630
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by popeye1945 »

Like mosses growing on a warm rock circling a fireball and fighting over more room on the rock for our particular form of moss species, self-control would be an excellent idea. How likely human self-control becomes a reality is however almost nil. Reason and self-control are the key elements I think important to our survival. The key elements to its not becoming a reality are ignorance and our fantasy worlds of religions, which appose reason and self-control in their own self-interest, couple that with religion controlled government, read the United States and you know humanity has one big problem. The most powerful nation on the planet, boasting the most powerful monster war machine ever known to man do have world government as their goal, minus, reason, and self-control. Should not humanity be governed under one-world government? I think one must consider how to approach such a goal. China is the next target!
Tegularius
Posts: 502
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Tegularius »

Pattern-chaser wrote: April 27th, 2021, 9:37 am
Tegularius wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:32 pm A world government [...] would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
I do not see that war is inevitable, provided that we can disarm the Untied States of America (no typo) first. Otherwise, the Barbarian Bois would fulfill your prophecies, I fear.
I can't see it that way. What's happening in the U.S. is internal, more akin to episodic civil wars which its Constitution and Democratic institutions involuntarily and indirectly contributes to. The almost unquestionable right to bear arms which at one time, for the survival of the nation, was mandatory and understandable has long ago become superfluous, unnecessary and obviously dangerous.

Nevertheless, this type of internal friction does not constitute the kind of threat as would be expected from the two main totalitarian regimes Russia and China who have never experienced anything close to democracy in their entire history. Such monolithic regimes would never voluntarily dilute their absolutism under a single world government. The next impossibility to creating such are the Islamic nations who'd never agree to that kind of ecumenical centralization never having truly separated church from state.

I think it's safe to say most nations would at least be very reluctant to submit to a single government entity except their own and nearly impossible based on the types already mentioned.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
marigold_23
Posts: 40
Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by marigold_23 »

Tegularius wrote: April 28th, 2021, 8:20 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: April 27th, 2021, 9:37 am
Tegularius wrote: April 26th, 2021, 10:32 pm A world government [...] would also require a war of integration since there are many who will violently resist any such centralization. It's only human nature.
I do not see that war is inevitable, provided that we can disarm the Untied States of America (no typo) first. Otherwise, the Barbarian Bois would fulfill your prophecies, I fear.
I can't see it that way. What's happening in the U.S. is internal, more akin to episodic civil wars which its Constitution and Democratic institutions involuntarily and indirectly contributes to. The almost unquestionable right to bear arms which at one time, for the survival of the nation, was mandatory and understandable has long ago become superfluous, unnecessary and obviously dangerous.

Nevertheless, this type of internal friction does not constitute the kind of threat as would be expected from the two main totalitarian regimes Russia and China who have never experienced anything close to democracy in their entire history. Such monolithic regimes would never voluntarily dilute their absolutism under a single world government. The next impossibility to creating such are the Islamic nations who'd never agree to that kind of ecumenical centralization never having truly separated church from state.

I think it's safe to say most nations would at least be very reluctant to submit to a single government entity except their own and nearly impossible based on the types already mentioned.
Hey Tegularius,

Given that it's highly unlikely that members of different cultures and nations would desire to unify as a single society (despite it being in the best interests of human survival), might it not be the case that a world government built on a totalitarian communist model (such as the government of China or Russia) might not be a more likely candidate for such a government to begin with (in order to consolidate its authority and to manage resources) than the democratic, capitalist government of the United States?
Communism has a globalist, imperialist history like the United States... however, unlike us, they had an interest in uniting workers world wide into a kind of unified governmet of human society... the United States thrives from national division and national competition... even occasionally from war. Despite the obvious internal benefits of democracy (and even economic competition) to the internal progress of a nation it becomes an oppressive force to the world if it insists on national exclusion. The "freedom" boasted by the united states is not just freedom of the market and freedom of speech... it is freedom from the rest of human society... freedom from their worries, their cultures, their language, and their interests... (you can see how such freedom is socially unsustainable and ultimately selfish).
I would expect a totalitarian communist world society (with no outside competition) would evolve gradually into some sort of democratic socialism, perhaps even utilizing the competitive growth of capitalism over time... maybe a very long time... part of the reason for modern totalitarianism is national security from foreign intervention... frankly, the immediate demand for security would be even higher in a world state with a divided populace which is reluctant to unify... I think it may be unrealistic to expect that it could be anything other than totalitarian for the first few generations (and it would, I think, be more sustainable for it to be communist than, say, fascist)... but, as the demand for national security subsides and normalcy of culture develops... when the populace understands the workings and the purpose of society to human survival and forgets its formal loyalties to false national identities, then democratization and competitive creativity and demand can be utilized as forces for general relief of discontent without jeporodizing our security as a species...just a thought.
Tegularius
Posts: 502
Joined: February 6th, 2021, 5:27 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by Tegularius »

marigold_23 wrote: April 29th, 2021, 11:22 am

Given that it's highly unlikely that members of different cultures and nations would desire to unify as a single society (despite it being in the best interests of human survival), might it not be the case that a world government built on a totalitarian communist model (such as the government of China or Russia) might not be a more likely candidate for such a government to begin with (in order to consolidate its authority and to manage resources) than the democratic, capitalist government of the United States?
It can't be built on any current paradigm whether communist or capitalist as you call it. It can only be accomplished by a synthesis of separate powers which is never going to happen for that would dilute the powers of all totalitarian regimes. This isn't just theory. Consider what's happening in Russia and China with virtually all power invested in one person. This black hole type of centralization is a complete distortion of what a world government should be.

There's also another major reason why it will never happen which is barely considered but I'm not interested in writing long essays explaining my assumptions on it.
The earth has a skin and that skin has diseases; one of its diseases is called man ... Nietzsche
marigold_23
Posts: 40
Joined: April 22nd, 2021, 10:08 am

Re: Should humanity be unified under a single government?

Post by marigold_23 »

Tegularius wrote: April 30th, 2021, 4:52 pm
marigold_23 wrote: April 29th, 2021, 11:22 am

Given that it's highly unlikely that members of different cultures and nations would desire to unify as a single society (despite it being in the best interests of human survival), might it not be the case that a world government built on a totalitarian communist model (such as the government of China or Russia) might not be a more likely candidate for such a government to begin with (in order to consolidate its authority and to manage resources) than the democratic, capitalist government of the United States?
It can't be built on any current paradigm whether communist or capitalist as you call it. It can only be accomplished by a synthesis of separate powers which is never going to happen for that would dilute the powers of all totalitarian regimes. This isn't just theory. Consider what's happening in Russia and China with virtually all power invested in one person. This black hole type of centralization is a complete distortion of what a world government should be.

There's also another major reason why it will never happen which is barely considered but I'm not interested in writing long essays explaining my assumptions on it.
Yeah that's fine...but could you please write a long essay explaining your assumptions on it...double spaced, MLA format...on my desk tomorrow morning...thank you.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

Upcoming Philosphy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

Living in Color

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Previous Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021