The basic premise of this is to ask, do you think it is possible to have a united world.

I just finished rereading the Shadow series of Ender's game, which basically goes through the process of creating a world government - Hegemony. This world government, establishes nations as a governing body; such as the states within the States. All military assets are moved to the Hegemony, and is under their control.

The reason I ask this, is because I believe that is it impossible for the world to have peace without some dramatic changes. Everyone is different to everyone else, and to some people, that is enough for war. We fight wars for stupid reasons sometimes, based on race, nationality, birthplace, skin color...

The books establish the world government is formed, when nations themselves are scared of war, and want it all to end.

So, do you think it is possible for the world, at any point in time, to form a unified world government?

First off do we want one? Will a united world government improve humanity overall?
I can't imagine a world government being established anytime soon but how would it come about? Plus who would be accountable and make policy?

And many more questions...

While a united government does have it's appeal I would be apprehensive about having one. Unless everyone became part of the 'coca cola' society and we had no cultural differences such as language etc. Of course you could put areas under 'regions' however borders will still be disputed.

Maybe a better option would be like the UN that can actually hold nations accountable for their actions. Even then there is a sacrifice in the respect for sovereignty.

The establishment of a world government will be the end of life as we know it. Given that the world's population will be decreased to 50 million and all forms of freedom will die.. no, I dont want one, hope I die before it gets here.

(yes, I watch too much Alex Jones movies.)

One thing comes to mind when I think about a united world...

CODE GEASS

No I don't think it'll be possible because of current cultural differences like language and local customs. The only way I can conceive a united world is if a single country managed to conquer the entire world somehow like what Hitler tried to do. We are living in a world where everything is being broken up into manageable sections, and I think that would apply to managing countries as well. Plus, people who did not want to be united and had their countries taken away will rebel, it's called nationalism and we've seen it before several times in the past 100 years. This is why I detested Code Geass's ending.

I've heard a theory that the Bible is the most useful tool in uniting the world. And in my opinion the Bible consist of mostly nonsense. And any child that has been taught basic critical thinking skills can determine this. It will never unite the world, NEVER. All gods are imaginary. The only "purpose" people have is to live and procreate, and if cooperation enhances this, (which it seems to) then we will cooperate.

The world is slowly being united through exposure to knowledge. The first, most obvious sign, is that at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many countries that were not democracies. Today, almost all countries are, because people have been exposed to the knowledge of the inherent equality of all men and women - something the Bible DENIES! The Bible advocated slavery, despotism, and oppression - from the top, down! Once an individual understands they are as worthy as any other individual, they will refused to be oppressed, and we can plainly see this with the civil rights and feminism movements in our own country.

As more and more people are exposed to facts and knowledge, they will recognize their self-worth, and be capable of elevating their standard of living themselves, and the world will improve as a whole. This has already happened/is happening in China, India, and is starting to happen in other third world nations (Africa, South America.)

The internet, of course, will be the means by which this becomes possible, as it has already connected the world in ways that the Bible and religion could never hope to. History has proven that when a nation has unrestricted access to information, their standard of living improves, internal war, strife and poverty decrease, and they become a better neighbor to the rest of the world.

To the narrow minded Bible-thumpers who thumb down this answer, ask yourselves this... why is it that former third-world nations like China and India have eliminated wide-spread poverty, and are emerging as world leaders? Why is it that all our tech-support lines are handled by India? Why are so many medical students coming out of China and India? Why are all our consumer goods manufactured in China? These countries didn't improve themselves with the Bible or Jesus Christ, they did it by exposing their populations to EDUCATION.

Well, I feel that a united world is definitely feasible. The only question for me here is by what means? What would cause every nation, group and tribe to give up the rights they have had for a millennia? I would say either two things, education and communication or a global catastrophic event that would require uniting.

On a matter of religion as Izzy4 brings it up, is an issue. It is only by secular means (eg United Nations) can any world organization come about. Imagine an Islamic group trying to unite the world under Islam or vice versa with a Christian group. That, as history has shown can only lead to war, suffering, pain and death.

I feel that if such a world goverment was to be fourmed, it would resemble the UN today (minus the security council), just with more clout.

A united government, in my mind, would basically be an an additional government layer, as the next level up from national government.

The UN right now, is not very strong, and cannot accomplish much. The UN is an organization that really allows open lines of communication, and as a place to debate various issues. It is not a force that can greatly affect anything.

At Blackmoral...
How would it end the world life as we know it? How would it end freedom. I don't mean an oppressive government, or a country that takes over the world. I mean really, an actual world government, that is held accountable for it's actions. Representatives are still elected to that world government.

You would now have government layers and the municipal (city) level, the regional (state, province) level, the national level and at the world level.

If you try hard nearly everything is possible.

But I don't think it is possible at the moment.

1. Integration:
I think that is one of the major proplems. Without integation a state won't last.

The first thing you need to have in such a nation is that you don't feel like I'm amerikan but I'm from earth^^. You see thats the first problem. How can you fell yourself as human when there is no other "superior race". ( So if there where aliens.^^)
Aswell their should be only one language otherwise you have still feel different from others.

Politic:
In my view the political world would need a new footing. As well as the head of the whole thing would have far to much power. It wouldn't be controlable anymore. They wouldn't have any pressure.

I highly doubt it. Bigger the region, the harder it is to control. And there may be a lot of corrupted politicians who thinks it is okay to use the citizens any way they want. Having the entire world united is like forcing you to like someone. Which, everyone knows, that there are people that you just can't get along. So there will be a lot of revolting. Unless there's a total dramatic event that will change everyone's mind, a united world will never exist. Even if a united world did exist, the authority of the government won't be that strong and the peace won't last forever.

Impossible...unless there is a great war, the greatest of wars; before this is possible. Mankind has lived it's history with violence and there was really no other way than to start a fight in order to create unity or to solve a dispute between nations. All our great wars have been consequences of past wars (WWII was a consequence of WWI since Germany had to pay a high price for it's acts in WWI. Hitler used this to gain trust between it's people and gave the blame on the minority and other races for the hard recession in which Germany had submerged in. The Cold War was a consequence of WWII and the first gulf war was a consequence of what was done during WWII in the territory and of course, what motivates all wars, the search for more power. if I'm wrong about this, correct me).

A world of unity would implicate the following:
1. a world without religion or the acceptance of one only God with one only law: Between jews, ortodox christians, protestant christians, the catholic church and islam; a peace treaty can be made if the promise of non-religious diffusion outside their territory is respected but since this has been a 2000-year war, I'm afraid it's not religious anymore but political.

2. a world without territorial limitations: this would implicate that all nations are "weak" and have no more power over it's territories and that only one language, from the most powerful zone in the world, either north america or the european union would have control over all decisions, laws and territories in the whole world. No nation would accept such, specially those who are either in a civil war from years or who are currently under dictatorship or have an anti-occidental political majority, unless the world government accepts their political, non democratic ideology.

3. a total control over the whole earth's territory would imply the creation of regional government like states, all with the same world laws...the current countries would become states instead of countries itself but it is already difficult for an entity like the United Nations to bring unity today, it would take a century to create a perfect system to maintain peace between regions. Limitations in natural resources, food, oil and corruption are the main barriers which permit that war continues.

It took us 100 years to become what we are now but we learned all of this in the hard way (2 world wars and it's aftermath). Maybe the world will change in another 100 years or I'll take 1000 years, the same duration of the medieval years (from 400 to 1400 a.d) until a second Renascence begins.

Democracy is the ideal form of government, although it is often noted that a benevolent monarchy would perform the same functions with greater efficiency. The problem with "spreading democracy" is that we have just now begun to understand that not all peoples are sufficiently sophisticated to value the benefits more highly than they dislike the costs it necessarily extracts. For example, in a democracy, the majority rules. Some groups, then, those in the minority on a given issue, are going to be disappointed and thwarted in their goals-- at least in the short run. Enduring disappointment requires patience, maturity, and a pretty well-developed appreciation of the big picture. Democracy demands wisdom, shared values, and the capacity to accept personal disappointment in order to confer a larger benefit on society. Not all societies have developed to the point where it is possible to implement democracy in a responsible manner. In short, not everyone is ready. And, as the United States is still working out the kinks in its version of democracy, it is apparent that trial and error are necessary precursors to success in its implementation!

What could have persuaded you that an elected "oligarchy" would be a suitable or advisable form of government for the global world? An oligarchy is formed when power is shared by a small, elite group of entirely fallible human beings. The administration in office at the present time is an oligarchy! As the foregoing example implies, it seems a highly imperfect solution for world government.

A united world will be at Utopia's doorstep. You would need people to renounce their will to power and whatever comes with it, like prejudices and herding. After basically wiping out humanity, you could probably dismantle any form of authority, provided that the level of stupidity is kept low. If not, make some universal mish-mash or meritocracy and you should be war- and crime-proof.

If you want the easier way, get Russia and China to take control of the world and wait for socialism to refine itself. However, some idiots may need to become shark food. Use cautiously.

I'm not very sure socialism would work, at least today's socialism (see how things are in venezuela right now. The poor did get what they needed but their economy is going down quickly and violence has increased at considerable levels). Socialism will not "refine" itself until corruption will cease in existing, and that has the same probability of an united world or a world without wars.

i'm not against socialism in it's whole point but check out Bitcloud's post, seems an interesting point of view.

Socialism today? Nah, just totalitarian rules. Give some decades so capitalism completely depletes itself, maybe then the Third World War will start and after people will start realizing that it's wrong. And by refined socialism I meant communism in its true form, maybe some ideas changed here and there.

Democracy means nothing to me because it's the result of common sense, where common means the same general views of the majority. And that is getting out of control lately. There was a demonstration against RapeLay recently (wiki it) because it portrays what it does. Yes, I admit there are idiots (that should be shot) that don't get enough and go batshit insane. But what about the rest? Should people go to jail because they privately enjoy (using the word loosely) a hentai game that portrays rape, not doing anything to society or anyone else? If you want something less aggressive, there is a case against a public figure for bribery; the bribery meant that he would give a case filled with money to a football team if they were to win a match. Basically, the charges of bribery are more accurately intention of bribery. And when you start arresting people for intention, you can go and jail everyone for probability of murder.
That's the fail of democracy; it's starting to invade privacy. If one were to stop bigotry, I wouldn't have much else to say against it.

Izzy4

The world is slowly being united through exposure to knowledge. The first, most obvious sign, is that at the beginning of the 20th century, there were many countries that were not democracies. Today, almost all countries are, because people have been exposed to the knowledge of the inherent equality of all men and women - something the Bible DENIES! The Bible advocated slavery, despotism, and oppression - from the top, down! Once an individual understands they are as worthy as any other individual, they will refused to be oppressed, and we can plainly see this with the civil rights and feminism movements in our own country.

And yet another person with a very misconstrued, presupposed interpretation.

quote

In the image of God, he created him male and female he created them. Some ask, “Is God a man or a woman?” Jesus says in John that God is Spirit and as a Spirit Being God is not gendered, God is not male or female. And male and female are made equal in the image and likeness of God. There’s been a big debate between chauvinists and feminists as to who is better. And the truth is that men and women both are equal because men and women bare the image of God.
So for example, how do you explain this emotionally? Well, the way it should be explained emotionally is not that there are masculine and feminine emotions but that as men and women we express those emotions in masculine and feminine ways. Men and women both love. Men and women both get angry. Men and women both grieve. But by virtue of gender distinction men and women both may be different.

You have actually got it backwards where you think the inherent equality lies in humanity. Without the supernatural there is no "inherent equality", men and women are different simple as that. People have different opportunities and different attributes/attitudes, there is no real sense of what is equal. Different people are capable of different possibilities, Nietzsche would argue - humanity is all about will to power/live. At most, people should offer the opportunity to achieve for women because we (men) don't really know what they can achieve as stated from John Stuart Mill.

The bible does not deny equality but women are seen as the helper for men who needs the help. Even God comes to serve humanity and helps man.

And the bible does not advocate slavery. When you're talking you add a double meaning which is a flaw when you speak. Allowing does not necessarily mean advocate. And slavery was not considered bad because as a humble servant (of God) it should not matter. But some of the actions of the slave owner (master) can be wrong, i.e. Moses freeing the Israelites from the Pharaohs.

Christians are ultimately slaves (servants, if you want a nicer word) of God. Everyone is a slave to something, even enslaved by materials. (Just try to stop doing what you like to do from now on, a hobby if you will.)

Izzy4

As more and more people are exposed to facts and knowledge, they will recognize their self-worth, and be capable of elevating their standard of living themselves, and the world will improve as a whole. This has already happened/is happening in China, India, and is starting to happen in other third world nations (Africa, South America.)

The fact that China and India are growing is not because of any facts or knowledge. They just want power, they're adopting a concept of capitalism; the true purpose/motivator is greed. People don't gain a feeling of self-worth from more knowledge, it only comes from a selfish desire - just thinking that you are worthy (pride); it's as simple as that.

In India, there is an over population, caste discrimination, religious conflicts. These are just some of the factors that the nation has to face which is keeping them underdeveloped.

And much of the people are still deprived of basic needs, you're not taking into consideration the time and effort that is needed because China and India has the largest population. Also, the high classes have the first hand advantage of portraying their view in the media which turns them into media whores for the corrupt.

Izzy4

History has proven that when a nation has unrestricted access to information, their standard of living improves, internal war, strife and poverty decrease, and they become a better neighbor to the rest of the world.
To the narrow minded Bible-thumpers who thumb down this answer, ask yourselves this... why is it that former third-world nations like China and India have eliminated wide-spread poverty, and are emerging as world leaders? Why is it that all our tech-support lines are handled by India? Why are so many medical students coming out of China and India? Why are all our consumer goods manufactured in China? These countries didn't improve themselves with the Bible or Jesus Christ, they did it by exposing their populations to EDUCATION.

Nation has unrestricted information? (The news feeds you with full of biased opinions so do articles, if you've taken a real critical thinking class with a smart teacher he can show you many flaws in newspaper articles). Anyways, what does that have to do with their standard of living, poverty, etc.? Those will never be abolished by information but by opportunities which there are a lack of. China has eliminated wide-spread poverty? Are you serious? You know how bad some of the living conditions can be over there still? Even though they set up human rights and other laws to help that is nowhere near in helping the standard of living of those in poverty, they have the biggest population in the world... and India coming up 2nd... They are not even close to becoming a super power yet, they have yet to achieve the status of a industrialized society but are going through that process atm (the early stages).

Our techs and merchandise are made in second/third world countries because of cheaper labor expenses over there... simple as that.
It seems that you are not well informed of the world's conditions and you need to sharpen your critical thinking/analytical skills. Please don't assert the bible is wrong because of your presupposed "knowledge". And keep the hasty generalizations to a minimum.

Edit: The quick answer to the question for me is no, it can't be unified. People can agree to disagree. Humanity is mostly about me, myself, and I.