Would a One World Government really help us as a species?

Unity is the trait that humanity has lacked since we first appeared on Earth. Conversely, discrimination has been an ever constant force that seams to be one of the most apparent foundational attributes that we carry as a species. "The color of your skin is different from mine, you must be a lesser being" a consistent view throughout all of Human history. "The shape of your nose, and your other features are different than mine, you must be a lesser being". "You live in a manner that I deem to be a savage way of living, you must be a lesser being". "You are far less wealthy than I am, you must be a lesser being". So on and so forth. No matter where or when you look through Humanity's timeline, these arrogant, narcissistic, intolerant views, held by a general populous flood our minds and the successive actions we take to rid those "lesser beings" from our pompous sight.

From a biological perspective, any human varies from another in such a miniscule way that there is no taxonomical difference from yourself and any other human on earth. In fact, some geneticists have found evidence that suggests that we can be no further related to anyone else than a 50th cousin. Despite where we all come from, how we were raised, what religion (or lack there of) we choose to follow, and what government that controls our nations, we are virtually identical.

For some reason, however, we (generally) act as if any of those factors indicate a different race or species all together. We divide ourselves, we war with the people of opposing views, we destroy everything around us, and the ever increasing tension, whilst also losing resources means we may collapse as a species quite soon. It seems evident that Unity is the only concept that could really save humanity as a whole.

So what should we do to - at the very least - weaken these traits that seem intrinsic to Humans?

We see a lot of threads on the New World Order, or One World Governments here on ATS, and I'd like to discuss the plausibility of actually having one. These of course would be quite speculative responses; considering we don't know exactly how a One World Government would behave and rule. Nevertheless, I'd like to see your hypothesis on two accounts.

1) In a perfect scenario, what would you consider a One World Government to need and do in order to successfully unify Humans at a global scale? What events would you think would need to occur in order to establish this One World Government?

2) Outside of the realm of perfection (being your views in the first account), what do you think will really happen if a One World Government would attempt to enact itself? And, how would you hypothesis they would really act once established?


My views:

1) The only way I can see a One World Government formulating would be through consecutive agreements throughout the current world powers of today. We would need to abolish current and historical National Ally agreements and instead work together to progress the Human Species as a whole. A new form of government would need to be created, as our current systems are immensely flawed in every aspect. Unfortunately, many nations will not agree to this global concept, and there will likely be several wars, both on a national and civil scale.

Human rights would ultimately be changed, and at a species perspective that is a good thing. There is no single concept that everyone will agree with. Our biological individuality is just that, singular to the individual. It is inevitable that we all will not agree on one specific concept. Thus we cannot think within the view of individuals, but instead as a whole. Population concerns come to mind in relevance to human rights.

The establishment of a One World Government can be a good thing, if run properly. But the initial start up of one I can only see being immensely terrible.

2) It appears that unless there is a massive uprising at a near global scale, Capitalism and the divide between the mega rich and the very poor will always exist. This Division has also been an intrinsic property to humans ever since we allowed one person to rule over the masses (kings, prophets, specific leaders). These people generally feel entitled and seek to further divide themselves from the "commoners". In realistic terms, I can only see a One World Government continuing this pattern. A select few that reside within the 1% (or an even smaller percentile) will remain there, and the only difference is that they will truly run the entire world verses mere continents.

The concept that they would be unifying the world would simply be a mask. Instead it would be a means to global domination, rather than unifying the species.

a reply to: Ghost147

i dont think a one world government would change a thing.

i think a one world religion, meaning no religion or secular humanism would benefit all.
shy of that i think we are screwed.

i know a lot of people will not agree with me but i think religion is the single biggest thing that causes a divide between people.

a reply to: Ghost147
A one world government will never work if it is run by our lying politicians , Just look at Brussels they can't even balance their own books .

a reply to: Mugly

I do agree in the sense that religion plays a massive role in division, but if that is gone, we still have borders and racial views

All governments in history have failed.

Why would any "new" system work?

Probably impossible.

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Mugly

I do agree in the sense that religion plays a massive role in division, but if that is gone, we still have borders and racial views

youre right.
it is not gone though.

i thought about your one world government with religion in place and i dont think it would make a difference because of the division religion causes.

now if religion was gone somehow magically out of the picture??

i really dont know. i need to think about it a bit before i can form an opinion.
i will get back to you

The only way humans would unite is to face an external threat.

If you want to control them all the easiest way would be to make 2 artificial groups in conflict, lets say NATO vs USSR, while the two exist and are perceived as a threat to the other each group is stable and their inhabitants works towards the common goal of defeating the enemy, if one collapse the other splits in democrats and republicans and start to disintegrate.

That's how i see it.

a reply to: Ghost147

I get what you're saying, but you have to remember one thing that you said there without actually saying it: We perceive our internal differences externally...........via our vision. A governing body can only change that if it is scientific/medical in nature, but you might want to get the word "Government" out of the conversation if you want it to get anywhere.

A Burgeoning One World Overseeing Boby (BOWOB) would have to modify people everywhere, possibly genetically, to where we don't have those contradicting perceptions anymore. They would then have to keep monitoring everyone and everything to make sure that modification is not compromised through the generations.

In the meantime, business leaders (which should be the first ones modified) would need to keep the financial aspect of the world on track and on the same train. Again, keep "Government" out of it and if you want religion to stick around then they would have to play second fiddle to the BOWOB.

What we're talking bout here is a VASTLY different world than the one we're stumbling through right now. I believe it would take something radical and life-changing that would drastically reduce the population in order for people to actually want this. Or need this.


Yeah, I've spent some down time thinking about this.

a reply to: Ghost147
1)
Religion needs to be separated from politics and law

2)
Establish a neutral moderator and a fair "judge" that all gov agree on

3)
select political leadership that has to be fully transperent

4)
ethical behaviors is becoming a must for most organizations

a quick eg
olymipic committee everybody is now in court for bribery
Nike factory in Vietnam was busted by 3students
free trade coffee certification

MOST EFFECTIVE would be rewarding moral behaviour

these days a multicultural organization is actually viewed as the way to go


but any of it being a reality one day is lol

a reply to: Mugly

I know without my faith, I'd be screwed.

It really gets down to questions of ethics and morals. Are mine the same as yours. If they're not ... odds are, the system's not going to be tolerable.

The issues of appearance are obstacles the human race has struggled with for millennia. You think a government you can't trust has the ability to make something like that simply go away?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Mugly

I know without my faith, I'd be screwed.

i am glad it works for you

i dont know why a person would be screwed without faith but it dont matter.

originally posted by: Snarl
It really gets down to questions of ethics and morals. Are mine the same as yours. If they're not ... odds are, the system's not going to be tolerable.

The issues of appearance are obstacles the human race has struggled with for millennia. You think a government you can't trust has the ability to make something like that simply go away?

youre right. ethics and morals

what do a lot of people base theirs on?

a reply to: Ghost147
If humans have not been able to get together and agree on important things and stick to it in all these years.A one world government will not do it for us. There would be total mayhem in most countries. Let me give a scenario:

The UN says that Americans need to get rid of the guns. ALL guns. Guess what you will be hearing now,HOW DARE THEY TELL US WHAT TO DO IN OUR COUNTRY! Am I right or wrong? Now name me a country that if the UN or any other body of government not their own,comes in the tells them to get rid of something they hold dear about their country,do you really think they would have any other reaction but the same as us?

No one is going to listen to a single governing body in this world. Look at the muslims,they believe they are ONLY answerable to their God. Therefore you would have to wipe them out and any one else that balked about whatever rules got laid down.Which would be about 80% of the human population. Guess the Georgia guidestones were right then,500,000 coming up.

There have been government systems that have tried the "no faith" approach and the no faith but ours. It always ends badly with a lot of people dying.

A person's faith is as much a part of them as their arm or leg, more so. For the truly faithful, you might as well tell them not to live, and that's basically where it always ends up. And when the government starts mass-murdering people whose only crime is professing to follow a faith the government does not allow, it makes other people not happy with that government in almost every case.

So I guess you'd have to ask yourself if you'd be cool with a government that would go door to door and more or less march people off to mass murder houses if they refuses to renounce any faith at all because that is where it would end up, and billions would die, man, woman and child, all over the world for it.

Oh, and then you have to consider that the same government that just did that to all those other people is the government you have running your life. What happens when something you hold very dear suddenly becomes illegal on pain of death? Will anyone stand for you?

a reply to: ketsuko

the no faith approach needs to be tried before faith even exists and that is not possible.

once faith entered the picture it was already too late.

maybe if there is a mass human extinction and 10 million years from now humans 2.0 rise up, they will do so with no faith and they will have a better time.

too bad we cant jump in our time machine and travel back in time and wipe out the creator of this concept of faith before he conceived of it.

you know, it can be like the terminator going back in time to kill sarah connor dyson....only not a terminator and not sarah connor...just the dude sitting at his camp fire dreaming up a way to cope with the fact that his life mate just got eaten by a buffalo or something

youre looking at it from the standpoint of there is faith now but lets be rid of it.
im looking at it from the standpoint of -- if there never was faith or religion, we might actually have a chance

not its here lets get rid of it
but
too bad its here
wouldnt it be nice if it never was

a reply to: Mugly

To live a life without faith in something, even in yourself, would be a life unfulfilled.

a reply to: Mugly

Hate to break it to you, but I don't think faith is something you can chalk up to just one person like you maybe could the wheel.

I think it's an intrinsic quality like creativity.

a reply to: Snarl

what I find funny is that so far I did not see a thread where any of the participants agree
and they are from the same country

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Mugly

Hate to break it to you, but I don't think faith is something you can chalk up to just one person like you maybe could the wheel.

I think it's an intrinsic quality like creativity.

you might be right.
it is not something we will ever know though.

thats how i chalk it up though.


ultralight, i am talking about faith in religion. nothing else