I know there is an overdose of naive, way too idealistic, delusional views on how the world should be swarming the internet. Might be I'm infected with that subjectivity shudder, but let it be said that I at least tried to assess the scenario objectively.

Do you think the world should be unified, meaning no countries, only one single democratic government?

I came up with the following merits:

-No more working against each other, but the whole world going the same direction. And that is necessary for some global issues. Take CO2 emission reduction for example. If some countries reduce others increase, where's the point?

-Some countries currently feel a need for foreign deployment of their armies for the sake of national security saying this or that country has WMDs or terrorists. This proves that national security already is a global matter.

-Global constitution. Same rights for everybody. Human rights for everybody.

-Fair distribution of the earth's natural resources and wealth.

-No borders. Freedom of movement worldwide.

Following things are blocking the way:

-Countries often also represent cultural domains. Different cultures with different mentalities require different treatment, not a global standard size. I can however see how through immigration, advanced forms of communication and travel, all cultures will disperse into each another creating a single global culture.

-Nationalistic pride / Need to compete with other countries.

-Greed. Some countries might be opposed to sharing their wealth and natural resources.

Even if the unification succeeds, the following risks remain:

-As mentioned above, cultural diversity might suffer, possibly making everything the same and boring.

-Too much power for a single government. No balance of power. Abuse of power likely.

-It could be argued that competition between countries provides motivation for progress, so unification would probably slow it down.

Despite all speculation nobody can tell with certainty what a unified world might bring. Very certain are however the limitations of a divided world. So I'd be happy if this could happen at least once in history. And I believe it will happen. But not through a forcefull revolution, as the pieces just dont fit together yet, but a crawling evolution that will take who knows how long. I figured it would be possible to at least estimate how far away we are from that day by checking the acceptance for the idea, which is why I ask you now.
So, post away!

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]

Quote from Dissidence

-Too much power for a single government. No balance of power. Abuse of power likely.

more like definitely. as the saying goes "absolute power corrupts absolutely"

| One Punch Man | Noblesse | Nanatsu no Taizai | Gun x Clover |

I'd say an improvement, but there could be some kind
of favouritism, which would lead to riots. Also, you cannot
control the whole planet with one positioning element.
It would mean that different people control different areas
and that alone means that the unification will come to an end.
First we'd need to modify the mind of every human on the planet.
They'd need to forget their ideologies and bow to the new one,
they'd need to forget their thirst for power and competition,
they'd need to forget their grudges towards other peoples.

It's a nice idea, but it's not a plausible one. It's just not feasible. There's too much wealth disparity, which is the main problem, but no country would ever give up its rights willingly. We have a hard enough time keeping the UN afloat. No one likes giving up power, so it'll never happen.

Instead look for more primarily economic unions like the EU (I know it's more than that, but the incentives are economic and that's what keeps it afloat) in the near future while the world sorts itself into lots of mini regional gangs like ASEAN. I think that's the closest that'll ever surface.

[img]http://i604.photobucket.com/albums/tt122/Wthuh/CrenshiSig.jpg[/img]
Reviews of my Work:
You are kind of boring - Blackorion
Congratulations! Ur an asshole! - tokyo_homi
**Your awesome!!! **- Cherelle_Ashley
NightSwan also said that she wanted to peg me, once, but I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or a threat...

Frankly, it's a terrible idea.

A nightmare to me.

I'd argue, but I'm not sure most people would be able handle the realities that had been hidden by the layers of political correctness we'd have to peel away in the discussion.

Wealth is only a part of it. There are cultural, linguistic, racial, economic, political/ideological, religious barriers. And those are just the ones that immediately came to my sleep-deprived mind.

I voted utopia in the meaning of something good as an idea but impossible to be realized (with the contemporary people's attitude of mind like greedy and hunger for power).

[img]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6674/naturebyabhishekultimat.jpg[/img]

Ruler of the Yaoi world

Quote from veve

I voted utopia in the meaning of something good as an idea but impossible to be realized (with the contemporary people's attitude of mind like greedy and hunger for power).

Rather than just greed and hunger for power, how about competence and justice?

Suppose one group of people uses up resources faster than others, screws up their land, and go to another area to mess that place up too. There is complete freedom of movement as per OP's specs. This group of people also happens to be more violent, perhaps, and makes the natives move elsewhere. This special group then proceeds to ruin that land, and reproduce faster.

Assuming that the "human rights" includes the right to reproduce, what measures are there to stop this? What happens when "fair distribution" is insufficient because that special group consumes more than others, and keeps moving around to consume more?

This might have nothing to do with greed or power.

Not all people are the same. Some groups/cultures are naturally more competent and productive than others. Some are naturally more violent than others. Some are more tolerant. Some learn faster at certain subjects... and so on.

There is no justice if some groups have to suffer more than others simply because of a falsely egalitarian world order.

Quote from N0x_

Frankly, it's a terrible idea.

A nightmare to me.

I'd argue, but I'm not sure most people would be able handle the realities that had been hidden by the layers of political correctness we'd have to peel away in the discussion.

Wealth is only a part of it. There are cultural, linguistic, racial, economic, political/ideological, religious barriers. And those are just the ones that immediately came to my sleep-deprived mind.

If world unification is judged by today's standards it really is impossible.
However it will be in the far future and the changes that will happen till then bring the possibility.
All the current differences between the world's nations were created by millenia of isolation from each other. In today's globalized world with its advanced means of communication (like this internet here) and travel the degree of isolation has shrunken and with further technological progress will shrink further. The modern world is a village. Now that the cause for differences has gone, it is to be expected that the differences themselves disappear over time.
Well, black people won't become white or vice versa, but racism is on the decline, and that suffices already.
Cultural equality will come, too. The world's cultures are dispersing into each other. This community is living proof as by reading manga we are adapting part of japanese culture. There are muslims in Iran who celebrate christmas. Christianity and Islam are nowhere as incompatible as cases of islamistic terrorism make it seem.
English is already doing a fine job as a global language. And even if it wasn't, well functioning countries with multiple official languages like switzerland are not unheard of.

Quote from N0x_

Quote from veve

I voted utopia in the meaning of something good as an idea but impossible to be realized (with the contemporary people's attitude of mind like greedy and hunger for power).

Rather than just greed and hunger for power, how about competence and justice?

Suppose one group of people uses up resources faster than others, screws up their land, and go to another area to mess that place up too. There is complete freedom of movement as per OP's specs. This group of people also happens to be more violent, perhaps, and makes the natives move elsewhere. This special group then proceeds to ruin that land, and reproduce faster.

Assuming that the "human rights" includes the right to reproduce, what measures are there to stop this? What happens when "fair distribution" is insufficient because that special group consumes more than others, and keeps moving around to consume more?

This might have nothing to do with greed or power.

Not all people are the same. Some groups/cultures are naturally more competent and productive than others. Some are naturally more violent than others. Some are more tolerant. Some learn faster at certain subjects... and so on.

There is no justice if some groups have to suffer more than others simply because of a falsely egalitarian world order.

By the time the world is unified it will be completely switched to renewable resources (since the limited ones reached their limit) who cannot be used up since they regrow and the sun shines everywhere, so there won't be a group that has to move and loot other's resources because they used their own up.
I don't even think there will be a group that is especially more violent than the others because based on my earlier argumentation I think that everybody will be pretty much likeminded and wouldn't consider raiding their fellow earth-inhabitants.
Also fair distribution doesn't mean the remaining limited resources are simply free for the taking, but really distributed, saying everybody has the right to purchase a certain amount which is decided by the rarity of the resource.

[img]http://www.enjoytherandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/6a00d8341c858253ef010536a9f362970c-640wi.gif[/img]

my hope is for a world proletarian revolution that will eventually lead to stateless communism

but thats just me ...and hopefully millions and millions[billions?] of workers across the globe

interesting question or poll in the future would be to find out how the baka-updates visitor see themselfes...how big a portion it is that spring from the captialist ranks

Oh, it's an inevitability. When the next nuclear bomb or untreatable retrovirus goes off and most of us on Earth are wiped out, there'll be so few of us that 'unification' will be an inevitability. Like, there won't be enough people left to form their own countries.

But then, of course, the population will grow again and new boundaries will be laid. The world moves in cycles. Quite pointless, really - as soon as any group grows large enough, there are outcasts and separatists and stupidly pig-headed majorities. It's normal. Divisions occur as a matter of course - all the way from cellular mitosis to cultural stratification. Human beings may say they want unity, but their egos and their prejudices will never allow them anything like a utopian unity. When it does occur, it'll be for all the wrong reasons - and then, for all the wrong reasons, it'll be rescinded once again.

So I guess my reaction would go under the "meh, whatever" category. I mean, I definitely think unification will happen, but it's not like I give a damn.

World unification as of now would be a nightmare. But in 200-400 years, why not?

Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.

nightmare. it´s impossible for the world to become united. to many things happened in the past and to many things are happening now. there is to much difference between all nations.
we would have to agree to one language, and there are many people who woouldn´t want to abond their own language.
and wouldn´t it be boring? aren´t the differences between the nations the reason why it´s tempting to travel there? would you go to thailand or whatever if you knew that it would be exactly as your hometown? i wouldn´t.
world peace is a different topic. if there are still different countries, but no war it would be great.

[img]http://img3.lln.crunchyroll.com/i/spire1/d3534fdb6e3e9a20689515e4361f69ea1312335455_full.jpg[/img]
currently reading: Nyotai-ka
please support me

I voted Nightmare

Really, it depends under whose terms the world is united. There is also the matter of human nature along with the fact there are many systems out there which are unacceptable for any human being to be subjugated under.

At this time, it is not possible for there to be world unity (unless the only thing uniting the world is hatred towards a common enemy), this world is more or less built upon there being distinctions and division rather than humanity merging under one banner speaking Esperanto.

What I do think might be workable is the formation of unions, based upon cultural lines or "spheres" such as for example Sinosphere, Indosphere, Anglosphere, The West, etc instead of world regional blocs though that brings up the following issues:

•The dominance of big nations within a cultural sphere towards smaller nations (e.g. China).
•If the Cultural Spheres idea were to somehow takeoff, where would that leave unaffiliated nations who do not fall under any particular cultural sphere?
•The notion of Cultural Spheres would give legitimacy to certain expansionist cultures / systems / ideologies.

Well, the weather's looking bad. It's bad here, bad there - bad everywhere. Nasty alien creatures raining down from the skies, devouring all life on this planet. And what does that mean to you, you ask? It means you're mine. You're all mine! - Prince (aka Death) from Lexx

Quote from N0x_

Quote from veve

I voted utopia in the meaning of something good as an idea but impossible to be realized (with the contemporary people's attitude of mind like greedy and hunger for power).

Rather than just greed and hunger for power, how about competence and justice?

Suppose one group of people uses up resources faster than others, screws up their land, and go to another area to mess that place up too. There is complete freedom of movement as per OP's specs. This group of people also happens to be more violent, perhaps, and makes the natives move elsewhere. This special group then proceeds to ruin that land, and reproduce faster.

Assuming that the "human rights" includes the right to reproduce, what measures are there to stop this? What happens when "fair distribution" is insufficient because that special group consumes more than others, and keeps moving around to consume more?

This might have nothing to do with greed or power.

Not all people are the same. Some groups/cultures are naturally more competent and productive than others. Some are naturally more violent than others. Some are more tolerant. Some learn faster at certain subjects... and so on.

There is no justice if some groups have to suffer more than others simply because of a falsely egalitarian world order.

I meant ppl now don't care abt the others and that is why it is impossible this to happen. Ppl have to accept other's differences to become united. The contemporary ppl don't do that. 🙁

[img]http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/6674/naturebyabhishekultimat.jpg[/img]

Ruler of the Yaoi world

I don't think it's feasible, and a worldwide democracy would have too many issues too.

This week's favorites:

• Golden Kamui

ççççççç[Ô.Ô] tsutopodus© will eat your manga and steal your cats!