Quote from Juuza

I voted Nightmare

Hehe. I knew I could count on you based on your comment in the "Do you love your country?" thread.

Quote from Dissidence

If world unification is judged by today's standards it really is impossible.
...
... 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.

Hey, thanks for actually responding. I appreciate the feedback to my thoughts.

I think it's a fair assumption that most of us should be answering this question from the perspective of the humans we are today.

If you are going to add that this utopia would take place in the distant future and that by then people would have evolved in such a way that individuality was lost in the collective... then I would say that we stopped being the humans we are today.

Sure, those "evolved" humans may enjoy their utopia, but I would hate it.

Thomas More's "Utopia" (origin of the term "utopia") is boring and inhuman to me. Families and neighbours can be torn apart by the whims of a council in Amaurot for the "greater good" of society. For instance, when population redistribution needs to occur. People are expected to accept these sorts of decisions because they've lost basic feelings that one would think is inherent to humans.

So what if a natural disaster occurs and population redistribution needs to occur on a wide scale? It can't happen naturally, but needs to be controlled by the World State? If every citizen just accepts that passively, then those citizens have stopped being human long ago (the humans we are today)..

I am answer this question from the perspective of a modern human, not a future evolved human, and I don't like that sort of future.

World hive mind all is one, one is all

all criminals would murder, plunder and then escape to region where lie sentence is banned

best shonen manga couples :

shinichi X ran
natsu X erza
ippo X kumi
naruto X gaara

Quote from N0x_

Quote from Dissidence

If world unification is judged by today's standards it really is impossible.
...
... 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.

Hey, thanks for actually responding. I appreciate the feedback to my thoughts.

I think it's a fair assumption that most of us should be answering this question from the perspective of the humans we are today.

If you are going to add that this utopia would take place in the distant future and that by then people would have evolved in such a way that individuality was lost in the collective... then I would say that we stopped being the humans we are today.

Sure, those "evolved" humans may enjoy their utopia, but I would hate it.

Thomas More's "Utopia" (origin of the term "utopia") is boring and inhuman to me. Families and neighbours can be torn apart by the whims of a council in Amaurot for the "greater good" of society. For instance, when population redistribution needs to occur. People are expected to accept these sorts of decisions because they've lost basic feelings that one would think is inherent to humans.

So what if a natural disaster occurs and population redistribution needs to occur on a wide scale? It can't happen naturally, but needs to be controlled by the World State? If every citizen just accepts that passively, then those citizens have stopped being human long ago (the humans we are today)..

I am answer this question from the perspective of a modern human, not a future evolved human, and I don't like that sort of future.

I didn't mean to imply that individuality of personality gets lost on the way to a unified world. Merely the cultural differences will vanish, like everybody grew up in the same village that is the modern globalized world. This unity of culture will cause a sense of solidarity to kick in which in turn makes for smoother coexsistence. No collective necessary, neither does it appeal to me.

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

never gonna happen. unless world wide mind control and/or hive mind on human is achievable. and when that happen we are all be slaves whether we know it or not.... what we have now is much more wonderful.
and why does it have to be 'democratic government'

I don't think it'll ever happen (until mind control, a global language, etc gets invented)
And frankly, I think it would be a nightmare.

I doubt it would stop pretty much any of the problems happening in the world right now (humans will be humans, and individuals have their own will after all) and it sounds too...hmm...how to say it... too much like a scenario with people being like slaves and lacking individuality (like the scenario seen in a lot of books).

But who knows, maybe in the future humans will all be similar and so close to perfect that pretty much every problem will disappear and everyone will have high-tech translator machines, etc. and everyone will decide they want a global government.

[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/21.jpg[/img]

nah thats not going to happen to many countries wouldnt want it, North Korea, China, and probably all of the middle east. Europe has something like that with the EU they got a president, but the EU is mostly economical things. your idea is a utopia and utopias dont work the in real world

"when i'm sad, i stop being sad and be awesome instead."

• Barney Stinson

Quote from pumpupthevolume

nah thats not going to happen to many countries wouldnt want it, North Korea, China, and probably all of the middle east. Europe has something like that with the EU they got a president, but the EU is mostly economical things. your idea is a utopia and utopias dont work the in real world

Forget North Korea, China, and the Middle East...

Very few here in the US would like it. We're pretty greedy and like our advantages. We like the US Dollar hegemony along with the Federal Reserve paying off our debts. We're throwing conniptions right now about the rising cost of Oil even though we pay less than most of the world for it due to dollar hegemony.

And many in China and middle east would like it. It depends on whom you talk to. Nationalists or internationalists.

Internationalist communists are trotskyists (probably a utopian World State's main source of political support). Internationalist capitalists are neoliberals... but this "fair distribution of resources" might not go well with neoliberals.

Some in middle east might like it... Nationalist Muslims are Islamists, Internationalist Muslims are Jihadists. If the new world order used Shariah Law, the Jihadists might like that.

Quote from mu2020

never gonna happen. unless world wide mind control and/or hive mind on human is achievable. and when that happen we are all be slaves whether we know it or not.... what we have now is much more wonderful.
and why does it have to be 'democratic government'

It needs to be a democracy to get all the different ideologies into the same boat.
If there was a dictatorship dedictated to only one ideology, naturally all members of differnet ideologies would be opposed to the whole idea as there would be no way for their ideologies to be fulfilled. In a democracy however every ideology has a chance at providing the ruling party, which is why it is the likeliest to appeal to all. Completely without mind control.

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

Quote from Dissidence

Quote from mu2020

never gonna happen. unless world wide mind control and/or hive mind on human is achievable. and when that happen we are all be slaves whether we know it or not.... what we have now is much more wonderful.
and why does it have to be 'democratic government'

It needs to be a democracy to get all the different ideologies into the same boat.
If there was a dictatorship dedictated to only one ideology, naturally all members of differnet ideologies would be opposed to the whole idea as there would be no way for their ideologies to be fulfilled. In a democracy however every ideology has a chance at providing the ruling party, which is why it is the likeliest to appeal to all. Completely without mind control.

I don't believe that for one bit.

It would have to be a very specially designed democracy for that to work. Lots of corruption and gerrymandering would be needed often for every group to have a chance.

Democracy means that the majority rule. How would a minority ideology have a chance? Taking a more negative example, suppose a minority ideology was fascistic/ultranationalistic, and demanded that a certain minority rule over the rest until the next mass election?

EDIT: Note that I respect the sentiment. Egalitarianism is nice to think about, even though equality is not always justice.

Quote from N0x_

Quote from pumpupthevolume

nah thats not going to happen to many countries wouldnt want it, North Korea, China, and probably all of the middle east. Europe has something like that with the EU they got a president, but the EU is mostly economical things. your idea is a utopia and utopias dont work the in real world

Forget North Korea, China, and the Middle East...

Very few here in the US would like it. We're pretty greedy and like our advantages. We like the US Dollar hegemony along with the Federal Reserve paying off our debts. We're throwing conniptions right now about the rising cost of Oil even though we pay less than most of the world for it due to dollar hegemony.

And many in China and middle east would like it. It depends on whom you talk to. Nationalists or internationalists.

Internationalist communists are trotskyists (probably a utopian World State's main source of political support). Internationalist capitalists are neoliberals... but this "fair distribution of resources" might not go well with neoliberals.

Some in middle east might like it... Nationalist Muslims are Islamists, Internationalist Muslims are Jihadists. If the new world order used Shariah Law, the Jihadists might like that.

in the middle east the only countries that i can think of that might like it would be UAE, and maybe Jordan, and China...mm idk only because alot of asian countries have this thing of feeling superior to everyone else (especially to other asians), except for maybe South Korea, and Hong Kong from what i know and what people tell me South Koreans and people that live in Hong Kong are pretty nice people, and i agree with you with the U.S. to many selfish people in the U.S. lol

edit and the post you did about how democracy would work (the one right above me) i was thinking about that to when i first read this thread lol.....honestly democracy wont work in that big of a scale

"when i'm sad, i stop being sad and be awesome instead."

• Barney Stinson

Quote from pumpupthevolume

in the middle east the only countries that i can think of that might like it would be UAE, and maybe Jordan, and China...mm idk only because alot of asian countries have this thing of feeling superior to everyone else (especially to other asians), except for maybe South Korea, and Hong Kong from what i know and what people tell me South Koreans and people that live in Hong Kong are pretty nice people, and i agree with you with the U.S. to many selfish people in the U.S. lol

LOOOOL... OK, No offense to any people living in South Korea or Hong Kong here...

but those "people" who told you about South Koreans and Hong Kongers are giving you a very biased perspective. You talk to certain others, and you'll get a completely different perspective.

While the Hong Kong people I've met have been fine (average, really)... Many, many people have told me that people in Hong Kong are very arrogant and condescending. They might have been polite to you because you are white, wealthy, or attractive? I don't know your exact situation, but I'm pretty sure their politeness to me had a lot to do with my position.

It's similar with South Korea. There are many nice South Koreans, but the South Koreans I know, even the nice ones, are some of the PROUDEST Asians I know. Not that being proud is a bad thing, but from what they tell me, other South Koreans are way worse, and often outright condescending even to other ethnic Koreans. There's been a lot of conflict I've heard between Korean Chinese (ethnic Korean, Chinese nationality), who were studying in South Korea at the time, and South Korean nationals. The SK citizens really looked down on those Korean Chinese. The Korean Chinese brought their annoyances and bad experiences back to the Chinese mainland. This led to a lot of online conflict before the Beijing Olympics.

Note, I'm not saying all Hong Kong and South Koreans are like that, but honestly, you can't just generalize Asians like that and say they feel superior to other Asians... and then make an exception of some of the proudest Asians around. lol. That is just ridiculous.

Quote from pumpupthevolume

in the middle east the only countries that i can think of that might like it would be UAE, and maybe Jordan, and China...mm idk only because alot of asian countries have this thing of feeling superior to everyone else (especially to other asians), except for maybe South Korea, and Hong Kong from what i know and what people tell me South Koreans and people that live in Hong Kong are pretty nice people, and i agree with you with the U.S. to many selfish people in the U.S. lol

I do think China is actually more susceptible to a world state than most other countries.

Forget the stereotype that China is xenophobic and homogenous like Japan and South Korea. It is not. That is a huge misconception.

Han Chinese like myself are mongrels. Our blood is highly mixed. One Han Chinese could vary wildly in genetics from another Han Chinese.

"Chinese" have historically been very passive and forgiving. Compare Chinese ethnicities with European. European countries are still distinct. The ethnic groups are still distinct.

Chinese just mixed and matched without concern for regional and dialectic differences. Chinese had been invaded by foreigners numerous times and absorbed the invaders each time. The most notable examples are the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty.

Chinese are traditionally too passive, so the greatest periods of Chinese expansion have been pushed by "foreign invaders" who conquered China, subjugated the masses, pushed onwards, and eventually assimilated with the others. Then even after extremely brutal regimes by these invaders, the Mongols and the Manchu integrated with the people they conquered and were absorbed willingly into the superculture.

Can you imagine if Europeans behaved the same way? Europe had numerous chances to become a single country (Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Napoleonic Empire, Nazi Empire, etc).

The mere fact that "Han" (mongrel) Chinese are the supermajority shows that, culturally/historically, Chinese are pretty easy to integrate with, and would probably fit well into a world state design.

Quote from N0x_

Quote from Dissidence

Quote from mu2020

never gonna happen. unless world wide mind control and/or hive mind on human is achievable. and when that happen we are all be slaves whether we know it or not.... what we have now is much more wonderful.
and why does it have to be 'democratic government'

It needs to be a democracy to get all the different ideologies into the same boat.
If there was a dictatorship dedictated to only one ideology, naturally all members of differnet ideologies would be opposed to the whole idea as there would be no way for their ideologies to be fulfilled. In a democracy however every ideology has a chance at providing the ruling party, which is why it is the likeliest to appeal to all. Completely without mind control.

I don't believe that for one bit.

It would have to be a very specially designed democracy for that to work. Lots of corruption and gerrymandering would be needed often for every group to have a chance.

Democracy means that the majority rule. How would a minority ideology have a chance? Taking a more negative example, suppose a minority ideology was fascistic/ultranationalistic, and demanded that a certain minority rule over the rest until the next mass election?

EDIT: Note that I respect the sentiment. Egalitarianism is nice to think about, even though equality is not always justice.

Well, every party has the chance to convince the world of their ideology. If a minority's ideology fails to provide solutions to the world's problems and thus does not convince the people, the members of that minority got themselves to blame for not working out a better one. Even then they need not whine since they can still be part of a coalition.

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

I'd like to see language and economic barriers fall, but I'm too unimpressed with the modern social and political scene to warm up to the idea of trying to unify the world in that sense. Until we can all agree that a given system is the best, why force it on everyone? With that said, in the right time and place, I'd consider world unification a great thing... just not right now.

Quote from N0x_

Quote from pumpupthevolume

in the middle east the only countries that i can think of that might like it would be UAE, and maybe Jordan, and China...mm idk only because alot of asian countries have this thing of feeling superior to everyone else (especially to other asians), except for maybe South Korea, and Hong Kong from what i know and what people tell me South Koreans and people that live in Hong Kong are pretty nice people, and i agree with you with the U.S. to many selfish people in the U.S. lol

I do think China is actually more susceptible to a world state than most other countries.

Forget the stereotype that China is xenophobic and homogenous like Japan and South Korea. It is not. That is a huge misconception.

Han Chinese like myself are mongrels. Our blood is highly mixed. One Han Chinese could vary wildly in genetics from another Han Chinese.

"Chinese" have historically been very passive and forgiving. Compare Chinese ethnicities with European. European countries are still distinct. The ethnic groups are still distinct.

Chinese just mixed and matched without concern for regional and dialectic differences. Chinese had been invaded by foreigners numerous times and absorbed the invaders each time. The most notable examples are the Yuan Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty.

Chinese are traditionally too passive, so the greatest periods of Chinese expansion have been pushed by "foreign invaders" who conquered China, subjugated the masses, pushed onwards, and eventually assimilated with the others. Then even after extremely brutal regimes by these invaders, the Mongols and the Manchu integrated with the people they conquered and were absorbed willingly into the superculture.

Can you imagine if Europeans behaved the same way? Europe had numerous chances to become a single country (Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Napoleonic Empire, Nazi Empire, etc).

The mere fact that "Han" (mongrel) Chinese are the supermajority shows that, culturally/historically, Chinese are pretty easy to integrate with, and would probably fit well into a world state design.

yeah i really should of reworded what i said about hong kong and south korea more realistically, i made it sound like they were perfect or something lol 🤣

and idk China, maybe the people would be okay with it but would the government be okay with it?? i mean they censor things from the outside world...

"when i'm sad, i stop being sad and be awesome instead."

• Barney Stinson