A new nation emerging

www. = the eve 

Becoming a global nation is simply not possible. Consider how selfish humans can get. Even if world leaders agree on one thing, its people may not. As communities get bigger and bigger, personality and character is lost in the crowd. It becomes harder and harder to achieve a desired morality. Instead, this thing called a society is birthed which can only operate with the big people on top, and the little people below.

This idea is far-fetch'd, but such a peaceful unselfish environment does exist.
Maybe more exist, but one i know of is a kibbutz community in Israel. It is close to harbouring a communist idealogy. Like a global nation, it is an idea. People cannot survive in large numbers.

The kibbutz is a rural kind of lifestyle, where everyone does their part. Money is not a problem. Yes, wealth is shared. Basically everything there is free, but everyone STILL does their part. It is a very close community and the life they live is not exactly that of a slum. Hearing about it would raise your eyebrow in slight doubt due to how "utopian" it sounds.  Members of this kibbutz committee are not made up farmers. Aircraft pilots are some of them.

Just imagine if such a lifestyle would become the backbone of a whole nation. Wonderful? If crime still exists in the smallest nation, what makes you think everyone will play by the rules. Its just like a family. A family is one of the most selfless entities that exist in this world. Imagine if you have a big family, and each of your siblings marry to other big families, who also have siblings who are married. It becomes easier for petty disagreements, friction and lawsuits to follow.

The problem here is numbers. Humans have a tedency to be selfish. Especially in large numbers. The main cause, i would say, is significance. A huge crowd gives anyone insignificance. Having no significance, makes the actions you do insignificant. Take the internet for example. What are the things you would so easily do or say, that you would not in real life?


Edited by RedSama

In 1947, how many people would think peace between the nations of Europe possible 60 years ahead? ...noone would think it possible.
Are we still holding grudges towards the Germans for WWI and WWII ...the answer is no.
I can promise all Germans here, Denmark wont invade Germany.

Many people today, would claim that the Balkan conflict, ongoing for centuries up to present day, will never settle.
Let me reverse the question this time.
If you lived in 2070, sixty years from now - do you think there could be another war between nations on Balkan?

My best guess would be no. Give it a couple of generations more, a stronger/bigger EU, or even better - a stronger UN - (or similar international organisation). No nation with a wish to be considered civilized and enjoy the prosper of trading with the rest of the world, could survive being agressor in such a conflict.
That said - I'm no fan of EU in its current construction - but it has potential to grow better - and currently I think its a major factor to maintain peace in Europe.

Even the former (but fairly recent) threat of China becoming an agressive superpower is crumbling. China is building its growing wealth on a wide spectre of international connections and trade.
And why? - to start WWIII? - I dont think so.

What is left to cause trouble and conflict? - the Israeli/Palestinian issue - and of course, the religious fanatics regardless of belief/orientation. But those issues are two eggs from the same basket.

To some extent, I can understand (on a logical level) how the fanatic islamists can mislead and intimidate less educated people to believe  anything they are told and mis-interpreet the scriptures to serve their fanatic and insane hunt for Islamic world domination. Their time is limited - AE is a good example of why.

On the other hand, I have much more trouble understanding how the western world, and USA in particular, can continue to allow the likewise fanatic Christians and Jews to lobby the US administration to the extent it is happening.
But then again - this admistration has its base in rich and major industries - and conflicts makes good revenues for those. 
2792 lives were lost on 911 - and today the casualties of the coalition forces in Iraq are 2652 PLUS approx. 4000 Iraqi security forces and civilians. Pete Seegers song comes to mind.... "When will we ever learn"

The sooner we (all) realize that the relationship with Allah/God is a personal matter, -  and the sooner we are willing to separate politics and religion, the sooner we have a chance for peace.

I'm not predicting a world of peace - but I refuse to give up hope. (blame it on old age - if nothing else)

 

Originally posted by Curmudgeon Originally posted by machine We would need one common Langauge, one common race, one common religion, to achive unity. (1.)  Not necessarily.  There have been many successful multilingual, multiethnic, multifaith states, from the Persian to the AustroHungarian empire, to the U.S.A. and Brazil. (2.)  Even if we DID have all that, I feel 100% certain that fractures would soon arise, based for example upon a generation gap, a new religious schism, political differences, or nascent oppression arising from the unparalleled power of a world government.  (I needn't list historical precedents!)

The USA  Is far from succesful. The Austro-Hungarian empire is different because they are both European.

A world government would only come into being when human beings were under severe and consistent threat to their supermacy over the planet or even their very survival from high intelligent ET invasion.

Onwhose land will they form this nation. Even Antarctica has been divided.