A new nation emerging
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Intellectual discussions
Forum Discription: Discuss political and philosophical theories, religious beliefs and other academic subjects
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11545
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 13:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: A new nation emerging
Posted By: Northman
Subject: A new nation emerging
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 21:29
|
In many threads on AE, members discuss which empire did what to whom - who was right - who did wrong etc. How would you envision such a global nation - what would we need - what should be excluded. |
Replies:
Posted By: Genghis
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 22:27
|
Well, I think if there was an effective "world government" it would have to evolve from one national government overtaking all other world governments. It could not be democratic, as so many different cultures and groups could not possibly get along, and each would rightfully feel that their problems were not being addressed by this world government. The core of this world nation could be democratic, but the peripheral provinces could not be run the same way. I think humans as we exist now are too variegated and heterogenous to work within a system to achieve goals. The only way they could find themselves in such a situation is if one nation forced all others into it's own self-fashioned system and forced them to be loyal to it. ------------- Member of IAEA |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 06-May-2006 at 23:27
|
In order to get rid of war you would have to have a war that would crush all opposition to a world government. You would need a Shi Hunag Ti like figure to ruthlessly impose a world government then go about ruthlessly imposing a new set of worldwide standards. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: pegasusdi
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 04:04
|
well then, accordingt o what's offered so far, we end up with a- oligarchy of bureaucrats within a colonial structure (center-periphery) b-dictatorship and none of them seems attractive to me  ------------- imagination sets us free to be what we want to be |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 04:18
|
I agree - but what would seem attractive to you then? ------------- |
Posted By: pegasusdi
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 04:45
hmm, the idea of a global nation does not seem attractive to me
as a whole. It is linked to too much power, too much homogenization in
my mind (maybe because of the science-fiction books i have read ) But if we are to discuss irrespective of reality or problems of governance and organization, then we are to talk about utopias. Then, it may be interesting to try to imagine a world where there is one nation (which means that nation=humanity, so there is no nation by definition) and multiple states. But, it would still be problematic since states don't always need nations to find a reason to fight (as the history shows) So i am afraid i don't see any attractive models. ------------- imagination sets us free to be what we want to be |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 07:38
|
I cannot envision a global nation. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 16:07
|
You all seem to think such a "nation" impossible. ------------- |
Posted By: pegasusdi
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 16:28
Global peace is a nice phrase, easy to use, especially in a beauty contest  I am still a little bit skeptical about it. NATO is a tricky issue since it was designed for a bi-polar world, very much based on US policies. For EU, i think its future has not been decided properly yet by its members and there are also some nationalist circles gaining power in Western Europe. The history of USA is another story because the states themselves had not created their own nationhood or statehood properly at the time and even in that context they had a bloody civil war. Of course everybody would like to live in peace but... this whole game of 'realpolitik' or 'axis of evil' makes me pessimistic. I still did not answer the question, yes. Maybe i am too much involved in the problem that i can not see the solution but if it was that easy to answer.. well we wouldn't need to ask it right now, we would be living it ------------- imagination sets us free to be what we want to be |
Posted By: Mila
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 16:34
|
The World Government couldn't really function unless it was absolutely
enormous with each region have its own territorial government as well.
Setting up such a system would not remedy any of the world's existing
conflicts and could potentially cause a few more to reveal themselves. It would probably need to resemble some sort of powerful United Nations in which the leader of the United Nations is leader of the world but with each territory having its own governments as well. Standards could be more universal but there'd still be great differences. Overall I can't really say if it would be better or worse than what we have, but I think we can say with certainty there would still be disagreement and conflict. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 16:51
|
As far as i can tell, PNAC through its strategically placed members (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle, Bolton among others) is trying to accomplish just that. |
Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 07-May-2006 at 21:16
|
Hi,
In my opinion things could be rather peacefull, just concider Switzerland creation( but of course an alien invasion could help to create a world identity  ).
My vision of it would be more a suprem judge able to deal with conflicts between states or private people and states. When you seen what the European Court is doing and its influence upon countries' own system it is amazing, and all this with so to speak no real legislative power! Also I think only an ambitious man or woman could create a real international (if not world) power using all the tricks to create the new regimes. Bye may these blessed days arrive before my grand grand grand children are all dead… ------------- I am a free donkey! |
Posted By: Pieinsky
Date Posted: 08-May-2006 at 11:12
|
Overall I like the idea of globalisation, except there is one Major Disadvantage of a Global government, instead of a bunch of National governments sharing and existing on one planet. It’s much more difficult for a people on average to commit anarchy and overthrow their own government using physical force then another nation overthrowing that same government. Hence if Global government x is a Fascistic Totalitarian government, It’s very likely that x government will be in power for a very long time. Of course this only applies if no similarly intelligent alien life has the ability to attack this world at that time. I cannot envision a global nation. I imagine the most possible stimulus of a global nation on earth as extraterrestrial life appearing out of the fog and stating their existence to us. Whenever a Humans group seems to encounter a possibly more dangerous foe they tend to amalgamate with another group or groups. This beat or pattern appears throughout human history. From tribes to states, from states to nations, 12345678-so on
------------- |
Posted By: Curmudgeon
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 14:31
|
And just look how long his dynasty lasted! People tend to want liberty and independence, even from beneficial and tolerant regimes like Canada or Czechoslovokia. So I have to join the bandwagon of the dubious when it comes to a universal regime. Like pegasusdi, I distrust the idea based on my readings of speculative fiction as well. That said, yet I do believe that the world could be better run. It is a matter of better intelligence (and more intelligence ?) on the part of the leaders, and better communication and cooperation between people and resources. If the various powers played their hands more skillfully, could not humanity benefit in general? Example: In 1990 (or was it '91?) Saddam Hussein interprets Ambassador April Glaspie's comments to mean that the U.S. will not interfere if he invades Kuait. Entire chain of horrible events ensues, impacting global economy and destoying thousands of lives. [ On the other hand, one can suppose that perhaps, just maybe, U.S. government intended Saddam to make just such a mistake. If so, then this is no example ]. Thus, in order to have something approaching global peace and prosperity, it is necessary for regimes to improve their powers of prediction, but it is neither necessary nor desirable to have perfect unity nor perfect stability of regimes. |
Posted By: Tobodai
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 16:16
But the difference is Shi Huang Ti was smart, the people you mention are stupid. If the world was to be unified under one power that power would have to have brains as well as strength. And yes, the Chin dynasty lasted for a small amount of time, as a world government would. Such a government could not outlive its founders. Nonetheless, like the Chin dynasty the historical footprint of such a legacy would be immense. ------------- "the people are nothing but a great beast... I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value." -Alexander Hamilton |
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 16:28
|
Global nation?All Balkanians together? Damn,i am sure there will be no global nation,as long as Balkans exist1 ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 09-May-2006 at 17:21
|
I think a utopian nation is possible, but it would be based on drugs (to stop all those nast human habits like war, conflict, self abuse etc) and a sytem of controllers, all watching each other. Aside from the fact that would be very unpleasent i doubt we will see a single nation, particually considering the sheer amounts of differences between everyone. Hmm...drugs and brainwashing seem the only way. ------------- 
|
Posted By: pegasusdi
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 05:04
Welcome to the scene of 1984 
------------- imagination sets us free to be what we want to be |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 10:09
|
A global nation would be impossible. For the world to be unified it needs a common threat, a poster before reffered to Aliens as a common threat.We would have to dissolve RACE. Race does exist im afraid and theres a difference between someone whos of European origin and African origin. We would need one common Langauge, one common race, one common religion, to achive unity. Or we could on going the way we are going and we will all be living in Police states. |
Posted By: Curmudgeon
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 14:24
(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!) |
Posted By: Curmudgeon
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 14:49
|
I needn't, but I want to! Language: http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0031,lafarge,16942,12.html - http://www.villagevoice.com/arts/0031,lafarge,16942,12.html (courtesy of zompist bulletin board) Religion: Islam, one of the greatest unifying movements in world history, was riven in its infancy by the rift between shi'a and sunni. Christianity, another, was fractuous before it even got established and once it was establlished, Christiandom split between Rome and Const. and then again between Protestant and Catholic. But why were they such bitter enemies ?
|
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 15:40
| www. = the eve |
Posted By: Ponce de Leon
Date Posted: 10-May-2006 at 16:27
|
Maybe we will become a global nation out of neccessity.
"If" and this is a big if, we colonize places not on earth and in space, time will come and those colonies too will become distant from their earth origniatiors. If we have many of these space nations starting to seperate from Earth there may be a need for earth to unite under one leadership to protect itself from it's "new neighbors" ---but maybe thats just my sci-fi imagination
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 09:32
|
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? |
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 12:24
|
Just call me Winston.... -------------
|
Posted By: Northman
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 12:43
|
In 1947, how many people would think peace between the nations of Europe possible 60 years ahead? ...noone would think it possible. Many people today, would claim that the Balkan conflict, ongoing for centuries up to present day, will never settle. 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. 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. 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. 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)
------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 11-May-2006 at 21:37
|
A global nation, akin to conquering the world. Every Civilisation players dream. I have often wondered whether it would be possible to unite the world, and I think that if you were to do it, you would need some exceptional circumstances. 1) You need 2 empires, possibly 3, not one. These empires would need to give the appearance of hated enemies, while secretly working together to achieve the goal of conquering the world. This means that one empire can invade a country, and if it is defeated, that country will fall under the hegemon of the other empire. "Your enemies enemy is your friend" 2) You need some very cunning rulers, who do not need to worry about being overthrown ruling those empires. They also need very long lifetimes, if not more than one. 3) You need to understand HOW to occupy or control each piece of land. Example in Afghanistan you need to use a soft indirect method. Not do what the English or Russians did and just throw in troops.
This for example is a must in Europe, but a must not in other places. As curmudgeon said, Islam is one of the greatest unifing forces in history. If your going to conquerer the world, you need all the help you can get. 4) You need to be rigidly even handed and obey all your treaties. Take the example of the mongols, You knew that if you surrendered to the mongols you would be left alone, but if you resisted them you would be butchered. If the mongols had butchered towns that did surrender, no town would've surrendered without a fight. 5) You have to be paitent 6) Once all places on earth are under the control of one or the other of the empires, these 2/3 empires can unite. Maybe form a confederacy with an oligarchic government or something. This global government would probably not last very long before all hell broke loose. But you would've done it, you would have conquered the world ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 12-May-2006 at 02:08
The USA ------------- |
Posted By: Roadkill
Date Posted: 13-May-2006 at 18:01
|
-I see a Global State as very probable. South American, African and Middle-Eastern nations have established organizations similar to the EU and if the UN would become the governing body you could have a four/five state nation(Divided by continents as different geography, production, population and culture necessitates different laws). -The nation would be similar to the US where states accept the constitution and such for "membership". The world would be divided like US states into four/five parts, Europe(EU), Africa(AU), Americas(AU?) and Asia(Errr... AU?). Australia? Lets keep them out of this . Australia is similar to many parts of the world and has an American/European culture and so would probably fit into one of the other Unions.-The society would have to be secular as religion is an institution that breeds ignorance, hatred, distancing and so on. Freedom of religion would of course be constituted but the government would in no way support religious groups(Maybe I'll publish my manifesto on the stupidity of religion here eventually). -This would of course take some time as there are many hotspots around the world still(Middle-East, North Korea, Africa, etc.) but a global government is probable in the future. Division does not breed progress. ------------- "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) |
Posted By: Qin Dynasty
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 12:11
| 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. |
Posted By: Pieinsky
Date Posted: 14-May-2006 at 16:00
|
Exactly Qin, for a Human Global nation to emerge Nations would have to be under threat from a much larger form of government. Human groups band together when there is a superior common enemy. This pattern is evident throughout history. From tribes to kingdoms, from kingdoms to nations, from nations to Global government, from global governments to solar government, etc. I consider it extremely possible that Humans will form a Global nation. Hopefully in the right way of course!
------------- |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 11-Oct-2006 at 07:07
|
Onwhose land will they form this nation. Even Antarctica has been divided.
------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |