the world unified?

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

put simply, is this possible, do you think?

another part of this question, explain briefly, how you see a unified world, if at all, if you don't, explain why, and what you see the human race doing in future(far or near, depending on how long you think we'll survive :-P)

[Socrates]

Not only possible, but absolutely necessary.

PS I feel like I'm writing as essay for school...

(clears throat) Et, em...

It seems to me that if you made a giant bar graph of all the different countries in the world, that they would all be on, if not completely, different levels. We need to be on the same level to survive, and live together. If not, tensions will rise, and we will all live in fear and misunderstanding of one-another. It seems that the US is already on it's way to trying to "unite the world in Democracy" by nearly forcing other countries to 'see the light.' I'm not saying that I agree with that particular course of action, but it certainly would unify everyone, now wouldn't it? I personally am more for an organization like the EU, where countries keep their respective uniqueness, but are united in policy, planning, and procedures. We don't need one 'person' telling the whole world what to do, but we DO need one central allied government of country representitives, to make sure everyone is on the same page. No more of this "I'm the most powerful country in the world" shit, otherwise we'll all be dead within a decade.

[PoeticInjustice]

<Devil's Advocate>
I think there are far too many differing viewpoints, and far too much among conflict among all the nations and peoples of the world for a single, united government or even united front to work any time in the next several generations. Look at the overwhelming "success" the UN, and the League of Nations has had...Every country out there wants what's best for themselves, that'll never change. If you thing otherwise, you're far more optimistic about human nature than I am.
</Devil's Advocate>

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

why has being pessimistic about humanity and human 'nature' become something to brag about, and flaunt like it's something good?

anyway, what about the EU? it's becoming quite powerful? or NAFTA? true, they're not political organizations, but if you look at the power of the united states, its military power is a result of its economic power. we may not unite politically, but economically? if we do that, though, where do local governments have power, and where does the Global economic body get power? i see it as another step up from something like the EU or NAFTA, trade laws and treaties, a body to govern world trade...that sort of thing.

[PoeticInjustice]

you just described the World Trade Organization
know how much they get protested everywhere they go?

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

but it's a first attempt. i can't see any sort of political power, but i can see people at least agreeing on how to best poay each other for stuff. *shrugs* be cynical if you wish, but i'll ignore it 'lest you can back it up

[LordEpathus]

Ah yes, the theory of unified governments. Well so long as everyone thinks whatever they want (and thus have different view points) then unity can not exist. Someone out there will always want to do things their way and cause disruption.

PS: Rock on to those of the 3rd Squad, 2nd Platoon, Hell's Infantry, Yeah!

[Drychnath]

I consider it a possibility, but a remote one. The most likely route to unification is the same as it has always been - under one person (or small group of people's) boot heels. But seeing as there are only three countries with anything like a realistic chance of acheiving world conquest in the next half-century or so (those countries being us, China, and India in order of odds of success), none of the three have any particular interest in absolute world domination, it certainly isn't a near-term possibility. In the longer term, I expect that a simple evolution of governing powers into one single body over-arching the entire world (even in the event current countries are more or less kept as provinces under the new system) is unlikely in the extreme if not outright impossible, since it offers nothing but massive setbacks for anyone in a position to allow it to happen. There is absolutely zero incentive for any of the first-world industrialized nations to actually sign on to any such plan, since all it would do is drain them of their hard-won priveleges and wealth.

The most likely path to world unification in terms of current trends would be the UN (or perhaps the European Union and African Union deciding the rest of the world must conform to their model) finally developing a serious independant backbone and subjugating all fractious parties.

Conquest will inevitably play a role; events so important could not possibly be recorded in a medium other than blood.

[LordEpathus]

China not wanting absolute world domination? What plane of existance does that exist in? Communist China is always trying to expand. Thus far they haven't had the money to do so. But with their rapidly expanding economy (Which will burn out in 10 years from internal factors) they'll try something to get more money. Taiwan?

[LordEpathus]

Oh yeah, and I completely agree with the whole "world unified only under someone's boot" thing

[Pike]

The world is trying to unite the EU is the beginning and it is doomed to fail. People as a whole in this day and age do not have the ability to let go of the most powerful drug of greed. It is an addiction we face every day and as long the majority proceed on with there day to day needs of there self and not the needs of others than there can be no union. The UN like the liege of nations is a toothless tiger, they spend years in committee deliberating actions to take for whatever problem they face. By the time a solution is found the problem has ether solved its self or escalated beyond the control of the solution and again more time is spent in committee. As long as the human goal is stuck on self-preservation and not whole preservation than there can be no union. As long as every one has a different thought about right and wrong there would be conflict. To solve this, one person or group must stand up and crush all naysayer to there cause. In human conflict it does not matter who is right and wrong the victor is the one with the means to force there will to the furthest extent. As Ryan’s meat paws have so bluntly put the strong are the victors and the weak are meant for no other reason but to serve the strong. If you crush all who speak out against your cause than you have united all who stand for it. “ Good, bad I’ve got the gun.” We can see our conflict on this forum we all see the solution a different way. If any one of us had the power to force our will than there might not be so many other solutions to this problem and the problem would no longer exist.

[Drychnath]

China has never been interested in world conquest. Even at the peak of their power (relative to all other nations), they had no ambitions beyond ruling those lands they considered Chinese. Taiwan does not represent anything resembling expansionist tendencies. Taiwan is a part of China. The people and the land are Chinese; it is governed independantly because that is where the Chinese national government fled when communism took over.

The closest thing to conquest that China might attempt would be looking to Korea with hungry eyes; but eve there, Korea is a peninsula whose people are closely related to the Chinese, and has traditionally been a place where China exercised considerble influence when not outright overlordship.

Keep in mind those tales of when Europeans first travelled to the Far East in numbers, and when asked where in the world they came from, they were shown maps putting China as the massive center of the world, with all else squeezed into the four corners. They are as a country entirely too ethno-centric to have any interest in governing the affairs of those not Chinese.

[johnjacobjingleheimerschmidt]

*chuckles*

one could claim the same of us, well, not quite, more to the point it'd be 'we like to fight, but take no responsibility afterwards...or at least don't care to."

actually that's part of what gives me so much interest in the chinese, they have so much land, so much power, so many PEOPLE, they could drown pretty much any of their neighbor's armies in simple numbers, but sikmply don't because it's not something they do. they're chinese, they govern the chinese. *shrugs* thought that was neat.

however, i read something disturbing, i wish i could find the site..., the otehr day, stating that china is actually limiting some of their numbers in terms of army/military, and working on making more elite and well trained troops as opposed to massive numbers. now, this is disturbing because, with china's population base to draw from, that number of elite trained troops would be, quite frankly, an extremy powerful force, plus their quickly growing economy, i'm excited to see what the world will look like in 10-15 years.

[Tharnex]

hmm..china not having the money to expand? I don't think so. Since the 1960's China have been investing Trillions of dollars into our government and businesses in the form of bonds, stocks, and other monitary certificates. They have giving our country the econimic boost it need in the past while providing a greater furutre for itself later in its counrties life from the return of such bonds, stocks, and certificates as we are seening now. China is very sneaky watchout. Thus being the result of China's new Economic spike.

[Drychnath]

China dropped their standing army from 3 million men to 2 million men, and is pouring the money and manpower into the development of a power-projection airforce and navy, as well as making their previously sloggish infantry more mobile (ala mechanized divisions). They are doing this because the previous theory of their operation was that the military needed only to secure the integrity of the Chinese state, and therefore would never have to move beyond their borders, except in a limited land-invasion sense. This emphasized their primary advantage over all comers - population.

The new theory is representative of China's being cognizant of their status as a rising world power - and a desire to ensure that it is the case. Lacking a power-projection military, a country cannot be considered a super power. Therefore, in order to participate in all those halmarks of superpowers (namely, fighting wars for causes not your own on soil you have only economic interest in and in the name of principal because you can afford to), they require a technologically competent Navy and Airforce.

Further, with their expanding navy (which in recent years expanded to include three Russian-manufactured nuclear submarines on par with our current service vessels) and expanding economy, they may be making a push to have a larger role in controlling Indian Ocean and South Eastern Pacific trade, acquiring dominance over the area in a manner similar to that of the US in the western hemisphere. All this is interesting in light of the recent boom in east-west trade across the Pacific, as well as new, more efficient means of water transport (which is it for true bulk).

Sum up - they got money, more than enough men, and soon they'll be able to put them other places with logistical and air support.

Gotta wonder where they'll interfere first as a competing influence, unless they open a shooting war with us right off the bat over Taiwan. I have to say, however, that would seem rash. I think the Chinese would rather engage in a proxy war with us to gauge their chances of success before making the big push. Maybe that would explain their less-than-supreme enthusiasm in depressing North Korean-US tensions...it makes a lot more sense if they aren't terribly depressed by the idea of American combat operations on the continent again.