|
Post by Arachis on Mar 9, 2004 0:45:02 GMT -5
Jouffrey ... Competition does not require that we compete with everyyone, often if pitched against a singe state the competition is even more fierce, because the other stat is the only one you can compare to... However with a single nation that competition is lost completetly.
A lack of Government interest, that would result from a lack of competition, would also help to sink the economy.
The Government, having no more need to invest in private businesses or protect fledgling industries, would eventually allow groups of companies to essentially monopolize businesses, just because no other companies would have the resources to compete. This would further degenerate into a large economic mess.
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 9, 2004 15:32:37 GMT -5
Why not? I mean it probably won't happen in this century, but eventually, humans will have to accept the fact that we all live on the same planet What happens when Mars, (if ever) becomes liveable? Would both planets be ruled by the same government?
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 9, 2004 18:46:08 GMT -5
possibly... who knows?
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 9, 2004 18:47:01 GMT -5
socially what do you think will be the results of a world wide government?
|
|
|
Post by LastNightWasHell on Mar 9, 2004 18:51:44 GMT -5
dude, azerty, that's spam if i ever saw it...
i heard this interesting statistic that the reason that there are starving children in the world isn't because there are too many people and not enough food. it turns out that food is actualy over produced, but distribution is so poor, that the food doesn't always get to the places that it should be going.
okay, so i really didn't bother to read the thread so i don't know if that's really relavent, but whatever.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 9, 2004 19:00:37 GMT -5
its not really...
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Mar 10, 2004 23:22:18 GMT -5
I think that, with the advent of a World Wide Government, each seperate region will begin to crumble, and to lose its specific culture, so that everyone will be listening to the same music, want the same goods etc world wide. However there will remain some minor differences, resulting from the differences in geography. But in general the world will be dominated by a giant American style pop culture. (heck its happening already.)
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Mar 13, 2004 17:35:43 GMT -5
The main problem might end up being how its controlled. If there is one leader, it would be difficult, one person being elected who could stay in office. With a large population, a single leader could displease a number of groups and be assissinated. There is the option of a council, but one would have to be huge to represent the world and it would make decisions very time consuming.
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 13, 2004 20:20:04 GMT -5
who says the council has to be huge? take 7 delegates, one from each continent.... that would be enough....
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Mar 14, 2004 20:43:25 GMT -5
how would each get chosen? and no one lives in Anarctica.
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 14, 2004 21:00:03 GMT -5
no one lives in Anarctica. So sure? Maybe your right, but we could always try to teach a penguin or a walrus or SOME animal that lives there a human language
|
|
|
Post by AZERTY on Mar 14, 2004 23:35:49 GMT -5
There are people living in Antarctica, just not year round.... but thats ok right?
(Fine 7 delegates, 2 for Asia....)
|
|
|
Post by KillinKrillan on Mar 14, 2004 23:41:58 GMT -5
Thus immediatly giving Asia dominance over how issues are decided.
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Mar 14, 2004 23:46:44 GMT -5
yah, that does not sound fair.
|
|
|
Post by LastNightWasHell on Mar 15, 2004 0:04:38 GMT -5
i hardly find it fair to have one person represnt the three countries in north america, while another person represnests the roughly one hundred countries in asia. or, one person bearing the burdon of over a billion people, while others don't. why would you want one world government in the first place?
|
|