world unity - good idea or bad? - 24's Religion & Philosophy - The Top 10 Supported Forums

Recent Posts

Search by username

24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > world unity - good idea or bad?

Share this topic...
- Digg - SlashDot - del.icio.us - Reddit - StumbleUpon - Facebook

Moderated by: 24HourNut

Page: 1 2 3 4

New Topic

Author

Post

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 03:35 am

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Brian wrote: berinwitness wrote:

You don't think we, all the people of the world, could get together and find solutions - if we tried hard
enough?
In a word, no. Some things aren't matters of opinion, and there's no compromising on them. If I need a gallon of water a day, and you need a gallon of water a day, and we've only got one gallon of water, then what?

If I live in an area with lots of agricultural needs, and you live in an industrialized area (and by "area", you can think of something the size of your average European country) we're going to have very different ideas about the kinds of laws we should have. (And that's before you throw all the different cultures into the mix.) The best you could hope for under such a system would either look like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation or the Confederacy during the Civil War, neither of which worked out too well.

Okay. But isn't it possible we have more than one gallon of water? How do we know we haven't got enough resources for everyone to not only survive, be be somewhat comfortable?
Well, first of all, people are going to have to be compelled to settle for "somewhat comfortable". People would rather be comfortable, period. And when you're talking about a world government, you've got a lot of rivalries that really screw things up. Imagine trying to get the Iranians to cut back on their fuel consumption so that the Israelis have enough. (Anybody know what the Arabic for "Fuck you!", is? :giantgrin:

)

Picture what the world would look like if the U.N. exercised real power, and passed laws instead of resolutions. To do that, you'd need an enormous military. And you'd need to get that military from the former nations. These former nations have, in some cases, thousands of years of history. What you'd end up with is essentially a barbarian army like the Romans had toward the end. (And that's not a good thing...)
Okay. But in a united world isn't it possible that the military personnel would see themselves as members of the world force, not as ultimately loyal to a particulat PART of that world? Granted, we haven't achieved that so far. But couldn't we?
I don't think it's part of human nature to think that way. Look at the sectionalism we still have in the U.S. People from the southwest and northeast still look askance at each other, in a lot of cases, and that's after more than 230 years since we declared independence. Or to put it another way: How many Northerners fought for the South in the Civil War?

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows


Ads appear if not logged in.

berinwitness
Original500^© Member

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 03:51 am

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: Well, first of all, people are going to have to be compelled to settle for "somewhat comfortable". People would rather be comfortable, period. And when you're talking about a world government, you've got a lot of rivalries that really screw things up. Imagine trying to get the Iranians to cut back on their fuel consumption so that the Israelis have enough.

Or we could do it by mutual agreement. We have brains, we can think. We don't need to hate, or be greedy. At least, that's the way I see it.
I don't think it's part of human nature to think that way. Look at the sectionalism we still have in the U.S. People from the southwest and northeast still look askance at each other, in a lot of cases, and that's after more than 230 years since we declared independence. Or to put it another way: How many Northerners fought for the South in the Civil War?
We may have sectionalism, but the sections aren't shooting at each other. We have learned how to live under a central government.

Doesn't that mean it is (theoretically) possible for all nations to cooperate - if we try hard enough?

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 04:21 am

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Brian wrote: Well, first of all, people are going to have to be compelled to settle for "somewhat comfortable". People would rather be comfortable, period. And when you're talking about a world government, you've got a lot of rivalries that really screw things up. Imagine trying to get the Iranians to cut back on their fuel consumption so that the Israelis have enough.
Or we could do it by mutual agreement. We have brains, we can think. We don't need to hate, or be greedy. At least, that's the way I see it.
We do have brains, but our higher functions also leave us susceptible to things like prejudice, superstition, and greed. If you've got two groups that've been at each other's throats for hundreds or thousands of years, it's not simply a matter of appealing to their better natures. The Israeli/Palestinian issue is a good model of that. Or you could use the Civil War.

I don't think it's part of human nature to think that way. Look at the sectionalism we still have in the U.S. People from the southwest and northeast still look askance at each other, in a lot of cases, and that's after more than 230 years since we declared independence. Or to put it another way: How many Northerners fought for the South in the Civil War?
We may have sectionalism, but the sections aren't shooting at each other. We have learned how to live under a central government.
Not really true. That's my point. The different sections didn't learn to live with each other. The federal government beat the holy hell out of the South (basically establishing who's boss). That's the only reason we have a united country today.

Doesn't that mean it is (theoretically) possible for all nations to cooperate - if we try hard enough?
No. It means it's possible to implement such a thing in the United States, if you have enough ammo and aren't shy about using it. I don't know that the same applies to the whole world, though. There would be an awful lot of fires to put out.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

JustifiedByFaith
Pioneer100^© Member

Without Jesus we fall short...

Joined:
Location:	Pacific Northwest, USA
Posts:	8397
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:	Politics & Religion
MyLove:	Not of this world...
MyWish:
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:
MySex:	Male
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 05:55 am

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: What do you think of the idea of uniting the entire world?

Great idea. ::wiseman::

Jesus said, "Take heed that no one deceives you."

Matthew 24:4

berinwitness
Original500^© Member

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 08:56 am

Quote

Alert

JustifiedByFaith wrote: berinwitness wrote: What do you think of the idea of uniting the entire world?

Great idea.

Thank you. Please elaborate, if you want. WHY would it be a great idea?
::wiseman::

What is the logical conclusion of the idea? Does one sponsor this idea based on reality or adhearance to a faith concept or simply that this idea has potential "universal appeal" therefore, more potential supporters?
As far as my original question is concerned, it doesn't matter HOW the world's people unite.

berinwitness
Original500^© Member

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 09:00 am

Quote

Alert

Yes, yes, but Brian, if we overcame all the difficulties invilved and achieved world-wide unity, would that be good for humanity?

So far you have pointed out that disunity is responsible for continued warfare. Suppose we stopped fighting. Should we keep being peaceful or go back to having wars?

foxglovepress
Forum-Blogger^©
Original500^© Member

NON-PC!!

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	7862
MyResume:
MyJob:	Love my FAMILY, COUNTRY and Dogs!!
MyForum:	Politics- Religion- Open Tal
MyLove:	Family and ?
MyWish:	A government for WE THE PEOPLE!
MyFile:	[Download]
MyIntro:	[Download]
MySex:	On Hold for now.....
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 03:11 pm

Quote

Alert

Okay.................thanks construct for pulling ME into this one. Berinwitness, I think the "concept" of your idea is awesome! The "reality" goes along the lines of a pipe dream. Human nature and our brains, believe it or not, would ultimately be the downfall of this idea! We're wired to "pair off" to "colonise". Like UTR states, we can't agree on anything in this forum alone! I see your idea, IF it were to work, as sort of being in "HEAVEN" here on earth! Isn't going to happen buddy! We have "instinct" built in from nature, just like animals. Try putting all the animals on earth together and what do you see.................................? No matter WHAT you do, people are going to differ in opinion! There alone in lies your problem. Like Brian says, Greed and Power will always inter in. Groups will want to control, like gangs. People who have more intelligence will have developed an area that's far better then others. Now you have the others, wanting in! Does that ring a bell? Now you're saying "yes, but if you all lived in peace, then you would want to help those people develop "their space"! The problem there is, someone will always want someone else's space! God gave everyone "free will" and sort of gave us a license to disagree! It's a great question, and to answer your question....................In a perfect world, yes it would be great! But it's not, and no it wouldn't work!

Justice for Mark.....Imprison Employers Who Hire ILLEGALS!

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 03:27 pm

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Yes, yes, but Brian, if we overcame all the difficulties invilved and achieved world-wide unity, would that be good for humanity?

So far you have pointed out that disunity is responsible for continued warfare. Suppose we stopped fighting. Should we keep being peaceful or go back to having wars?
If we could overcome all the difficulties involved, and world unity could be achieved without the things I outlined coming to pass, then yes, it would be a good thing. But I think that's the equivalent of asking whether it would be a good thing if we could all break our addiction to food. You're talking about something that can't possibly happen. World unity would involve a lot of horrendous things, and pondering what the world would be like if world unity could be achieved without such things seems to me like an exercise in futility. More to the point, striving for world unity in the belief that such things won't occur is even more dangerous, because you're going into the enterprise in naivete.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

berinwitness
Original500^© Member

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 04:07 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: World unity would involve a lot of horrendous things, and pondering what the world would be like if world unity could be achieved without such things seems to me like an exercise in futility. More to the point, striving for world unity in the belief that such things won't occur is even more dangerous, because you're going into the enterprise in naivete.

The Universal House of Justice (the top administrative council of my religion, the Baha'i Faith) has stated:

"It was against the most intense resistance at every level of society, among governed and governors alike, that the political, social and conceptual changes of the past hundred years were achieved. Ultimately, they were accomplished only at the cost of terrible suffering. It would be unrealistic to imagine that the challenges lying ahead may not exact an even greater toll of a human race that still seeks, by every means in it's power, to avoid the spiritual implications of the experience it is undergoing."

Century of Light, page 138

And what they are talking about happening during the 21st century is not a blissful state where everybody loves each other, but merely political agreement that we should give up war. So I DO understand the difficulties involved - but I firmly believe it's possible.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 04:52 pm

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Brian wrote: World unity would involve a lot of horrendous things, and pondering what the world would be like if world unity could be achieved without such things seems to me like an exercise in futility. More to the point, striving for world unity in the belief that such things won't occur is even more dangerous, because you're going into the enterprise in naivete.

The Universal House of Justice (the top administrative council of my religion, the Baha'i Faith) has stated:

"It was against the most intense resistance at every level of society, among governed and governors alike, that the political, social and conceptual changes of the past hundred years were achieved. Ultimately, they were accomplished only at the cost of terrible suffering. It would be unrealistic to imagine that the challenges lying ahead may not exact an even greater toll of a human race that still seeks, by every means in it's power, to avoid the spiritual implications of the experience it is undergoing."

Century of Light, page 138

And what they are talking about happening during the 21st century is not a blissful state where everybody loves each other, but merely political agreement that we should give up war. So I DO understand the difficulties involved - but I firmly believe it's possible.
Okay, but the question you posed wasn't whether it was possible. You asked whether it was a good idea or bad. And if even your Baha'i scriptures assume an even greater level of suffering than occurred in the 20th century (which saw the deaths of hundreds of millions through war), I can't imagine it being anything other than a very bad thing. If anything, people should be encouraged to be further apart, so that people can leave in their chosen groups and leave each other alone as much as possible.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

berinwitness
Original500^© Member

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 05:27 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: Okay, but the question you posed wasn't whether it was possible. You asked whether it was a good idea or bad.

Yes, and the first few replies were only about whether it was possible.

And if even your Baha'i scriptures assume an even greater level of suffering than occurred in the 20th century (which saw the deaths of hundreds of millions through war), I can't imagine it being anything other than a very bad thing.
So do you think we should keep things the way they are, if all the suffering is avoided?
If anything, people should be encouraged to be further apart, so that people can leave in their chosen groups and leave each other alone as much as possible.
Wouldn't that involve going back to the nineteenth or even eighteenth century state of affairs? Is that desirable? Is that POSSIBLE, considering the moves we have already made toward a united world?

Last edited on 05:30 pm by berinwitness

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 10:10 pm

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Brian wrote: Okay, but the question you posed wasn't whether it was possible. You asked whether it was a good idea or bad.

Yes, and the first few replies were only about whether it was possible.
That's true.

And if even your Baha'i scriptures assume an even greater level of suffering than occurred in the 20th century (which saw the deaths of hundreds of millions through war), I can't imagine it being anything other than a very bad thing.
So do you think we should keep things the way they are, if all the suffering is avoided?
If the alternative to what we have now is even greater bloodshed and suffering, then yes, the status quo is preferable.

If anything, people should be encouraged to be further apart, so that people can leave in their chosen groups and leave each other alone as much as possible.
Wouldn't that involve going back to the nineteenth or even eighteenth century state of affairs? Is that desirable? Is that POSSIBLE, considering the moves we have already made toward a united world?

In a sense, it would mean going back to a 19th century state of affairs. I don't think history will be kind ot the 20th centuy attempts at conglomeration (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, etc.). People generally don't want to be together in artificial conglomerations like that. Separating people won't stop all conflicts, because people will still fight over resources. But at least you won't have the problem on a global scale, with a global dictator forced to squash rebellions with an iron fist.

A global government keeping the peace sounds really good, until you realize that whenever it's been tried throughout history, it always eventually fails, and is never that peaceful to begin with.

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 10:35 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: A global government keeping the peace sounds really good, until you realize that whenever it's been tried throughout history, it always eventually fails, and is never that peaceful to begin with.

When has a global government ever been tried? I haven't heard about it (although I don't know everything about history).

The thirteen American colonies tried independent existence for a few years, but eventually realized that certain problems could be solved by a central government. In Christopher Columbus' time, there were several separate kingdoms which are now joined as Spain. That's about all I know of the situation so far.

Joined:
Location:	USA
Posts:	1280
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:	Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:	celibate
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 10:40 pm

Quote

Alert

Brian wrote: the 20th centuy attempts at conglomeration (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, etc.). People generally don't want to be together in artificial conglomerations like that.

The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were not formed by choice. That, in my opinion, is why the members got out at the first opportunity.

The European Union, on the other hand, was voted into existence (by the slimmest of margins). Time will tell if it survives - and prospers.


Ads appear if not logged in.

Brian
Grand Poobah of Moderation

Joined:
Location:
Posts:	4188
MyResume:
MyJob:
MyForum:
MyLove:
MyWish:
MyFile:
MyIntro:
MySex:
Status:	Offline
MyPOTD:

Posted: 11:29 pm

Quote

Alert

berinwitness wrote: Brian wrote: the 20th centuy attempts at conglomeration (Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, etc.). People generally don't want to be together in artificial conglomerations like that.

The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact were not formed by choice. That, in my opinion, is why the members got out at the first opportunity.

The European Union, on the other hand, was voted into existence (by the slimmest of margins). Time will tell if it survives - and prospers.

True, but if a world government is formed, that won't be by choice, either. If it's put to a vote, it'll fail. Again, don't forget you're asking countries like Israel and Iran to get into the same lifeboat. The only way countries like that would ever cooperate (even short-term) is if something cataclysmic (think violent E.T's or an imminent asteroid collision) was about to happen. Even that would be cooperation, rather than any ceding of autonomy.

In the U.S., there's no way in hell you'd get cooperation for a world government. We Americans take our autonomy very seriously and wouldn't subordinate ourselves to a foreign flag.

Somewhere along the line, someone's going to have to be forced. A world government wouldn't come willingly.

Now, if it ever comes to pass that we discover another civilization on another planet within striking distance of us (which is a mighty big "if", as moguitar and I have discussed), then all bets are off. "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords...".

"It's been a long December, and there's reason to believe maybe this year will be better than the last."

-- "A Long December", Counting Crows

Current time is 12:51 pm

Page:

1 2 3 4

24HourForums.com > The Top 10 Supported Forums > 24's Religion & Philosophy > world unity - good idea or bad?

Site Supporters
Posts Of The Day	Mock Forums	WowClassic

Themes and most mods done in collaboration with: WowClassic - powerful forum software with the best support service.
We are partners with Forum Owner Services
Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez