The Inevitability of A World State

[Gul Dukat]

What do you think about a World State?

HG Wells describes an 'open conspiracy' to develop 'an Association of Nations in conference growing into an organic system of world controls for world affairs and the keeping of the world’s peace'. He was strongly in support of a world government that is 'politically, socially and economically united', but is heavily bolstered by propaganda to the extent that it's more like a religion than a political system. Keep in mind that he was saying this is the wake of WWII.

http://forcingchange.wordpress.com/...pen-conspiracy-h-g-wells-and-the-world-state/

I'm not sure if this is something we should be embracing or dreading. On the one hand, we're talking about world peace... but on the other hand, we're also talking about extremely concentrated amounts of power. I have to say, as a pretty big Trekkie nerd, I'm all for it-- it seems to me the surest way for the human race to achieve its full technological, social and spiritual potential... but it would probably need to have communist or socialist overtones of caring and supporting each other for the greater good, as opposed to the whole 'law of the jungle' philosophy espoused by the capitalists, which strikes me as barbaric to say the least.

I do feel like a lot of opportunities are being missed because of people being divided into nations-- and even though the Olympics are cool and all, I feel like if the world were its own thing as opposed to a collection of nations, we wouldn't fear and compete with each other so much and would be more likely to help each other for the common good.

 

[Faye]

I think it is probably never going to happen, or at least not for over 100 years from now. Maybe once the entire world is post-industrial, if that is even possible.

A world government would be obligated to serve all citizens, but there are so many people in this world living in a state of dire need, how could any government help them? And would everyone else want to pay for it? I mean, does anyone really want to spend the tax dollars necessary to build infrastructure in Africa?

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

It makes sense to me. Will take a couple more centuries IMO though.

 

[SealHammer]

I think it is probably never going to happen, or at least not for over 100 years from now. Maybe once the entire world is post-industrial, if that is even possible.

A world government would be obligated to serve all citizens, but there are so many people in this world living in a state of dire need, how could any government help them? And would everyone else want to pay for it? I mean, does anyone really want to spend the tax dollars necessary to build infrastructure in Africa?

Yeah, this.

Most world governments have trouble uniting the populace within their own borders - it would take a miracle or some mastermind-tier social engineering to make them want to be assimilated to other cultures.
So long as people want to be special and unique (if not in their culture, then in their national identity alone) there will always be disparate states in the world.

 

[Gul Dukat]

A world government would be obligated to serve all citizens, but there are so many people in this world living in a state of dire need, how could any government help them? And would everyone else want to pay for it? I mean, does anyone really want to spend the tax dollars necessary to build infrastructure in Africa?

Africa has enough untouched resources that it could probably pay for its own infrastructure several times over if the governments there weren't so corrupt or unstable.

 

[Lerxst]

I think it is probably never going to happen, or at least not for over 100 years from now. Maybe once the entire world is post-industrial, if that is even possible.

A world government would be obligated to serve all citizens, but there are so many people in this world living in a state of dire need, how could any government help them? And would everyone else want to pay for it? I mean, does anyone really want to spend the tax dollars necessary to build infrastructure in Africa?

But, that's the capitalist mindset talking - How much will it cost? Without financial gains or a capitalist economy, how much money something would cost is moot. If half of the world's 6 billion people were working, then that allows 3 billion workers to dedicate a fraction of their time to producing, maintaining or helping in areas that need infrastructure. In dollar amounts, imagine each of those 3 billion workers dedicating $1 of their earnings towards building infrastructure in Africa - the entire continent will be connected by bullet train within a week!

Get rid of Capitalism and everything... I mean EVERYTHING changes. How else are we going to build the star ship Enterprise if we're too concerned about the cost of everything? Look at NASA today, they're lucky to even launch an occasional satellite or snap a few pictures with a telescope. Compare that with the 1960's where they were sending people to the moon. If they hadn't been on a budget and restricted by money, how far could hey have advanced in 50 years??

 

[Eventhorizon]

What do you think about a World State?

HG Wells describes an 'open conspiracy' to develop 'an Association of Nations in conference growing into an organic system of world controls for world affairs and the keeping of the world’s peace'. He was strongly in support of a world government that is 'politically, socially and economically united', but is heavily bolstered by propaganda to the extent that it's more like a religion than a political system. Keep in mind that he was saying this is the wake of WWII.

http://forcingchange.wordpress.com/...pen-conspiracy-h-g-wells-and-the-world-state/

I'm not sure if this is something we should be embracing or dreading. On the one hand, we're talking about world peace... but on the other hand, we're also talking about extremely concentrated amounts of power. I have to say, as a pretty big Trekkie nerd, I'm all for it-- it seems to me the surest way for the human race to achieve its full technological, social and spiritual potential... but it would probably need to have communist or socialist overtones of caring and supporting each other for the greater good, as opposed to the whole 'law of the jungle' philosophy espoused by the capitalists, which strikes me as barbaric to say the least.

I do feel like a lot of opportunities are being missed because of people being divided into nations-- and even though the Olympics are cool and all, I feel like if the world were its own thing as opposed to a collection of nations, we wouldn't fear and compete with each other so much and would be more likely to help each other for the common good.

Dont think it will happen for many reasons. On the other hand, within national structures, you will see freedoms continue to erode. I dont think "America" will stand much longer. America has basically fallen as it is right now with just a few more steps to take from which it can never return. Rome stood for around 1400 years and no one ever believed it could fall.

 

[Eventhorizon]

But, that's the capitalist mindset talking - How much will it cost? Without financial gains or a capitalist economy, how much money something would cost is moot. If half of the world's 6 billion people were working, then that allows 3 billion workers to dedicate a fraction of their time to producing, maintaining or helping in areas that need infrastructure. In dollar amounts, imagine each of those 3 billion workers dedicating $1 of their earnings towards building infrastructure in Africa - the entire continent will be connected by bullet train within a week!

Get rid of Capitalism and everything... I mean EVERYTHING changes. How else are we going to build the star ship Enterprise if we're too concerned about the cost of everything? Look at NASA today, they're lucky to even launch an occasional satellite or snap a few pictures with a telescope. Compare that with the 1960's where they were sending people to the moon. If they hadn't been on a budget and restricted by money, how far could hey have advanced in 50 years??

Capitalism is what drives EVERYTHING. Technology, innovation... One day when we have infinite power sources \ resources we might be able to move past it. As it is now, without capitalism, everything fails. Lets see how willing people are to get out of bed every morning and go to work when they could stay in bed and get paid the same. The world turns because people want things.

 

[this is only temporary]

Re. The world state, maybe it will happen, probably not anytime soon. It is so difficult to get people to not commit genocide on their closest neighbors, so seems like a very ambitious plan to try to get them to get along/cooperate and generally refrain from killing people halfway across the world. And that Wellsian shit about making it a religion is borderline scary.

Re. NASA, I've been reading that industry insiders predict that private or semi-private spaceflight is the wave of the future, and some have used NASA as an example of government inefficiency. http://www.space.com/14106-private-spaceflight-2012-predictions.html

So, basically, NASA is often used as an example of why giant, centrally controlled government programs may not be the best model for spaceflight, at any rate, and why in some cases we should rely more on private enterprise, not less.

On another, semi-related note, my children also would like to do away with money, so they can get all the toys they want. True.

 

[Lerxst]

Capitalism is what drives EVERYTHING. Technology, innovation... One day when we have infinite power sources \ resources we might be able to move past it. As it is now, without capitalism, everything fails. Lets see how willing people are to get out of bed every morning and go to work when they could stay in bed and get paid the same. The world turns because people want things.

Your world turns because you want things. His world turns because he wants things. This is a learned state of mind that gets driven in to each of us because of the capitalist society in which we live. We can unlearn that just as easily as we learn it - Do you know why Buddhist monks bow and lift their hands above their heads when they do? They symbolically place themselves on the bottom while lifting the rest of the world above them.

When people put the rest of the world's needs above their own, then capitalism is no longer necessary. It's been done throughout history and people still do it today, there are just a few "rotten apples" who convince the rest of society that greed is the norm, who ruin it for everyone. Get rid of that mindset and the sky's the limit!

 

[Eventhorizon]

Your world turns because you want things. His world turns because he wants things. This is a learned state of mind that gets driven in to each of us because of the capitalist society in which we live. We can unlearn that just as easily as we learn it - Do you know why Buddhist monks bow and lift their hands above their heads when they do? They symbolically place themselves on the bottom while lifting the rest of the world above them.

When people put the rest of the world's needs above their own, then capitalism is no longer necessary. It's been done throughout history and people still do it today, there are just a few "rotten apples" who convince the rest of society that greed is the norm, who ruin it for everyone. Get rid of that mindset and the sky's the limit!

Im sorry but the whole world cant and wouldn't want to live as Buddhist monks. In a world of 6 billion people, you know. Capitalism is what works here and now. Perhaps we can move toward something else but only after energy becomes as common as air.

 

[Gul Dukat]

And that Wellsian shit about making it a religion is borderline scary.

How is it any scarier than the religions that we already have? For the most part, they're only glorified cults... if people started worshipping global harmony and peace and love instead of tradition and obsolete notions of right and wrong, then I think it would be a massive improvement.

Also part of Wells' vision was the notion that the liberals would need to become more fascist and less willing to listen to opposing views... in his book 'Shape Of Things To Come' he describes the global outlawing of all religions as a stepping stone to a true, harmonious, forward-looking global culture... and to be honest, I agree with that as well.

You can't have a utopia if people are polarized against each other, and that means both religion and nationalism will have to be eliminated, because neither of these things could ever truly be about peace. You'd also need to get rid of money... I doubt you could ever truly eliminate class structures but you could definitely improve them by replacing the slick, commercial junk we currently call a culture with something informative, educational and intelligent... and it wouldn't be too hard to do this on a massive scale either.

I know that we've been raised to believe that free speech is so important and its vital to have your own perspective, but at the same time I wouldn't be at all upset if Westboro Baptist Church was outlawed, or if it were suddenly against the law to spread anti-gay propaganda or if suddenly it was against the law to make over 10 million dollars per year. The problem with the left is that by preaching equality you leave yourself open to idiots who think that since you care so much about everyone, you need to be more accepting of their backwards views... but this is probably a mistake. Say what you will about Stalin-- even while he was eliminating people left and right, he was also overseeing one of the most profound social and economic transformations of a nation in the history of the world. Within a single generation, the literacy rate skyrocketed and the USSR was producing intelligent, educated people whereas before it had been a backwater agrarian society.

One of the reasons things only seem to get worse is because there's so much apathy... because people are willing to buy junk and eat junk and watch junk-- and corporations compete to see who can make the most money with the cheapest, crappiest products... making things so incredibly complicated that you would need to dedicate 24 hours a day just to find the truth about what you're consuming.

An ideologically-driven society is superior to a commercial one in practically every aspect, because it means that people aren't just doing what they're doing for money-- they're doing it because they actually believe in what they're doing.

 

[ThisIsWhoIAm]

I'd like to add that once we colonize other planets, arguments and possibly wars will probably start between different colonies, just like in sci fi movies.

It's only when (and if) we will all as individuals reach a certain level of spirituality and responsibility and all that jazz, that we will be able to create a harmonious society(in my personal opinion that is).

 

[Gul Dukat]

It's only when (and if) we will all as individuals reach a certain level of spirituality and responsibility and all that jazz, that we will be able to create a harmonious society(in my personal opinion that is).

That's a pretty major shift in consciousness-- I'd think it would be most likely to happen if we find ourselves united against a common enemy.

 

[this is only temporary]

How is it any scarier than the religions that we already have? For the most part, they're only glorified cults... if people started worshipping global harmony and peace and love instead of tradition and obsolete notions of right and wrong, then I think it would be a massive improvement.

Also part of Wells' vision was the notion that the liberals would need to become more fascist and less willing to listen to opposing views... in his book 'Shape Of Things To Come' he describes the global outlawing of all religions as a stepping stone to a true, harmonious, forward-looking global culture... and to be honest, I agree with that as well.

You can't have a utopia if people are polarized against each other, and that means both religion and nationalism will have to be eliminated, because neither of these things could ever truly be about peace. You'd also need to get rid of money... I doubt you could ever truly eliminate class structures but you could definitely improve them by replacing the slick, commercial junk we currently call a culture with something informative, educational and intelligent... and it wouldn't be too hard to do this on a massive scale either.

I know that we've been raised to believe that free speech is so important and its vital to have your own perspective, but at the same time I wouldn't be at all upset if Westboro Baptist Church was outlawed, or if it were suddenly against the law to spread anti-gay propaganda or if suddenly it was against the law to make over 10 million dollars per year. The problem with the left is that by preaching equality you leave yourself open to idiots who think that since you care so much about everyone, you need to be more accepting of their backwards views... but this is probably a mistake. Say what you will about Stalin-- even while he was eliminating people left and right, he was also overseeing one of the most profound social and economic transformations of a nation in the history of the world. Within a single generation, the literacy rate skyrocketed and the USSR was producing intelligent, educated people whereas before it had been a backwater agrarian society.

One of the reasons things only seem to get worse is because there's so much apathy... because people are willing to buy junk and eat junk and watch junk-- and corporations compete to see who can make the most money with the cheapest, crappiest products... making things so incredibly complicated that you would need to dedicate 24 hours a day just to find the truth about what you're consuming.

An ideologically-driven society is superior to a commercial one in practically every aspect, because it means that people aren't just doing what they're doing for money-- they're doing it because they actually believe in what they're doing.

Was that post somehow supposed to be less scary?

Eliminating freedom of religion, eliminating freedom of speech, advocating extremism (of course, only the right kind of extremism, I'm sure) and advocating Stalin, AND advocating fascism all in one post. Wow.

I'll just sum it up by saying I completely disagree.

 

[Gul Dukat]

Was that post somehow supposed to be less scary?

Eliminating freedom of religion, eliminating freedom of speech, advocating extremism (of course, only the right kind of extremism, I'm sure) and advocating Stalin, AND advocating fascism all in one post. Wow.

I'll just sum it up by saying I completely disagree.

I went off on a tangent, which left me open to criticism and also paved the way for selective listening on your part… my mistake, but of course this is the Internet and I should have known better.

I'm definitely not advocating fascism. And I'm not advocating extremism, I'm saying that it's effective and probably necessary in order to bring about utopia. Fewer freedoms and differences equals fewer conflicts-- this is pretty obvious, isn't it? And free speech often lends the same weight to the opinions of idiots as it does to those worth listening to.

If you think we're currently living in a utopia, then maybe you think these kinds of changes aren't necessary… but I don't think that we are and to be honest I don't even think we're headed in that direction… and I don't think we can steer things in that direction without extremism. I was using Stalin's USSR as an example of a miraculous change brought about through extreme actions, not as something that should be repeated in an identical fashion.

But I definitely can't see the future and there is always the possibility that we'll evolve into an enlightened species without being forced to improve ourselves… though I highly doubt that a Wellsian 'religious' ideology would be able to gain popularity in such a divided, skeptical world.

 

[Faye]

Africa has enough untouched resources that it could probably pay for its own infrastructure several times over if the governments there weren't so corrupt or unstable.

This has happened to some extent in places like Lagos where they are using oil revenue to build infrastructure; however, even with that in place, still two thirds of the population or so live in slums or red light districts.

But, that's the capitalist mindset talking - How much will it cost? Without financial gains or a capitalist economy, how much money something would cost is moot. If half of the world's 6 billion people were working, then that allows 3 billion workers to dedicate a fraction of their time to producing, maintaining or helping in areas that need infrastructure. In dollar amounts, imagine each of those 3 billion workers dedicating $1 of their earnings towards building infrastructure in Africa - the entire continent will be connected by bullet train within a week!

Get rid of Capitalism and everything... I mean EVERYTHING changes. How else are we going to build the star ship Enterprise if we're too concerned about the cost of everything? Look at NASA today, they're lucky to even launch an occasional satellite or snap a few pictures with a telescope. Compare that with the 1960's where they were sending people to the moon. If they hadn't been on a budget and restricted by money, how far could hey have advanced in 50 years??

If everyone gave a dollar, the resultant 3 billion would barely be enough to build and maintain first-world infrastructure in a single large African city for a couple years. It will cost significantly more than that to really help Africa, and people would have to give continuously to the tune of thousands of dollars per person. And that would also require functioning well-governed states in Africa, which are lacking. Even if we get rid of capitalism (which is unlikely), we are not going to be able to get rid of money as an organizational tool. Cost-benefit analysis will still apply. Even if you did build those bullet trains, the masses of slum-dwellers would not be able to afford them and so they could not be maintained with no revenue.

As for NASA, I'm pretty sure most of the rocket scientists would not show up to work if they didn't receive their paychecks. The ugly fact is that humans respond heavily (and sometimes irrationally) to financial incentives, and even in a full blown Marxist state, if such a thing ever comes to pass, money will still matter. This is because 90% of the jobs that society needs done suck, and nobody is going to want to do them unless basically forced to out of desperation to pay bills.

The only type of society that could elimate money would be a farming based frontiersman type one or a society that returned to a pre-coinage standard of living, both of which are impossible given the worlds current population. Sorry, it is not that I disagree with the direction of your thought. I just don't see how it could occur in practical terms.

 

[Gul Dukat]

As for NASA, I'm pretty sure most of the rocket scientists would not show up to work if they didn't receive their paychecks. The ugly fact is that humans respond heavily (and sometimes irrationally) to financial incentives, and even in a full blown Marxist state, if such a thing ever comes to pass, money will still matter. This is because 90% of the jobs that society needs done suck, and nobody is going to want to do them unless basically forced to out of desperation to pay bills.

The only type of society that could elimate money would be a farming based frontiersman type one or a society that returned to a pre-coinage standard of living, both of which are impossible given the worlds current population. Sorry, it is not that I disagree with the direction of your thought. I just don't see how it could occur in practical terms.

I have to disagree pretty strongly with this.

The people at NASA almost certainly do NOT do it for the paycheck… they do it because they have a challenging, rewarding job that is seen as worthwhile-- the paycheck is just a bonus and to be honest they're probably making enough money that they don't even think about how much they get paid anymore. Sufficed to say most of the NASA workers are probably making enough to not have to worry about anything, which means they're also happier in general and more able to focus on their job. The only reason that they wouldn't do it for free is because people in a capitalist society cannot afford to not work for money.

The people who do it for the money have utterly boring and totally crap jobs where they work under incompetent managers doing something that has absolutely no obvious positive benefit to either themselves or society at large.

I really wish I could find the article, but I was reading the other day about people who work in soup kitchens serving homeless people and how they were far more satisfied with their payless jobs than paid workers in cafeterias in a high school or hospitals… the difference here being that they actually volunteered to give up their time to help other people out.

 

[j654dgj7]

All of these questions have already been answered on Doctor Who.

 

[Faye]

I have to disagree pretty strongly with this.

The people at NASA almost certainly do NOT do it for the paycheck… they do it because they have a challenging, rewarding job that is seen as worthwhile-- the paycheck is just a bonus and to be honest they're probably making enough money that they don't even think about how much they get paid anymore. Sufficed to say most of the NASA workers are probably making enough to not have to worry about anything, which means they're also happier in general and more able to focus on their job. The only reason that they wouldn't do it for free is because people in a capitalist society cannot afford to not work for money.

The people who do it for the money have utterly boring and totally crap jobs where they work under incompetent managers doing something that has absolutely no obvious positive benefit to either themselves or society at large.

I really wish I could find the article, but I was reading the other day about people who work in soup kitchens serving homeless people and how they were far more satisfied with their payless jobs than paid workers in cafeterias in a high school or hospitals… the difference here being that they actually volunteered to give up their time to help other people out.

That describes most jobs, right there. That probably even describes many of the jobs at NASA. Or at least, if you want to learn about NASA as an organization, there is a good book on it called Organizational Learning at NASA by Julianne Mahler. NASA might have an impressive company 'can-do' culture, but they are still similar to other places, still have had problems with management, and have to deal with a high level of pressure that would surely scare away most people if they weren't doing it for money. Not everyone at NASA is a high level rocket scientist who loves what they do. That is probably only a fraction of people (only a fraction of the rocket scientists even), and they can only do what they do because of all the lower level people, many of whom hate their jobs (the managers, accountants, janitors, technicians, engineers, etc.). NASA has had huge problems with management and communication. That in and of itself would scare away most people, even most of the rocket scientists, especially after the Columbia and Challenger disasters.

Also, people who work at soup kitchens don't do it for 8 or more hours per day, five days per week. They do it for a couple or few hours and then go home, and usually these are the better-to-do church people.

There might be a few people who really love their jobs and would be willing to do them without pay, but I am sure that at least 70% of people, or probably 95-100% of people are the important yet boring/miserable suck jobs, would leave immediately without our society's coercive monetary based incentive structure.

See this:

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021217458_gallupworkxml.html