Is world government possible and necessary as Asimov said?

Is world government possible and necessary as Asimov said?
youtube.com/watch?v=LO0sCs8jI4k

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_International_Development_Agency
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Government is naturally unstable so no.

Secular humanism is a hell of a drug.

>possible
Sure
>necessary
Sounds like the perfect powderkeg for inefficiency, corruption and tyranny.
We would be better off with some sort of coalition.

if the EU is anything to go by it's not possible on this planet

Possible, yes. I'd love to see it happen. But that has to come naturally. If you try to force it on people all you do is piss them off. If you let people themselves see their fellow man as worth cooperating with then that's what you'll get.

And even if a world government did happen that wouldn't change the nature of humanity. We would still be fucked up in various ways. It's not like we'd go from what we are now, and suddenly there's a world government and people are all great like it's Star Trek.

Don't think it's possible except if we get invaded by aliens or something. Something catastrophic to bring the human race together.

>possible
Not until we encounter sentient extraterrestrial life that could threaten our existence if they chose to act hostile towards us.
>necessary
For the survival of humankind in the face of a potentially hostile cosmos, yes.
More specifically, all the myriad human societies should be made to serve and benefit the unified state under which all Earth would be governed, and the state should be made to serve, protect, and benefit the entirety of the human race.

I don't agree with this at all.
Colonised people were subjected to something very similar to an alien visitation in the form of technologically advanced europeans. For the the most part, they didn't band together, they continued fighting eachother and in a lot of places, still do.
Some even allied with the europeans.
I don't see why a one world government would even be required to deal with aliens, a joint operation between major powers and military cooperation seems more realistic to me.

I have a more optimistic outlook on that matter.
The EU is the boldest international experiment in the history of all of mankind so far - a history spanning many millennia so far, in which a peaceful integration of so many different states is literally unprecedented.
In comparison, it hasn't even been 20 years, not even one generation, since its institutions giving it a notable level of integration have been created. There's a lot of room for variation. We haven't even tried deep integration in the form of, for example, shared financial ministries yet. Some may say that if even softer forms of integration aren't accepted yet, that deeper forms will be even less so - others may say that a deeper integration will alleviate the causes of concern present for the softer form. Who knows what's true? History will tell.

Remember that when Solon passed the laws giving Athens a rule of law, the basic principle of democracy, Athens continued to be in a state of turmoil for a decade, characterized by factionalism, anarchy and eventually tyranny. In the short term, the rule of law was a catastrophe. Nowadays, rule of law is taken for granted, and democracy has swept all over the planet.

There's a vast difference in other, more advanced humans invading your lands and another species from an entirely different planet invading

Why? Green spooky techno man s hardl any different to white spooky techno man apart from actual level of technology, which will shit on your garbage anyway.

>defending an institution which regularly disenfranchises its citizen populations in favor of 'muh humanitarian aid'
>defending an institution in which a non-elected elite hold primary power in decision-making across all of non-Slavic Europe
>defending an institution which is quite literally in its death throes because an island off the coast of the mainland decided to secede
>defending an institution of such a horrific and inefficient nature with 'muh political experimentation'

If America Russia the middle east and China would fuck off to Mars or a hole in the ground, then this planet might have a chance, this is not going to happen, so I think we are fucked no matter what.

>>defending an institution which is quite literally in its death throes because an island off the coast of the mainland decided to secede
Source? I mean the EU's certainly going t take a collosal hit but i seriously doubt that it's at deaths door.

>>defending an institution which regularly disenfranchises its citizen populations in favor of 'muh humanitarian aid'
What do you mean by "regularly"? I think most countries have permanent agencies for humanitarian aid and development.
What do you mean by "disenfranchisment"? How does offering humanitarian aid disenfranchise a citizen? Which rights exactly are lost?
What do you even mean by "humanitarian aid"?

>>defending an institution in which a non-elected elite hold primary power in decision-making across all of non-Slavic Europe
Who would that be?
Who is non-elected? The European Parliament, which is literally elected in the European Election, which is just a normal election? The Commission, which is appointed like literally any other executive branch in parliamentary democracies, and can be unappointed in the same way?

>>defending an institution which is quite literally in its death throes because an island off the coast of the mainland decided to secede
Why do you think it's in its death throes if one member out of 28 wants to leave? In fact, even if 10 or 20 left, doesn't it still exist? It would just have to reinvent itself.
Furthermore, Britain hasn't been a part of the core EU anyways, besides being a netto-payer. It's quite irrelevant in comparison to, for example, France and the threat of Le Pen, which you should've mentioned to make that point.

>>defending an institution of such a horrific and inefficient nature with 'muh political experimentation'
How exactly is it inefficient?
People often mention bureaucracy, but the whole EU administration is literally half the size of the administration of a medium-sized (1M people) European city. There are not even 30.000 EU administrators. The city of Munich alone has 80.000, IIRC.
People also often mention intricate industry laws, but they forget that all countries have those, and if the EU didn't exist, there would be 28 different "peanut butter jar size" laws, instead of one.

Also, why do you post shitty frog memes that may as well be straight out of Reddit, instead of cute anime girls?

This is an interesting point, but I think the difference between humans and aliens matters, depending on the nature of the aliens, of course.

I think human colonizers give much less the vibe off that they can't be influenced. A native can talk to them and learn that they may have a lot of differences, but still even moreso have a lot of commonalities, from rather mundane things such as having traditions in music and dance, liking to eat yummy things, to culminating in even being able to have offspring together.

Aliens, however, may at worst even aim to eradicate all of humanity, which would force those with pending doom to create a coalition. Human colonizers tended to not appear being such an existential, all-life-extinguishing threat, and when they did, then the natives left banded.

>I think most countries have permanent agencies for humanitarian aid and development.
>I think
ha very funny

What's so funny about it?

Developed countries have those only partially for ideological reasons. They are actually a very useful tool of foreign policy, since foreign aid can be a bargaining chip.
Furthermore, an intact neighbour is of interest to one's own security and wealth, because a failed state next door would be a den of crime and terrorism next door, potentially even a source of civil war swapping over to your country, rather than someone whom you could even profit off through trade. Relationships established through development can be called upon later when you want to deepen trade.

Even developing countries have those to some degree, because participating in institutions that bring such agencies about (e.g. some UN summit for that) lets you get into the fray with such agencies from the big players, who can then be influenced to divert foreign aid to yourself.
Dealing with that also not only trains your personnel in helping other states, but also when catastrophes befall your own state. The Philippines sending over some flood prevention or tsunami experts to help alleviate damages in Malaysia is good training for tactics to use when shit hits the fan in the Philippines, and favours are bargaining chips and justifications for actions there, too.

Of course, I wasn't talking about full ministries just dealing with humanitarian aid and development, although those exist, too, I rather meant small-scale teams within ministries of foreign affairs.

Heck, fucking Azerbaijin has a full agency for that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan_International_Development_Agency

Also, prestige and espionage.

>Furthermore, an intact neighbour is of interest to one's own security and wealth, because a failed state next door would be a den of crime and terrorism next door, potentially even a source of civil war swapping over to your country, rather than someone whom you could even profit off through trade.
current spike in terrorism and social problems prove you otherwise

>Is world government possible
yes
>and necessary
today - no. Only after placing settlement on few other planets - yes.

How so?

Foreign aid isn't expected to eliminate all terrorism and social problems, but I think it does help reducing it in countries that haven't yet totally fallen apart (i.e., countries like Lebanon, instead of Somalia). Things may suck now, but I bet they would suck even harder without humanitarian aid and development.

Imagine this: You are an Afghan villager. The local area had been bombed hard in the recent wars, unemployment rose as a result of destruction of traditional manufacturies for the carpet-making trade, so you've got no source of income, but you need to feed your family.

Al Qaeda offers you to work in their poppy fields to produce drugs to fund Al Qaeda, which could result in you being imprisoned - and you really don't want to get into an Afghan prison - or becoming a quasi-serf to them... or selling your son to them, as a foot soldier.
Normally, in your desperation, you'd go for one of this option, but a Belgian humanitarian aid group comes and gives you another option: They offer to give you a spinning wheel used in those manufactories for a very low interest loan, or even for free. Picking up this trade would allow you (and aforementioned son) to stay independent, safe and fed, and it would improve the economic situation of the community as a whole, which could create a positive feedback loop, and, most importantly to you, one less guy has become a terrorist or supporter thereof.

Not just possible - inevitable.

Eventually some superpower is going to rise up bent on world domination, and eventually, it'll win, and dominate world, or at least every nation that matters. Maybe not today, maybe not in a thousand years, but eventually, it's going to happen.

There's really only four or five countries at the moment: The Western World, The BRICS, The Arab World (mostly the ME), and the remaining Developing World (Africa, some of South America, and a smattering of various island nations).

...and it's pretty much just two that matter at all: the BRICS and the Western World - most of the rest are just the hunting grounds for proxy wars, remote assets belonging to one or or the other, or nations slowly transitioning to one or the other.

Basically, we're under Orwell's 1984 set up in all but name. Except I'm not so convinced that we maintain our balance as a matter of mutual self-interest, or rather, even if we do, I'm not sure if we can maintain it forever.

Whether it's necessary, that's another thing. Technology is advancing fast enough that any major country can maintain a space program, and the bulk of the initial research that was so expensive was kindly footed by the superpowers during the cold war, from which anyone can build upon. We might not need a united front, and may indeed benefit from various nations or powers attacking the issue from various angles. Indeed a united world risks falling into stagnation - even though it's not necessarily the case, rather depends on the exact nature of the global state.

On the long run it's inevitable. But at this time we might already have colonies on other planets.

stuff like garbage islands needs global governance, but I don´t see any need to go any further