What if, I thought, it was a good thing that USA is trying to get world domination? Maybe it is natural part of the evolution of humanity. Maybe we need to be united under one goverment to be able to treat the Earth more responsibly and also to get resources enough to actually make space travlel possible for a larger amount of the population. This would then be a further step in human evolution. We can't stay on Earth forever as a species if we want to survive, because as we all know the sun will not last forever. I'm not saying that this is right or even that securing the humanitys survival is a good thing, just that it's natural for humanity as such, as it is for all life, to strive for survival and therefore this could be a logical scenario.
So maybe globalisation is what we ultimatilly should be embracing instead of fighting it off. To unite as a planet. Then the goverment would have stop destroying the Earths resources, because now all belongs to them and all is their responsibility. Then the wellfare of the whole planets population would also be very important, because all are citicens of planet Earth and have equal value and equal rights. As we DO really, but it's not a reality for the larger part of humanity as it is now.
This was just a new road I travelled on in my mind, just a possibility with no moral attachments, nothing to go nazi about. ;)

I agree that the development is very natural however it is not one to be embraced , natural selection at such levels is just plain barbaric .

As for not destroying world resources , as the ruling class of this planet already owns them , I dont see any reason why the same peoples would be destroying them ? And as you see , when one global power does own them , others attempt their destructions , others who do not have global power .

Yes I agree globalization should accur eventually , however only if there is socialism as an economical situation , leading to fair distribution of positions within this globalized system . Globalization based on unequal positions leads only to exploitation .

If there is no advantage for the majority of the peoples (and it is the majority suffering under globalization) , I see little reason for them to consciously praticipate in the proces , I would say the social contract would be broken .

The question here really is , its best for who ? Since the answer to that question is merely 1/6 of the planet who has in general and relatively to others lead very decent lives over the recent millenia , I dont consider this satisfactory enough to lable it as a good thing for this planet .

You were incorrect. In 60,000 years, no empire forced on people by military means has survived in even the medium term. Only water empires survived for any length of time, and they changed so much over the course of their lives that they couldn't be said to have held sway in the long term. A single government may be the end result of human political evolution, but it's a long way off, it won't be the US and it sure as hell won't be a representative democractic government. In fact, there are several technological, economic, social and political advances that we will need first.

Only if the US develops some sort of 1984 world would they succeed in world domination.

But BETTER for everyone? WTF?

Aww, hell with it. Feed everyone a bucket of shrooms and we will all be happy for a while.

The only thing that would allow for globalization would be an outside factor that would be considered a threat to humanity collectively.

Yeah spyke, it's totally beyond the limits of mankind to work together and peacefully coexist in large numbers....
I mean, just look at the USA for an example :bugeye:

Yeah spyke, it's totally beyond the limits of mankind to work together and peacefully coexist in large numbers....
I mean, just look at the USA for an example

Getting past your daily potshots at the US, yes, just look at the US. Look at Asia. Look at the Mideast. Look at Europe. People can't get along at the regional level, whether it be for cultural reasons, religious reasons, or for whatever. 9/11 probably caused Americans to draw together more than any time since Pearl Harbor because they perceived an outside threat. The Middle East has been rife with internal conflict for two millennia. But what gives them common ground? The outside threat of the West. China and North Korea are natural enemies, but when have they gotten along? Only against an outside threat in the US. Western Europe, which spent two thousand years in internal wars, only found common ground when they faced an outside threat in the Soviet Union. You seem to think mankind has actually made the strides necessary to develop a Utopia in the near future. I suggest you look around you. While that is a nice dream, that is all it is. If we can't get along on a local scale, how could we get along on a global scale? The only thing that is likely to give the people of the world a sense of common ground would be the threat of destruction from an outside threat. Although I suppose it could be an internal threat of total destruction.

mankind to work together and peacefully coexist in large numbers....

And I've got some nice beach front property for sale in the Sahara if you're interested...cheap!:D

Getting past your daily potshots at the US
They're neither daily nor potshots. They're not even undeserved.

People can't get along at the regional level, whether it be for cultural reasons, religious reasons, or for whatever.
Crap. They scrap and yell but you have to remember that there are more people obeying the same laws in one spot than used to exist in the entire fuppin' species.
The point is, yes we can learn to "get along", but it takes time on a scale that most people never contemplate. As in, tens of thousands of years.

I would assume that you want a democratic world government. Well the Western model of living would systematicly destroyed. The only state that could naturally take over the world is China. The US sure has the economic and military power but lacks the population needed. US will never get world domination the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, even the EUROS aren't going to let that happen. Sadly America is trying to get some form of dominaiton in the PNAC. The only way world domination would work IMO is if there is one race/cultue. I mean it is impossible to have over what 3000 different cultures and expect them to live in co-existance. :rolleyes: Americas current policy of "gun ho-ism" is going to end if NK get's in the mix. Then the US will actually fight a war. I reject the notion of world government even if it were made to be good. Eventually it would decend into anarchy.

As in, tens of thousands of years

Well, yeah, maybe in another 40,000 years we might advance to that. Then again, we might not even be here then, or even be the dominant species.

They're neither daily nor potshots.

:bugeye: Uh, OK.

They're not even undeserved.

:rolleyes: Yep. The flag issue was vital.;)

I agree, Bebelina.
The US isn't trying to dominate the world, like Napolean or Hitler. It's in the same sense of how Christianity was spread throughout the world, through violence and destroying cultures and letting the new Christians live by their religious code. When the world is united under one type of government, the focus of people's political ramblings won't be on whether a decision is "right or wrong" but how humanity should improve their government structure and practices. Instead of people ranting about how the world will be destroyed by nuclear weapons, people will begin to think, why should we have these weapons? And through the democratic government, people will be able to bring their views to the people who make the laws and make the weapons. A world under democracy would be better off than today's world.

Well as I said, my thought had no moral attachments. Of course it would be totally and utterly wrong of any country to by force try to rule the world, that would definitely lead to chaos.
But USA is presenting an image of being a democrasy, they don't ever say " we are doing this, because we want to take over the world" ( even though it may be what they are thinking..), they say "we are doing this because we want to help you". So from their point of view they are acting in a peacepreserving way and anybody who accuses them for anything different are immediatly being accused for being anti-democratic threats to all peacful societies and have to be converted or destroyed, for the "good" of all. It is a hostile takeover cloaked with the illusion of rightgeousness and they just might succeed with this, if nobody takes pretty immediate action and stop them, and who would that be? Who can say no to USA? It would have to be coalition of ALL other countries on the planet. So maybe that could lead to a world democrasy instead, but if that doesn't happen very soon USA will continue with their agenda. They are jumping in in every conflict now, acting as saviors of the situation, making everybodies business their business.
So I think the world goverment is on its way sooner than we would have expected it. What kind of world goverment it will be, is still left to be seen.
The poor state of the planet and all diseases are a common outer threats for humanity and not to meantion all the recent natural disasters. And also that we strive for constant improvement, not only survival. Humanity wants to be better than it is now. These factors will make the transition to a one goverment democrasy a more appealing idea than letting things be as they are now. We fear change but can never resist it in the end.

globalization is inevitable, but it can take two paths as i see it...
the ultimate outcome of one of these paths is that all menial labor and jobs are shipped to areas that are currently poor and in need of these jobs ultimately leading to a situation where a small group of people in the west own the rest of the world which exists only to serve them.

the other alternative is international communism

International communism? SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS, CITIZEN.

Personally I dont mind being owned as long as I have the potential of climbing the ladder and becoming the owner one day.

Originally posted by Clockwood
International communism? SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS, CITIZEN.

Personally I dont mind being owned as long as I have the potential of climbing the ladder and becoming the owner one day.
so long as your parents were members of the ruling class theat wouldn't be a problem. otherwise no dice.

It would be next to impossible. First, that dominance would not be "natural" but artificial selection. Why artificial? Because humans are by nature racist. To see the evidence just examine the past 200 years of America's glorious history.

World rule will never be democratic.

But USA is presenting an image of being a democrasy, they don't ever say " we are doing this, because we want to take over the world" ( even though it may be what they are thinking..), they say "we are doing this because we want to help you

Yes it's true. "Fighting for world peace is like f*cking for virginity"--I forget who said this.

It's part of the us vs. them thing going on, you're either with the US or you're against it. I'm not a total pacifist but I'd prefer it if, when going to war with an evil despotic dictatorship, you also go to war with the people that put that evil despotic dictatorship into power, like the CIA. You get righteous with the people in your own nation that gave them weapons and the people of other nations that gave them weapons. This would probably lead to your downfall, that's why it didn't happen. I'd support going to war more if they'd just said "he's a bad guy let's go kill him," it was completely unnecessary to lie about the biological weapons, and just screwed the guys up top over even more.

When compared to most other nations, the US is probably the best candidate for world domination--we have the power, the money, and the democracy, but we are still incredibly far from perfect. I'm confident that if perhaps we decided to stop killing people abroad for short-term profit (google East Timor) and if we decided to focus more of our monetary funds on trying to help people rather than trying to exterminate them then perhaps worldwide opinions of the US would increase.

World Government would likely start like a Confederacy, we'd share the same money, have some similar laws, and a weak central leadership that gave most of the power to the states. Europe is a good example.

As for outside threats, Spyke makes an awesome point. We need the buggers to attack us (a la Enders Game). Now.



edit: examples of what American Democracy is, from the last page of Zinn's A People's History of the United States:

"While both parties were speaking critically of "welfare" (as if the corporations, the banks, were not recieving enormous welfare from the government) a New York Times/CBS poll in December 1994 found that 65 percent said that "it is the responsibility of the government to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves."

"If democracy meant some recognition by government of the will of the people, it was clear by 1995 that this was not being fulfilled by either Republicans or Democrats. A Los Angeles Times survey of September 1994 found that: "Americans increasingly say they are willing to support a new party." This confirmed the Gordon Black Poll of two years earlier in which 54 percent of those polled said they wanted "a new nation reform party.""

"If historical experience taught anything, it was that a serious national crisis--such as existed in the United States in the mid-nineties, a criss of poverty, drugs, violence, crime, alienation from politics, uncertainty for the future--would not be solved without some great social movement of the citizenry. Such a movement would need to join together the inspiration and commitment of the antislavery movement, the labor movement, the antiwar movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movemnt, the gay and lesbian movement, the environmental movement, to turn the nation in a new direction."

"Sometime in 1992, the Republican Party held a dinner to raise funds, in which individuals and corporations paid up to $400,000 to attend. A spokesman for Preident Bush, Marlin Fitzwater, told reporters: "It's buying access to the system, yes." When asked about people who didn't have so much money, he replied: "They have to demand access in other ways."

Glbalisation is merely the program being used by rich, white, multi-national corporations (American and European) to secure their hold and influence in all the world's markets.

It is like a creature with a million tentacles, each one steeped in an evil purpose.

The white race, while being the most powerful, is also the smallest, the most cosseted and the most decadent. The other races on this planet are numerous, willing to work hard, are able to survive on little and most alarmingly (to the whites), are gaining in education and technology. In one or two generations, these people will become serious competion for the whites, if left unchecked.

Educated and reasonably well paid non-white people will be able to forge ahead in all areas. This makes them dangerous and undesirable. One way to halt their rapid progress is by securing a hold on all their vital assets, paying them little and charging them interest on huge loans instigated by corrupt governments and dictatorships usually placed in power (one way or the other) by the Whites.

Another way, is to stir up racial tensions and instigate religious vendettas between followers of different faiths, then sell arms to both sides, scoring a double whammy! Divide and rule and make money in the process.

Then, there is the international terrorism 'ism'.

'There's one there... let's invade the country and get him!'

Well, the country is invaded and wrecked, innocents are killed, mayhem is caused and towns are turned to rubble. But the terrorist always gets away!

'Never mind, the 'people' are better off now. We freed them (from the leaders we put in place some time ago), but they still hate us and attack us! (Even though we replaced the 'bad' leaders with 'better' ones.'


And thus, prejudices are created, 'back home'. Why 'care' about all these non-whites in distant lands? Why care if they're exploited to death, so that the whites can continue to wallow in their cheap consumerism, while the planet is also being systematically destroyed in the process? Why give a damn'? Most of them are terrorists... probably.

Then of course, the whites move in to rebuild the wrecked country with money borrowed from the whites. Win, win, win situation.

If the third world was allowed ownership of its own resources or at least was paid fairly for its exported produce and if they were allowed to sort out their own political affairs without white interference, then large chunks of it would cease to be third world pretty soon and there would be even more competition to contend with for the dwindling white minority.

This is what I perceive, as part of the reasoning behind the concept of Globalisation.

I am hoping for eventual decentralization of political power, not some damned World government. I doubt that it will happen in my lifetime (if ever), but one always has hope for the future of the species.

The bigger and more powerful a political entity gets, the more inefficient, harder to control, and potentially dangerous it becomes.

The Greek City State model was ideal for democracy. Even a large or medium sized modern city is less than ideal. Anything bigger easily becomes controlled by demagogues capable of taking advantage of stupidity, lack of concern, and or class/ethnic chauvinism (or worse yet the desire for a free lunch).

Globalization has been proven to make the poorest only poorer. Granted some success stories have come out of Globalization but not enough to actually warrant it to be a success. What needs to be done to solve many of the world ills is to lift agri tariffs. That is the hinge on many nations purses. We have to face facts that many nations are not going to industrialize, and also there will be nations that will be poor for a very long time. But oddly enough Globalization has a socialist side affect. Let's take for instance a car factory:

1982- factory was in the US
1994- NAFTA opened up to Mexico
1995- wages at american company was too high
1997- moves to Mexico
2002- Closes shoppe in Mexico for even LOWER wages in China.

End effect all wages go down, thus wealth amoung the people's of the world is more equal, but in all the wrong ways. :mad:

Greek city-state? Could you perhaps go into more detail? Are you referring to Plato's Republic?

As for the whole race-thing, I feel that it would be best if there was only one race--a mixture of everyone alive today. No exterminations, just huge amounts of interbreeding between different peoples. Ever read 3001? Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Chinese, all archaic words of the past. They wouldn't have to lose their cultures, it would just take away so much of the problems associated with such an obvious difference. Diversity is nice, but voluntary unification, I feel, would be better. That way the whites wouldn't hold sway, we'd all be one.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong on the previous issue, so please, if I'm sounding like a Nazi don't hesitate to re-educate me.

Pollux V: As I remember from history courses a long, long time ago, classical Greece prior to Alexander (from Macedonia) was not a united country. It was a group of independent cities and some rural areas which had no formal govenment.

The cities cooperated against externl enemies (Example Persian empire), but were otherwise independent political entities.

As I remember it, some of the cities (particularly Athens) had a pure form of democracy, with a lot of imperfections by modern Western World standards. There were slaves and others who could not vote. Women had few, if any rights.

However, there was no king or ruling executive branch. Those who had voting rights voted on laws and other decisions to be made. A majority vote ruled.

It is my understanding that it was the first instance of a democracy, and a concept original with the ancient Geeks.

For larger political entities, some form of representative democracy is the best one can hope for.

A pure democracy is potentially dangerous, since it really is a sophisticated form of mob rule. The US concept of a constitutional democracy with separate legislative, executive, and judicial branches is probably the best idea. It prevents (or tones down) mob action via majority vote.

I am sure that there were times between 1870 and 1950 that a toned down version of the German final solution could have gotten a majority vote. For example: A law giving blacks and/or Jews 6-12 months to emigrate or be deported. The supreme court and a constituion difficult to amend prevents that sort of action by a majority. Furthermore, the executive branch can get away with delay tactics for a while if congress passes something outrageous.

The main problem with our system is that it is prone to abuse by demagogues.

BTW: I think our foreign policy has often been based on really lousy concepts. We never seem to realize that having a common enemy does mean you should be friends. We never seem to realize that there is never justification for aiding an evil person or government. You might have to tolerate evil, but you should never support it.