The World as a Single Country

[Shuai]

I think that the world would be better off as a single country. What do you guys think?

ALSO- If the world was a single country, what type of government do you think would be best to rule it? (Democracy, Monarchy, Communism, Dictatorship, that gay *** Parlimentary Monarchy Britain has, etc.)

I personally think that a dictatorship with a just and wise leader would be the best situation. (Even though this is impossible because power corrupts)

[Admin]

In a perfect world, yes that would work.

When you find a perfect world let me know.

[Shuai]

lol

[piquant]

I think the world as single country is both a wonderful and terrible idea. Wonderful because it would reduce conflicts between countries, simplify trade and travel, and allow for an easier diffusion of new ideas. However I think much would be lost if the world become a single country. We would risk losing diversity and culture. Also I don't think that as a society we are ready for it. Instead of wars between countries we would have civil wars. I don't think the cure for conflict is homogenization, but acceptance of diversity.

If the world did become a single country, which I think is probable sometime in the future, especially if/when we find other planets inhabited with sentient life (sci-fi, I know) then I put in my vote for communism. I know this could only work in a society formed purely of idealists, but hey, this is a What If game right!

I'll give you a heads up when I find that perfect world Admin ;) !

[Shuai]

Once we get to the point where everyone agrees and all the world leaders decide to become a single country, people would have to be pretty happy. I don't think we would need to worry about civil wars then. Also, who cares about diversity? What does it really do for us except cause conflicts? In fact, the only problem that the world would have is whether or not there are enough jobs for everyone. Did you know that America, India, and Great Britain alone produce enough food for the whole world every year? It's just the amount we waste that makes the difference.

If the world were a single country, we wouln't have to worry about lack of food or water, or even poverty. Everything would be perfect. And if you don't consider disagreements about religion, everyone would be in general more friendly towards eachother.

[Admin]

Is Britain really a food producer? They're an island and a small one at that.

I'd say Canada is probably a larger producer than them.

[den]

One `country' between Buddhism, Chritianity and Islam ? I think it's impossible.

[Jay]

But Den, if we would see the world and the people like this (like there can't be a sollution for various religions or origin or ... to find a way to exist in peace or at least behave civil to each other), the idea of the world as a single country could never become more than a nice dream, don't you think? At first we have to accept that there could be a possibility to somehow live in peace, then we could be able to live according to the idea.

[den]

Ok, I haven't forgotten about this thread, I've been thinking about it for days! and I keep coming up with more questions.

Now, I know that this is not a politics forum, and Admin doesn't want it to be one, so I can't fully answer this question without getting into heavy political discussion, so, I'll just say this.

Sure, it is a `nice' dream. But I think it's also a little too idealistic, in my cynical mind ;) to think that it's possible to have billions of people inherently agreeing on even fundamental issues, ha except for the needs to produce food and keep water potable. But even there you get widely varying degrees of how people approach this.

I also don't agree with one of the ideas that what would be required would be to eliminate religion, and this coming from a spiritual but not religious person. I see a lot of value in diversity, and I don't see that maintained if the world was one country.

[piquant]

Den, I couldn't agree with you more. I personally place a lot of value on diversity. It is what adds color to life. It is painful to imagine a world where everyone has the same religion, culture, etc. Diversity may cause conflict, but it more than makes up for this in what it gives back. It can be the source of creativity, inspiration, new ideas, and great beauty. Each culture has a store of knowledge that it can share with the world if given the opportunity. Also, individuals raised differently think differently, bringing a new flow of ideas into a world that may otherwise be stagnant.

To really bring this back to literature look at what diversity has done to the books we read. Russian, English, French, American... You can almost always tell what region of the world a book has came from without even looking at the author's background. And religion...God help us if we were stuck with only Christian beliefs (or any other religion for that matter);I may be Catholic, but I can still see the beauty in such a work as Siddhartha, and gain knowledge, experience, and wisdom from it. If diversity is the sacrifice we have to make for peace, then I say to hell with peace!

P.S. Thanks for the link to Of Human Bondage, Den. I meant to PM you my thanks, but I couldn't figure out how it worked.

[den]

Also, look at all the beautiful works of art that have been created from `the human condition'.

It isn't so great dealing with life sometimes. It's not all pastoral verdant lush loveliness, there's real pain and conflict and power struggles within the individual and amongst our nations.

I hate the thought that someday there will only be one world-language. I've read theories of this before, that that is what we're working toward. The internet has a lot to do with it. English is high up there as a likely possibility, but to think that some languages are dying, or dead, is depressing.

It's all about the human condition, and I think a big component of it is that we will fight, we will be agressive and always want more. People won't settle with what we have. It's never enough.

[Shuai]

On the topic of diversity, I am not saying that one existing culture should take over. If the world were one country, I would find it likey to eventually see a mesh of all the existing cultures (this wouldn't take long, since travel would be made so much easier). And on religion, look at America. It is already a place where people of different religions get along really well. I am a Protestant Christian, but have friends that are Buddhist, Muslim, Catholic, Atheists, and even a Jew (they're pretty hard to find where I live). So if it is possible in America, Britain, India, and hundreds of other countries, why is it so hard to believe we can achieve this with the whole world?
Who knows? Maybe one day Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Atheists will all sit down to a dinner of wonton soup, burritos, hot dogs, and have some almond barfi for desert.

[Jay]

I'd like to second you, Shuai, on this one. It's pretty what I wanted to say earlier. I'm also for diversity, originality. I think it would be boring if there would be just one language, one religion, one culture...
I hope we're not getting too close to politics, irritating Admin out of his mind. Though I'd say politics kinda relates to literature, doesn't it? Literature often reflects the political situation it was written in. But I agree, it's not the point (or it wasn't supposed to be one of them ;) ) on this forum.

[Munro]

I would say that it is a natural part of the human condition to separate into different groups and create an 'us vs. them' situation. Everywhere you go you see groups forming, take the playground of a high school for example. From the earliest times of humanity we have formed tribes, then villages, then countries and empires. The only way we could live in a Pan-National world is if one nation with its own set of beliefs and culture was to absorb smaller ones until every nation lived that culture, spoke that language and lived under the one government. This would see the destruction of diversity, and diversity is what makes life beautiful and exciting. For this reason I agree with den. If we all lived in one nation then the different cultures and belief systems would undoubtedly cause conflict and sub-groups within the country. As much as it sounds great to be united, I don't see it as possible for humans.

[Shea]

Anyone ever read this passage in Genesis? If one beleives the Bible, this could explain why humans are naturally set on diversity.

Genesis 11:1-9
1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
8 So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel -because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Incidentally, I believe this is where the term babbling came from. It's pretty amazing though that God felt that the pride of man was so strong that He needed to diversify us. It is for this reason that I don't believe that the world could be entirely united as one country. It seems in our minds that it would be beneficial, but if God didn't think it was a good idea, then it probably would harm us in the long run.

[MarsMonster]

the world as one country. not possible. people are too different.
and if you think of a country as an institution of power, than we more or less have that already. but if you think of a country as a nation than so many different cultures cannot be merged into one. think of the problems. and think of the fact that there would be much less individualism. that is simply not possible to happen ever. even if the borders were erased, if there was a single planetary language in use, and if the same money valute is used, still you wouldn't have 'one country'
i guess you just have to define a 'country' before you ask such questions.
the only way something like that would work is for me to be the only leader - THE PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD! !! !! !

[Shuai]

Country- (noun); a piece of land in which people are governed by a body that deals with such issues as food, economy, medical care, and education.

By the way, what does your avatar say? It looks blurry.

ALSO- How could you ever want to be president of the world? Being in charge of over 6 billion people doesn't sound that easy.

[MarsMonster]

Country- (noun); a piece of land in which people are governed by a body that deals with such issues as food, economy, medical care, and education.

i think the country is much more than that. people govern it, people live in it, and it delas with much more than what was said. people are not something that can be calculated, and their behaviour cannot be forseen, people are much more complex than you or anybody thinks. i believe that if human race can't figure out how a human brain works - it most surely can't say what is best for it, and neither can any individual. and the world is as it is because of that. if people understood other people (and i don't mean like respect or ok, whatever, i mean understand why anyone does what they do) then maybe it would be possible to talk about what is best for humanity. now- it is not.


By the way, what does your avatar say? It looks blurry.
sorry about that my computer is not quite working now and my graphics are lousy so i couldn';t see whether the resizing of the picture blurred it. but it is from amason.com. my favourite book title.


ALSO- How could you ever want to be president of the world? Being in charge of over 6 billion people doesn't sound that easy.

oh, don;'t you worry, i'd get along just fine......

[Jay]

And that book title would be... it's not very readable as well

[MarsMonster]

and isn't a bit of mystery sexy?

are you from prague?

[Jay]

Ehmm... that would be a NO. I'm from a smaller town with a little than 100 000 citizens. Mind asking me Why? If you're courious, I'm from Liberec, if it helps you. Other questions?

[MarsMonster]

no not really curious.
my father was born in prague and my grandmother and aunt live there. i love the city so whenever i see someone from prague i bore them with questions about it. :)

[Chaos Tesseract]

Well, I just have to add my thoughts to this, if just to say that I've posted more than once. :D
First off, I like Shea's point about God dispersing the nations and changing the language, but he left out a crucial detail. The reason God did this was simply because the Nimrod (the ruler of the world at the time) and those he ruled became too prideful and sought to challenge the power of God. This, of course, could only be avoided in a perfect world, considering that any person, no matter how hard they try to hide it, becomes proud of his power and accomplishments.
Secondly, I think that having the entire world as a single country would only be accomplished through a disgustingly powerful empire. Also, if the country were to follow in the footsteps of the Romans diversity would still remain. But, this would make the world difficult to control, and there would be uprisings on every street corner. Man has the instinctive desire to be free, which is why I'm proud to be and American (but I don't believe America is the most free of countries, what with the government slowly telling us more and more how to live our lives), and no man should be content to have his country taken over by invading hordes.
Also, one ruler would never be able to control the entire world, humans are just too limited. His governers would of course rebel and start their own countries given enought time to plan and raise forces. And the only way to keep track of anything would be a type of thought police and telescreens, and I don't think anyone would want a Big Brother.
These are the reasons a uninational (I don't think that's a word, but hey) world wouldn't work. There probably other ones, but I don't care to write more. I hope this made sense.

[Ickmeister]

I think that if the world were one country it should be a Christian theocracy.

[Shea]

Hmmm... I'm not sure that would work either. I'm doing a self study on the reformation in the 16th century, and am completely amazed at how corrupt man becomes when he gets a hold of a little power. The catholic church set up a theocracy which lead to the reformation because of how greedy and corupt it became. They started making up ways to get out of "purgatory" (which isn't even biblical) by selling indulgences (of which the true purpose was to fill the treasury of the papacy).

"The underlying theory was that Christ and the saints had more merits than were needful for their own salvation. The superfluous credits were stored in a treasury placed by God at the disposal of the popes and capable of transfer to those who's sins were in arrears. Precisely how much could be conferred was under debate."
--Roland H. Bainton The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century

Amazing! Completely unscriptural! I don't mean to bash on your idea, it's a very admirable one if it could work, but I think that history has already shown us how it can't.

[Munro]

Come to think of it, didn't communism as a system intend to dissolve all national identites, and create a single global community where there were no classes or nations? That system failed, and the revolution was never completed. The only way a single country could be created is if humans were scientifically conditioned like in Brave New World, or completely controlled like in Nineteen Eighty-Four, otherwise humans divide and fight, and groups are formed, forming the basis for a nation. In other words, the only way to unite all humanity is to eradicate it...quite a sad irony, but that's the way things are.

[Ickmeister]

Jes, I need to get to the library more people keep giving exaples from books I haven't heard of.

[Ickmeister]

I've changed my mind, I think a true democracy would be best.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

It can work and in fact will work in the view of most christians. Because a majority of christians beleive that Jesus will rule over earth for 1000 years after the rapture and tribulation. At least that is the view of most Preterists....

JonUs

[imthefoolonthehill]

I liked admin's first post on this subject... untill a perfect world arives, or until our world arrives at a state of perfection, a one-world country would be indescribably terrible, and a scary place to live.

[Eric, son of Chuck]

Wishful thinking. Canada's trying to pull that sort of mutual respect/tolerance thing off. Whether or not we're doing it successfully is debatable.

[Sitaram]

When I was in my 20's, I knew a wise old Greek Bishop with a wonderful sense of humor. He wanted to make a certain point which is pertinent to this thread.

He told me of his visit to a very small Greek island which was only several miles in length and a mile or two in width. He was walking along the beach when he encountered a Greek woman. He asked her "Are you from here (meaning, are you native to this tiny island or did you come here from some other part of Greece)?"

She looked amazed. Here eyes widened. She exclaimed: "Me! From here! Oh NO! I am from the other side of the island!"

The lesson here is that the woman felt that there was a "right side of the tracks" and a "wrong side of the tracks", and she identified herself with what she felt was the more elite side of this tiny island.

The Bishop finished his story to me with a big smile and a hearty laugh.

It is amazing that Socrates should be the first to say "I am a citizen of the world" when, in his time the known world was so small, and there was little notion of anything like a "global village".

I am also reminded of Jonathan Swift, "Gullivers Travels", the great religious war between the Big-endians and the Little-endians

The Big-endians felt it their religious duty to open their hard boiled eggs from the big end. The Little-endians had equally strong convictions about their duty to open their hard boiled eggs from the little end. When Gulliver asked to see the passage in their religious scripture commanding all of this, they showed him, and it read


Open thy egg where thou wilt.

You might want to take a look at this thread

http://online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13004

Survival Advantages of Mortality and Discord

If it is true that there is a survival advantage in the tendancy or nature to avoid harmony and agreement, then this would argue against the establishment of a one world "global village".

[RococoLocket]

I personally believe I should be the tyrannical dictator of the entire earth. It would be a much better place. I would call my self a Queen & there would be no parliament, just my rules depending on my mood [don't worry, i'm good & volatile, gotta keep you on your toes].

:D

[imthefoolonthehill]

not gonna read all this stuff... but i wanna say that the smaller, more local the government is, the happier I am, and the happier the people living under it seem to be.

Only when others wish to impose their beliefs on others are larger governments wanted.

[Taliesin]

In a perfect world, yes that would work.

When you find a perfect world let me know.

We think we found one in our clothes closet this morning.
On the other hand, it could have been a speck of dust actually and we lost it before we could examine it more precisely so the truth remains hidden.

On the topic, little societies (like a village or a hippy society) tend to care more on the individual than big ones. There is a saying in estonian that every county must feed their own cripples and they probably do - how can you let someone starve whom you have known for a very long time? The individual problems can be dealt "manually" where as big societies need mechanisms in which's cogweels people can get hurt.
On the other hand, little societies are more vulnerable and weaker. They will get totally extinguished more often than the big ones(we know that it is badly phrased and that a village can only once be totally extinguished). The society might care for you but what can it do when they are in the same condition as you.

Also we think that Sitarams story is a wonderful example of people's need to belong somewhere. The world is not a good place to belong for it is too big for one to feel it.

[permanentstain]

one gigantic country? i think that's what america might be trying to pull. at any rate it's a bad idea, there would be so much underrepresentation and conspiracy no person could sleep soundly.

[baddad]

*this thread is 2.5 yrs old* The Big If

...if something wonderful caused humans to behave only completely civilly toward one another, caused entire peoples to care, sympathize, give........if greed disapeared or was burned from the genes of humankind...if organized religions extended proclamations to include the rightiousness of all of their sister religions......if sleazy conspiratorial humans resisted an urge to impose extreme capitalism, extreme communism, extreme versions of religion, military dogma, pendulum straining extremes of conservativism, fuedalism, etc , causing a situation commonly known as "GIVING PEACE A CHANCE"................well then, one world goverment would be just fine my friend.................