What if the world was one country?

Status
Not open for further replies.
trojan698 said:
sorry shall we talk about graphics cards, pointless elections or funny cats?
Click to expand...

well so far you arnt talking about this either your sat there ****ed as a thirteen year old on grandmas cooking sherry saying nothing.

a discussion on funny cats would probably be both more insightful and more relevant to the world as a whole than this.
 
trojan698 said:
words or solutions?
Click to expand...

Solution is countries provides for the different needs and desires of different people.

they also provide protection againt any one authoritarian, fascist or dictatorial power rising to dominate all people because to do so is currently a military impossibility with countries as they are.
 
ok my idea of one country, would be a unified currency, negating profits made from their trade which are socially meaningless and hence unjustifiably profitable. banks could become social utilities that benefited people and ran at zero profit (for their profits are used without social value). Why make our means of exchange a source of benefit - crazy talk. trade would be exchanged freely without sanction or tax. taxes would be balanced to meet the collective need. military spending would be reduced to zero (although 8% of which is now currently required to eliminate world poverty - think). politicians could act at the whim of the people (like in iceland). they are there to serve our interest, not serve a self interested temporary term. politicians (term would not exist, politicians are basically walking adverts) would serve our interest fully. there would be less red tape. decisions could be made daily by those inclined to particpate on the web (citizens not advertmen). no opposition, but distribution of our finite resources would be goal while encouraging and incentivising the population (coz lets face it, we're lazy.)
 
Workers of the world unite, open boarder, we all bleed red? Is this the sort of thing you were after op?

iclickedonthishonestlyt.png
 
how would politicians serve our interests fully? how would one politician unify the ideas of women's rights and the idea that women should be stoned to death for adultery?


because if they simply choose one then suddenly they do not serve all peoples interests, and the fractures begin.

and internet participation would be how things would be decided?

I think this thread alone proves how that would turn out.

and the rest is basically: "lol if i rubbed out the lines on the map everyone would love each other and everything would be perfect"

with about as much thought put into it, actually less to be honest, of the stoners who go "if the world all smoked weed then everyone would love each other and everything would be perfect".
 
[TW]Fox;23121180 said:
Mass migration from all the not-so-great places to all the great places, causing huge issues.
Click to expand...

damn right! mass migration! we could all move to the sunshine like we've been restricted from doing for centuries.

back in 10 guys, offy ;)
 
Yo mean like pangea in civilization 4?

Well it would begin with my settler unit forming my capital city,
Then I would make my warrior unit explore,
Then I would research animal husbandry,
Then I'd run into some barbarians and kill them,
Then I'd discover resources - gold,
Then I'd meet ghandi and negotiate open borders,
Then I'd build another settler unit,
Then I'd make my warrior explore to the south east,
Animal husbandry will now have been researched,
Then I would research bronze working,
Then I would talk to napoleon about trade,
Then I would find another resource - wool,
Then I'd talk to Ghandi about trading wool,
Then I'd talk to Napoleon about trading wool,
Then I'd take my settler unit and build my second city,
Bronze working would now have been researched,
I'd research mathematics,

Etc.
 
Definitely would create all sorts of issues presuming that a single country has a single currency.

All the first world countries will be vastly productive and all the third world countries won't be able to compete. You'd have regions of the country who are so vastly unproductive it'd be unreal.

Not to mention the complexities of having a single person running it.

That said the Marxist idea, of some kind of 'communist' utopian makes for a great theory if you had a single leader who could implement it (you couldn't)

kd
 
Our nations are part of our culture and making it irrelevant is rather detrimental.

Even if we did suddenly decide, "hey ho, nation of earth here", our society is not built for that change, it would immediately find it hostile, some might like it and not care, but i can bet even some of those folks will like a bit of identity back, nationality is not superfluous as you may imply.

There are only two events that will bring the world together (even then i imagine it will just make the UN a federated body in control of important issues) a colossal disaster or proof of Sentient Life beyond the Earth.

There are literally no other scenarios that we would be comfortable with such a change.

You will realise this when Mars is colonised, I can swear that eventually the colonists will revolt, it is our nature.
 
King Damager said:
That said the Marxist idea, of some kind of 'communist' utopian makes for a great theory if you had a single leader who could implement it (you couldn't)

kd
Click to expand...

i disagree there, i think the main issue would not be finding one person capable of running the world, but finding 7 billion people willing to follow him.
 
Castiel said:
So Trojan, what is your opinion?

EDIT: I see, some sort of confused hellish Brave New World dystopia.
Click to expand...
As opposed to?

Tefal said:
how would politicians serve our interests fully? how would one politician unify the ideas of women's rights and the idea that women should be stoned to death for adultery?


because if they simply choose one then suddenly they do not serve all peoples interests, and the fractures begin.

and internet participation would be how things would be decided?

I think this thread alone proves how that would turn out.

and the rest is basically: "lol if i rubbed out the lines on the map everyone would love each other and everything would be perfect"

with about as much thought put into it, actually less to be honest, of the stoners who go "if the world all smoked weed then everyone would love each other and everything would be perfect".
Click to expand...
The only sensible approach would be a technocracy, one in which decisions are made by those most qualified.

The scientific method of problem solving would be the tool used to shape society, based on our scientific understanding of human needs with elements of a meritocracy.

But that society would take time, for one we would have to wait for a few generations to die off first (along with shaping the coming generations to fit into said society).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom