Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:21:18

Sounds like the UN. How is it different?

soph · 2003-02-10 21:27:13

Because it is a representative government that actually governs the world equitably, and pools the resources of the world. It allows free trade and movement. Its laws would be equal around the world.

The UN has no governing powers beyond emergency management and diplomacy. It is not a real government so much as a negotiating agency.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:32:47

Oh, so cultures which don't like the concepts of the world government will have to be abolished? The post before my last one stands. World militaries make me queazy.

And BTW, I would argue that all a good, just, government exists for is diplomacy. The second it actually has real authority over you, you need to start freaking worrying.

soph · 2003-02-10 21:48:07

No, the second there is no government authority, is when you should worry, because your local criminal has nobody to answer to.

That's exactly opposite of what I just said Josh. What I said is that there are representatives from all regions, and force is only used to put down violence. Freedom of dissention should be allowed, but not violence. I am all for freedom, just not freedom to destroy. Cultures should be preserved, nothing in what I said goes against that Josh.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-10 21:54:11

The UNs laws are equal around the world. It's hard to interpret what you're saying, exactly. Where do you find fault in the UN? That the security council gives too much power to second and first world countries, or what?

Where I see what you said that goes against various cultures, is the implication that this new world governments laws would go so far as to dictate how each country is run in and of themselves. If that's not what you meant, then okay.

You seem to be for the abolishment of countries.

clark · 2003-02-11 11:15:51

Here, let me offer the nail in the coffin of a World Republic:

Not all countries are democratic. Not all countries can even be considered remotely republic.

A world government that respects national soverignty, but allows for equal representation between dictatorships and progressive democracies is incredibly, undeniably, stupid.

You are discussing allowing countries that engage in policies that are anthema to everything democracies hold dear, and putting them on par in terms of representation with western democracies.

You have delegates who are responsible to elected delegates for the western democracies, and then you have delegates that are responsible only to the repressive regimes.

Great, 270 million americans make a decision, that is represented democratically- while some two bit dictator in some god forsaken country matches our voice with just theirs.

AND, might I add, that any suiggestion of a disolution of national militaries, to be replaced by a global military is naieve. How can we honestly expect dictators and repressive regimes to abandon their source of power and security? Out of the good of their hearts?

Soph, you're pretty smart, and I applaud you on your thinking, you have shown some depth of understanding- but you need to consider the implications of what you propose. Think it through.

soph · 2003-02-11 13:58:48

The concept was in theory, and in a time much different from our own. Like I've said, I don't forsee this happening in the next 50 to 100 years. I was projecting for a time when the petty disputes of today are dead, and people are educated beyond their ignorant hatreds.

Josh- touching on what you said before, what is a country but a political boundary? But, no, what I was proposing was EU style unions of continents, wherein free trade and movement would occur. The only trade barriers might be between continents. I was in no way suggesting that we hegemonize Earth! Unfortunately, if we don't find a new home, it will happen!

soph · 2003-02-11 16:57:30

Great, 270 million americans make a decision, that is represented democratically- while some two bit dictator in some god forsaken country matches our voice with just theirs.

Ah, and I mentioned that we only have 7 representatives, one from each region (most likely the continents). That way the countries are balanced in representation, and the best interests of the region are met. Delegate election would be by popular vote (not an electoral type system).

And on the World level, each delegate should have equal say. If say, the European delegate thinks North America is in the right, well, they put their word to North America. And South America can do the same!

clark · 2003-02-12 10:33:25

Ah, and I mentioned that we only have 7 representatives, one from each region (most likely the continents).

Oh, I get it. We have Asia as a continent, which has something like 3 billion people, they get one represenative. north America, with a population probably about 500 million, will have one represenative (are you begining to see a problem?) and Antartica, with the 2000 some odd scientits get one represenative...

Delegate election would be by popular vote (not an electoral type system).

So America or Mexico (the most populous nations) get to decide, poor Canada is to small to matter. And then there is China, with the largest population, always getting its way- so much for India, Japan, Russia (or is that considered Europe? another problem I suppose), the middle east, etc.

Stop using artifical constructs to divide your system. You will simply perpetuate the same geographical politics we see today.

soph · 2003-02-12 13:36:58

So America or Mexico (the most populous nations) get to decide, poor Canada is to small to matter. And then there is China, with the largest population, always getting its way- so much for India, Japan, Russia (or is that considered Europe? another problem I suppose), the middle east, etc.

No, their votes get counted just as heavily as the American vote, or Mexican vote.

perhaps there is a better way to divide the political boundaries-at this point I don't see it. I'm just throwing out what I think can help form an effective government.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 13:43:36

The only way you can justly represent a population, is if everyone is represented equally. Yes, that means giving individuals in a third world country just as much say as individuals in a first world country.

The UN works by giving nations individual voices. I think this is fair, since nations have their own governing principles. But it still gives dictators and so on too much say. There should be penalties for people who aren't democracies, or are wrong to democracies. Like, for instance, the US and her embargo on Cuba.

The UN, now that Europe is getting some balls, is finally working in that direction, from an enforcablity perspective.

It's kind of awesome. A wise friend of mine predicted this would happen about 6 months ago. That ?Europe and China would probably reach 1st world status in the next decade or so.? He added, ?With Bush, it seems to be happening much quicker than anyone could anticipate.?

clark · 2003-02-12 13:56:47

There should be penalties for people who aren't democracies, or are wrong to democracies.

Nothing like passing judgement on what form of governemnt everyone should practice.

"There should be penalties for people who aren't christian, or are wrong to christians."

You gonna decide?
You gonna let me decide?

The only way you can justly represent a population, is if everyone is represented equally.

But no country on earth does this!

Children, poor, uneducated, ill, infirmed, busy, minority, etc. all go under represented, or not at all.

What do you *need* a world government for? Let that define its structure.

soph · 2003-02-12 13:59:39

We *need* a world government to unify humanity, bring an end to wars, pool resources for the betterment of humanity, bringing third world countries to parity with first world countries, and push to new frontiers.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:00:27

So wait, clark, you say that dictatorships should get equal representation? Didn't you just say a few pages up that they shouldn't?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:03:12

Hmm, no, a world government shouldn't pool resources. Quite the contrary, a world government should make it so that one nation or another shouldn't be able to take someones resources via military means.

That's exactly why I say that the UN is finally getting some legitimacy with the Iraq situation.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:17:19

So wait, clark, you say that dictatorships should get equal representation? Didn't you just say a few pages up that they shouldn't?

No, I am not saying that. I am pointing out the problem in instuting some measure where we have to decide what is an allowable government, and what isn't. Who decides?

We *need* a world government to unify humanity, bring an end to wars, pool resources for the betterment of humanity, bringing third world countries to parity with first world countries, and push to new frontiers.

Okay, an end to wars. That means we need a fourm where differences between nation-states can be heard, and the judgements enforced. Perhaps the WTO or the World Judiciary (or whatever it is) Group is the first step...

As for bring parity between first world nations and third world nations... considering where I am, and who i am, I would consider this a "VERY BAD IDEA".

any attempt to bridge te parity between first and third world nations will mean a reduction in first world standard of living.

Second, is parity a "good thing". As the standard of living increases in a third world nation, the cost of labor capital will increase. This will in turn drive the prices up for basic commodities, which can then spiral out of control.

Or, think of 3 Billion chinese people living an average american lifestyle.

270 million of us use 25% of the worlds resources. You figure out what happens when most iof the world wants their Big Macs, SUVs, and MTV- hello global collapse.

I once heard a very interesting thing regarding China: They don't need to threaten the world with nuclear weapons to get what they want. No, they just need to threaten to allow their people to all have air conditioners. The result would destroy the ecology of the world, along with most of the ozone.

I honestly believe we need to develop space first before we can deal with a unified world government.

Palomar · 2003-02-12 14:23:42

We *need* a world government to unify humanity

*Well that's a pretty tall order. What KIND (specifically) of government should the world gov't be based on, in your opinion? And is it reasonable to expect all peoples of the world would consent to/agree with being governed by one type of government (and again -- which one?)?

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:24:38

I agree. In fact, I would happily say that Mars would make the best testbed for such a government.

But there's something you said which I disagree with. Simply because the US uses up so many resources, doesn't mean the standard of living itself is indicitive of that consumption, but rather that the standard of living is probably inefficient. The US wastes much more than it consumes.

I wouldn't consider it a bad idea to change the parity between first and third world nations, because I think that if we were to not be wasteful, such a thing could occur almost naturally. Third world nations would be able to produce less, and keep resources for themselves, thus allowing them to catch up, if you will. I think it's obvious that third world nations can exist on their own (before the advent of globalism, most places did exist that way, all their resources were grown and produced locally, very few things were imported and so on), once you consider how much first and second world nations use them.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 14:30:20

Oh, BTW, clark, it's not hard to define democracy, I wouldn't think. But I'm only saying we need to define it if we are for the humanities, or whatever.

It might be better to just say that people are penalized for human rights violations (which too, obviously needs to be defined), this way a very benevolent dictator isn't going to be penalized if his people are happy or something.

In any case, the decider would have to be some world judiciary commitee or something.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:34:25

What KIND (specifically) of government should the world gov't be based on, in your opinion?

A legeslative body to draw up rules and common agreements.
A judical body to rule on disputes between member states.

The body would only have authority over those who chose to become a part of the organization. All members agree to enforce, or abide by, any and all decisions of the judicial body.

Perhaps induce compliance by creating a free trade association between all member states within the organization. If anybody defies the ruling of the judical body, they have tarriffs applied on all of their exports (or some other economicaly punitive function)

You don't need force, you need acceptance and compliance for a government system to work.

The States in the US don't war with each other becuase they accept the legitmacy of the courts- they don't fear the federal army.

Any system where those whithout power will be treated the same as those with power is just and equitable, yet such a system goes against every best interest of first world nations.

soph · 2003-02-12 14:39:00

clark, the market is self-regulating, at least under semi-government-regulated capitalism. Yes, wages would go up, but this would increase the standard of living-allowing them to get a better education, and so on. They can then produce more, invent more, and so on.

Improving conditions allow the market to continue, even at higher wages.

Or is it ok that because we have higher living conditions, Cambodians should get paid $10 a month? The global market will eventually balance itself anyway, to the point where the Cambodians make similar wages to first world countries, as they unionize, and repeat the actions of 19th and 20th century Americans and Europeans. Labor is a resource just like anything else, and as demand increases, so will the cost. So bringing living conditions to parity will just speed up the process, not spiral it out of control. We need not drop our standards, just bring other countries' up to ours!

and clark, you still need police (which was what i meant by military) to enforce laws.

clark · 2003-02-12 14:59:20

The way our trade is structured, and our way of life, it is not in our best interest to make the world into an extension of America.

Much of our prosperity is the result of exploitation of others, and their resources.

If you end that exploitation, you must accept that our way of life in america MUST change- in ways that I think we might not be prepared for, or want.

I once read a short story about a town that lived in happiness and prosperity. At a certain age, the children were taken into a house, which had a room. Inside this room was a small black box. Each child would look inside the box and learn the secret of the towns happiness and prosperity.

When the children learned, all were horrified. They then had a choice, accept that the what they saw in that box was the source of the towns happiness and prosperity, and live on. Or, they could leave, becuase they could not accept the price at which the prosperity and happiness is bought.

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 16:00:00

The means don't justify the end.

clark · 2003-02-12 16:12:11

The Civil War?
The American Revolution?
Dropping the A-Bomb on two japanese cities?
Killing a highly contagious population with a deadly disease?

Torturing criminals to get information that will prevent the death of thousands?

Denying freedom to some, to ensure security for all?

Sometimes the ends do justify the means. Black and white morality dosen't work in the real world?

Josh Cryer · 2003-02-12 16:25:26

I mean, the means don't always justify the end.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-02-10 21:21:18

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#27 2003-02-10 21:27:13

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#28 2003-02-10 21:32:47

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#29 2003-02-10 21:48:07

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#30 2003-02-10 21:54:11

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#31 2003-02-11 11:15:51

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#32 2003-02-11 13:58:48

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#33 2003-02-11 16:57:30

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#34 2003-02-12 10:33:25

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#35 2003-02-12 13:36:58

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#36 2003-02-12 13:43:36

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#37 2003-02-12 13:56:47

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#38 2003-02-12 13:59:39

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#39 2003-02-12 14:00:27

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#40 2003-02-12 14:03:12

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#41 2003-02-12 14:17:19

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#42 2003-02-12 14:23:42

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#43 2003-02-12 14:24:38

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#44 2003-02-12 14:30:20

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#45 2003-02-12 14:34:25

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#46 2003-02-12 14:39:00

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#47 2003-02-12 14:59:20

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#48 2003-02-12 16:00:00

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#49 2003-02-12 16:12:11

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

#50 2003-02-12 16:25:26

Re: Time limit for Mars - Overpopulation prevents Mars mission...

Board footer