New World Order

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Okay so, first thanks Halu for making me think of this. But anyway. The idea stems from a conspiracy theory about a totalitarian world government.

What I am aiming for to be discussed here, is the idea of a singular government, made up of representatives from all countries, who handle the running of, well, the world.

Could it be done?
Should it be done?

Is it being done already?

And how could it be done to make it work?

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Okay so, first thanks Halu for making me think of this. But anyway. The idea stems from a conspiracy theory about a totalitarian world government.

What I am aiming for to be discussed here, is the idea of a singular government, made up of representatives from all countries, who handle the running of, well, the world.

Could it be done?

Should it be done?

Is it being done already?

And how could it be done to make it work?

Could it be done? Maybe, but that would require a level of secrecy that is almost impossible in today's technological age.

 

Should it be done? Hell no.

 

Is it being done already? No, I personally do not think so.

 

And how could it be done to make it work? It can't. Nothing good has ever stemmed from such a concept, hence why many fear it.

[Delibirb]

Could it be done? Not in the way you described it.

 

Should it be done? Irrelevant, it will happen eventually. Just a matter of whether people will be stupid enough to fight it.

 

Is it already being done? More or less. But not in any sinister sort of fashion.

 

How could it be done to make it work? ASI. Literally ASI is the answer to sooo many political issues. People just need to stop being self righteous and think about the general happiness, safety, welfare, health, economic situation, etc. of the whole of humanity at present and in the future. A machine designed to oversee all of these things and essentially be the planet's president would be the most efficient way to balance all of these things. You don't even need to have it have the direct ability to influence these things (though that would be more effective), just let its suggestions to these issues be publicly available at all times and humanity can shape those suggestions to fit in a way that they might be more content with despite their implementation being totally inferior.

[Mutant Monster RAEG-HAPYP]

Could it be done?: No, because that would imply everyone would have to agree with issues, and that's not the case.

 

Should it be done?: No.

 

Is it being done already?: Nope. In order for a one world government to work, you'd likely have to make sure everyone agrees, and even among ally nations, agreements don't always happen, let alone between international relations filled with tension.

 

And how could it be done to make it work?: It shouldn't be done in the first place.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

More countries = more entropy = less sheet gets done

[~~~~]

I'm sorry, but this thread is going to be shut down.

 

Move along everyone, nothing to see here.

 

Yes

Yes

No

IDK

[vla1ne]

I'm sorry, but this thread is going to be shut down.

 

Move along everyone, nothing to see here.

 

Yes

Yes

No

IDK

gonna need better reasoning than that to / a thread. 

 

humans are social creatures who also need solitude to properly thrive. a hive minded humanity is impossible, we possess ego and intelligence, and both of those things prevent us from agreeing on every issue. we also require dispute to advance as a species. without competition, for better or worse, we stagnate, and become worse overall. many of our greatest achievements came from our lowest points, or fiercest rivalries. look at the moon landing for an example of something astoundingly beautiful (a great leap forwards) coming from something incredibly terrifying (national tensions with another world superpower, while hot off of previous wars).

 

Could it be done: yes, it probably could, but just because we probably can do it, doesn't mean we should. which leads to:

 

 

Should it be done: no, at the very least not at this point in time, and definitely not as it has been suggested above. something like that is doomed to fail, due to the human properties i outlined above. people have differing opinions, and while many humans might enjoy the optimal solution, or the solution made to fit everyone in general, many others value the right to choose the path less traveled, and even more derive joy from innovating new (even if less efficient) ways of implementing and acting upon solutions. to enact a world order is to clash countless cultures together as if they all held the exact same values. what one country values, is not always what another country values, and those differences will lead to many, many conflicts (look at the U.N. how many people take them seriously?). people often value similar things in vastly different ways, and unless you can factor in all of it, and accommodate all of it, you will be crushing people out of the system. no complete world order, could hold all the cultures upon earth, and no single world order, would be capable of factoring in every condition on earth in a satisfactory manner. so until we can all willingly do so, it should be avoided.

 

 

Is it being done: no, the size and scale of such an undertaking would be incredible, it's not possible for it to be attempted without something, anything leaking out.

 

 

How could it be done: you need to provide varied incentives, and even then, there would be a significant part of the world that wouldn't join unless they set the terms, you have to find out how to make them bargain lower, while also keeping not them, but every other country at the table as well, happy. it would be the worlds worst juggling act, because these are countries, entire countries, being put into one union, which unlike the UN, would have actual say over the rules, that level of power, in incompatible to the human ego, the people in those seats would need to give up their individual freedoms, while not resenting those allowed to keep them, and in the case of computers, no computer can predict all forms, actions, and ideals of humanity in real time. so put simply, there are plenty of ways to operate such a system, but none of them, when combined with the human ego, would last long at all before becoming little more than vicious utilitarianism, or semi-malevolent  communism.

[Zauls]

If anything, the opposite would be better for humanity. More localised government means people are generally better represented and more able to directly communicate with their representatives, which also makes representatives more, well, representative, since they better understand the concerns of the people they represent. I'm not talking about dividing up countries into smaller countries, just create better and more influential local council and local government systems and devolve power.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

What I am aiming for to be discussed here, is the idea of a singular government, made up of representatives from all countries, who handle the running of, well, the world.

 

I've never really seen the New World Order presented as being "made up of representatives from all countries", but it's an interesting point as proportional representation of such a government would be extremely critical and hotly contested. There would be wars. The world's order is ever-changing but the way it changes is seldom particularly novel. 

[cr47t]

Could it be done? I have no idea.

Should it be done? I think that, uh, maybe if it doesn't actually run the world but rather makes laws and stuff like that (basically like the UK/EU.)

 

Is it being done already? Kinda, because the UN is a thing.

And how could it be done to make it work? I don't think I know enough (yet) to to determine how.

 

Maybe, but just maybe, i might change my mind later.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It need to be re-done