The possibility of a world hegemony has been brushed upon many times, by those here, and by others in the world, but it has never been given truly serious consideration and planning. Obviously, the countries of the world would not, at this time, even remotely be willing to join together in a world hegemony of any kind, however, could it be a plan for the future? If the world were united under a single government, would not all peoples be made that much more equal? Standardization of currency under this system would also help to ensure an increase in the stability of the economy. More money would be available in order to allow for developments of third world areas, because that money would not be needed to maintain individual armies. One government would eliminate friction between other governments. Obviously this is merely a very brief outlining sketch of the possibilities, but what do you all think? What are the obvious problems? What are the benefits? Which are worth more in the short term, and in the long term? I look forward to your insights.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
The obvious problems are language barriers and the fact that people don't unite unless they are faced with outside pressure. For governments and a sufficient number of people to be eager or at least willing to go through with this, human colonization of space would have to take place first, or Earth would need to be invaded by aliens. As it stands now, those with the power to unite the Earth can only lose by doing so.
Language barriers, another problem which a global hegemony could provide a solution to. By creating a mandatory language which must be taught in all regions of the world differences would decrease. How often has conflicted occurred because of misunderstandings and miscommunications? I am not suggesting that regions need abandon their culture or their birth languages, merely that another language is added to those learnings, a common language to all nations.Originally Posted by ZFBoxcar
Think carefully of what I said in my first post. Short term and long term. Short term, yes, those with the power to unite the Earth would only lose by doing so, but if we only look to the short term, we will advance slowly, or not at all. It is the leaders with the vision to look into the long term, to see the benefits there and to act on them now. The world is nearing a vital turning point of opportunity, the question is, will there any leaders in a position to look forward and see the potential for change. The world is going to become an interesting place in the next few decades, and I, for one, am glad that I am going to be around to watch it.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
I think the evolution of society thus far suggests that a world hegemony is a possibility. Look at the way we have developed. Organizational bodies have continuously grown. Clans to villiages to townships to citystates to nations and so on. Before world hegemony, this trend would play itself out continentally first. Steps have been taken already toward this. The EU for example. Aren't they drafting a constitution right now?
Anyone familiar with the study of paradigm shifts?
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
I think your right. We are in for a hell of a ride.The world is going to become an interesting place in the next few decades, and I, for one, am glad that I am going to be around to watch it.
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
The European Union. Brilliant example. Countries uniting, under a central government over the space of a continent. This helps eliminate the problem of dividing the world into regions, as would be necessary for practical governance. The European Union is the first step, who will be next to choose this path willingly? Asia? Doubtful, too much division, but perhaps a few countries may begin. North America? More likely, but the United States will not readily abandon it's total independant ability to dominate the world stage. South America? I think this is one of the most likely places for a second continental union of countries. All it will take is the right leader in the right place making the right suggestion in the right way at the right time. Ouch. That's a lot of conditions, but it still could happen. I think that the key here is to convince the largest nations that it is in there best interests to form together, for the smaller countries would then follow, seeing the visibly obvious benefits of combining into one region more powerful and advanced countries. Paradigm shift, I could not have thought of a better description for the events which have, and are occuring. But, how long can it last? Can we develop ourselves into a unified society in such a way that we will not break apart soon after?
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
As well, something which I just recalled. The International Court of Justice in Hague is an example of the legal system that such a hegemony might require. The chain of legal appeal would no longer cease at the Supreme Court of the Country. For matters of the gravest importance, a Supreme Court of the World would have to exist. Right now, the court in Hague is for matters of international justice, but if all nations were combined into regions, which were ruled over by a single hegemon a court would be needed to determine matters between regions, and to police the hegemon himself. Just an interesting thing I remembered hearing about, look it up at http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icjhome.htm it's really quite interesting.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
If you haven't read them already, I would suggest the books by Orson Scott Card; Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, and Shadow Puppets. Not only are they outstanding books, but as you go along you get some interesting viewpoints on hegemony.
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
Heh, good to hear other people out there have read these books, and thank you for the suggestion. Ender's Game is my 'bible', if you will. I have read it so often that I know nearly every word. As a result of my love for that book, I have read all related books, including those which you suggest. I'm in the process of re-reading Shadow Puppets at this time, having just re-read Shadow of the Hegemon. This is partly what set the idea off in my mind for starting this thread. So once again, I thank you for your suggestion and sincerely applaud you on your choice of recommendations.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes?
Too big of a central government. World wide the people couldn't agree on that many rules.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
I was disappointed with Speaker for the Dead, so I was thrilled when I heard that his was branching off with Bean's story. I loved them. I pimp Ender's Game on anyone who will listen. I hear talk of a movie. Could be interesting.
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
I agree with you. With the world as it is right now, it seems very unlikely. In the future however, events may come to pass which...
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
Fonniker, did you read Children of the Mind and Xenocide? Those are the sequels to Speaker for the dead. If you only read Speaker I can understand how you would be disappointed.
No, I admit I haven't. Having trudged through Speaker for the Dead, I somewhat lost interest in the career of Ender Wiggin so to speak. I have heard from others, my wife included, who say the same thing as you. I guess I should give them a shot.You know how it is with avid readers, the list continues to grow.
"And a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander-in-Chief." - George W. Bush - October, 2004.
You should. I don't want to give anything away, but I will say that if it is the characters from Earth (who isn't Ender) that interest you, you might not be all that disappointed in the other sequels...if you want spoilers, I can tell you more, but somehow I think you would rather read them yourself. Also, the large scale politics that makes the Bean saga interesting is present.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: