The arguments against a World Government could be applied to the United States. Before the states got united, there were at least three languages -
English, French, and Spanish. Probably others I don't know about, plus ones spoken by First Nations people. Whatever. Now we speak English mostly.
It's not the end of the world.
This "rich tapestry" you speak of doesn't seem to be worth the violence and heartache it causes. "Diversity" has caused more harm than good,
IMNSHO. If we had a World Government, eventually we would become somewhat more homogeneous, as we set aside differences and intermarried.
It is true that if the World Government becomes corrupted, it would do immeasurable harm. Just as all the corrupt governments do already. Welcome to
the real world. Arguing against it simply because it would be bad if it went bad, is circular reasoning. Don't vote for X, because he might turn
out to be a crook. Well, yeah. So you try to make sure X isn't a crook, try to make sure he can't become a crook.
As for the population being reduced, that's a given. The question isn't whether the population will be reduced; it's *HOW* it will be reduced. If
we mindlessly keep breeding irresponsibly, then our resources will eventually fail, and our population will collapse. That is the fate of every
uncontrolled life form, from yeast on up. Population rises until food fails, then it drops precipitously. The other way is for us to gradually
reduce our numbers to sustainable levels. For that to happen, we probably need a world government.
Indigenous people living off the land? What land? It's almost gone.




