It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Benevolent United Earth? yea or nay

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Let's say, for the sake of this thread, there was no such thing as the NWO. Let's go even further and pretend that there are no bad guys, and no one is really in control of international markets and that there are no conglomerate empires that want nothing more than supreme control over you and yours. Finally, let's pretend that everyone is well-educated, and that crimes are responded with comprehensive rehabilitation programs revolving around community service and other forms of improvement that don't rely on imprisonment or execution. That pretty much takes care of everything bad in our planet today, I think, so here goes...

How about a one state world where you have one planet that is governed by an efficient, reasonable, compassionate, and dynamic form of federal government? The interest of the general population would be kept at heart, and the ultimate role of the government is to ensure all virtues of benevolence.

There could still be sub-states within such an order, so sovereignity shouldn't be an issue. That is, let's say... if Australia doesn't want to comply with a ban that Tanzania imposes on kangaroo edibility, then it doesn't have to. More seriously, however, one rule that every sovereign substate has to comply with is that no war is allowed neither internally nor externally. Basically, small-scale issues that can be compensated (ie, kangaroos could be cultivated and produced like cattle to make up for how many are lost on dinner plates; the same rule could be applied to whales and other animals) will still be in the realm of the nation-states, but large-scale issues like health-care and economics are regulated by the central government. Cultural issues must be maintained at the nation-state/sub-state level, and cannot be interefered with by the central government, for instance. Human issues like disease and poverty have to be controlled and eliminated by the central government.

Wouldn't that be so bad? Could it work? Is it possible to unite the planet Earth as visualized by Star Trek and other futuristic themes and media? It may sound naive and all, but what do you have to say about such a prospect? Without masonic/illuminati overtones and the like, of course.




posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Wouldn't that be so bad?


Yes, I think it would be a bad thing, even under the utopian conditions you describe.

The political voice of the individual would be utterly lost in such a huge democracy. (I'm following your optimism and assuming it WOULD be a democracy). Voters in Bolivia would neither understand nor care what was going on in Uzbekistan. Any democracy would soon develop into a two-party system that would average every view down to the simple old left-right argument, and any other opinions would become "fringe".

Whatever the level of education, no lifetime is long enough to even begin to comprehend that variety of issues, opinions and arguments involved with running "the whole world". Local objections would arise and any NWO would be in a constant state of civil war and insurrection. Even if the politicians were saints to a man, they would still destroy everything through their incompetence.


[edit on 30-6-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I think what we'll end up with is a federation similar to what some of the North American Indian tribes had.

Under this form of alliance, each tribe/group/chiefdom had its own territory, its own rules, and its own policies but they all came together to make mutual decisions. While their decisions were strictly economic, I can see a global alliance to ... do something about pollution problems, to stop genocides, and to punish international terrorism.

I think it'll be good for us. We've progressed a lot farther since we learned to make peace.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:32 AM
link   
Muppet, I appreciate your opposition. I forgot to say that there would be no such thing as politics or politicians. Thanks for appreciating my optimism, as well. A democracy, maybe. I say maybe because of its adverse effects and how it is based on mob rule. At this time, however, I cannot think of anything better than democracy, so , yes, a reformed version of democracy is the form of government that I meant. By reformed, I mean, the power is really in the hands of the people; the government is there only to serve the people as needed and requested. As for your Uzbek. vs Boliv. argument, I highlighted that such issues would not apply as only the central government could really impose such controls into law. I got that particular inspiration through the debacle that the EU is turning into, probably like you did as well.

What is really important is that there are no 'party' systems. Everyone inside of the government is nothing more than a servant to the general population, as crazy as that may seem. These government workers will not have any agendas, nor will they have any alliances with one another. Nothing will be secret, and no one shall be above the law. Perhaps that eliminates most if not all of the politically-based problems we have in today's society.

Byrd, that is a lot like what I had in mind. Also, the fact that the NA Natives had such a form of government in place seems to illustrate the possibility that this form of global management truly existed way back when. I also agree that since the world has apparently been more peaceful than its more recent past (IE dark ages, colonization era, etc), humanity has truly become more and more advanced in terms of psychological evolution.

[edit on 6/30/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Until you remove supposed (but not actual) differences that people use to justify aggression (ie: Religion) it will never happen.

You can compromise on the location of a border, or the value of a currency, or the stipulations of a trade agreement. Religion by it's very nature is unable to compromise. Religous disagreements, not being based in reality, can never be resolved. Therefore, differences caused by Religious beliefs will not be resolved until what caused those differences (Religion) is abandoned in favor of rational thought and govenence.

Then, and only then, we might have a shot at Utopia.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   
No politicians? Hooray!!!

Seriously though. I do understand what you're getting at, and it is a interesting starting point for discussion.

Taking the Indian example, I think by it's nature it's something that could only have existed within the unusual circumstances that it did. Back then the indians were personally independent. The were social of course, but each were basically able to survive, eat and drink without having to rely on someone else. Not only were there more than enough resources to go round, but those resource would be found wherever they were. All the Indians shared a similar culture, and lifestyle, compared with the diversity in the world as a whole.

The modern world isn't like that. We can only survive now through coordinated effort, and that begs the question, who coordinates that effort? It has to come down to politicians, since there has to be some method of translating the will of the people into instructions for the civil service. Inevitably, some would disagree with those instructions and want to change them, and without a political machine, violence would be the only recourse.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I love your Utopian vision for the world, & I'd like to believe in it, b ut sadly, I have to agree with muppet.



Not only were there more than enough resources to go round, but those resource would be found wherever they were. All the Indians shared a similar culture, and lifestyle, compared with the diversity in the world as a whole.


The Native Indians were part of a hunter-gatherer society. A classic example of this lifestyle existed with the Australian Aborigines before the advent of Captain Cook et al. They moved from place to place, following the seasons & the animals they hunted, then would move on to new hunting-grounds when need arose.

As muppet said, it's a far different world now - & a hugely more populated & interdependent one too. And I do not see how this ideal world could come into being before a massive re-distribution of wealth were somehow put into place, plus I cannot imagine such a thing happening without great resistance from the "have's". I haven't looked up the statistics lately, but as a general rule of thumb, about 90% of the world's resources are owned by 10% of its population.

Your proposed sovereign states/countries and their governing councils or what-have-you, brings up the question of the politics that you say will not exist. How will the governing councils or public service come into being then? By election or by inheritance? Now bloodline/inheritance is an unfair hierarchical system - but election involves politics whether you like it or not. Politics = the will of the people, and it never exists without factions, power struggles & agendas.

Last, but certainly not least, we come to religion. Now there's a can of worms for you, need I say more?

I like your vision very much - in fact, I want to apply for citizenship right now. But I see insurmountable difficulties in making it happen, and I don't think you envisage it along the lines of Huxley's "Brave New World."

EDIT - changed Orwell to Huxley!

[edit on 30/6/04 by Bastet]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Bastet, both you and muppet are correct in stating that a great deal of today's econometrics are dependent on external sources. That is the true meaning of the phrase "freedom isn't free"; or at least, it no longer is free. For instance, if you want to go fishing or hunting, you have to pay for and apply for a license. If you want to live comfortably, you have to pay through the nose for housing and utilities. This utopian society of mine would definitely be almost nothing like life as we know it now, which is probably why it is so hard to envision. Of course there would be many radical changes, like the current powers that be being denied influence and control. They *might* be allowed to live after severe rehabilitation, of course. As for how government officials are installed, I suppose the best way to ensure the best circumstances is through regulated and independently-observed elections. There would be so much scrutiny in this system that agendas and factions would not be tolerated. There really would be no politicans. Just people who have a frame of mind and want to run for office. That's it. Simply put, in the ideal setting, such a candidate would say "I like vanilla ice cream, but I don't like chocolate that much." They would run for office based on their preferences and personalities, and certainly not because they have an agenda they want to impose. Voters would cast their decisions accordingly. The 'divine right to rule' farce has no place in a society like the one I am thinking of.

Ah, yes. Religion. I don't really forsee religion as a threat to this society, so long as people are well-educated and their living conditions are more than favorable. Religion is only an influential tool as a form of escapism for those in disadvantaged situations, such as poverty or severe ignorance. Please keep in mind that while people will still have their belief-systems, they won't be so motivated to limit themselves through religious ideals in this system of government because they will know better and have no other reason to do so. No desparation = no religious strife.

Your request for citizenship is granted! That is, when such an order comes about. Though it seems relatively unfathomable, it is bound to happen at one time or another. I only hope that it is within our life times.

Please don't compare me to Orwell. This idea is nothing like anything he could ever or would ever write about, let alone think about. He knew what the score was, and 1984 pretty much declares this. Orwell was a mouthpiece of the NWO, and that is why Brave New World doesn't depict a favorable circumstance (does he ever paint a pretty picture with his books?).



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Sorry I gave the impression of comparing your vision to Huxley's "Brave New World" - that was never my intention!

But I will admit to rather liking some things about Huxley's futuristic society. True, many of its nightmarish aspects have already come to pass, but some of the others are quite appealing to me. Like the idea of everyone being neatly fitted into their pre-ordained niche in society, based on society's needs and via the "nutrients" fed to them from embryonic stage of development.

Of course, this worked in favour of the "benevolent dictator" in charge of the whole shebang, but the people benefited too, everyone worked happily for their society - & there was that wondrous soma as a reward. So now that I've been granted citizenship in your Utopia, I suggest that you make sure that a suitable "soma" be developed & put into place immediately.

The religious aspect still worries me. Ever since different faiths & religions developed & split into other factions, war & intolerance have reigned over the earth. Human beings are naturally competitive, I think, and the competition amongst them to save souls/ smite the infidel etc is pretty ingrained. I'm not so sure that the removal of economic struggles would remove this either. I hesitate to advocate mass brain-washing for the purpose of creating tolerance & love, so I hope you can figure this one out.

I do hope you agree with the soma idea though!

EDIT - Huxley, NOT Orwell!

[edit on 30/6/04 by Bastet]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Don't mean to nitpick here, but George Orwell didn't write Brave New World... Aldous Huxley did!

I'm also interested how Orwell could be considered part of the NWO.. It's seems like exactly the kind of thing he was warning against! [EDIT : and Huxley too!
)

[edit on 30-6-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 4-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Even with religious differences the idea could still work, there would have to be a Global Federal Policy against religious genicide. And if attacks are happening by both sides then BOTH parties get wiped out by Global Federation Troops. Both disagreeing parties gone, no more attacks. You do this once and I bet you will not have anymore problems with war based on religious fanatisim. Trust me.

If its one sided, then the GFT just steps in, defends the victim and wipes out the attacker. Problem solved.

It would be like if the US was the GFT and the conflict between israel and palestine. IF the crazy hamas bombers attacked the israelis and did so more than once. And Israel turned to the US and said, hey my people are dying because of these fanatics. Then the US carpet bombs gaza strip turning it into a wasteland. Who would then want to start a war with someone ??? If a world wide military arm was capable of striking anywhere in the world within 10 minutes then I doubt you would see people wanting to get obliterated over a simple dispute as to whos imaginary "god" was better.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   
A one world government will happen, not yet, but it will. Its the next logically step for mankind. If there is some sort of intelligent life out there, then a united one government would be need so that Earth can stand united in space. But a one world government will not happening in our lifetime.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I am so embarrassed, muppet! I often confuse Huxley with Orwell, but no more shall I sin.

As for your proposal of a Galactic Federation, robertfenix, well yes, it does sound like an effective remedy. Oh dear, more war. Not a good start to this promising Utopia, but I fear that religion was ever thus.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Ah, yes. Religion. I don't really forsee religion as a threat to this society, so long as people are well-educated and their living conditions are more than favorable. Religion is only an influential tool as a form of escapism for those in disadvantaged situations, such as poverty or severe ignorance. Please keep in mind that while people will still have their belief-systems, they won't be so motivated to limit themselves through religious ideals in this system of government because they will know better and have no other reason to do so. No desparation = no religious strife.


Ah, good point. With a well-educated population, religion would become less a problem as rashional thinking would become ultimately common. Imagine a room of super-intelligent people; one-side Muslim, the other side Christian. Do you envision them bashing each other with chairs or talking in a civilized manner about certain issues? Now imagine a room of uneducated zealots, Christian and Muslim. Do you imagine them talking about the issues or bashing each other with chairs? I don't know about you but the answer is obvious to me.

In fact, I might go as far to say that with a well-educated population, religion would become a thing of the past as people move towards more civilized outputs for their self-creativity. In this case, one needs not worry about the violence of religion.


df1

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Without masonic/illuminati overtones and the like, of course.


Your proposition is both desireable and profound.

I do not suggest that everyone run out and join the masons, but it sure seems that the masons present a good model. Masonic philosophy expresses a desire to move in the direction you propose. It accepts members of virtually all religious beliefs and is tolerant of the religious beliefs of those it does not accept as members. It endorses charity, liberty, equality, truth, honor and noble actions which seem like good characteristics for individuals in any society to possess.

It appears to me that masons desire to move in the same direction you propose, but for some unstated reason you malign the masons. It appears to me that aligning yourself with a philosphy that supports your ideals would be a good thing.

Whether you buy my thoughts or not, one thing is certain. You will be tagged a marxist, socialist or some other label and just as the ideals of masons continue to be slandered, so will your ideals be slandered.

None-the-less I support your vision for the same reasons I support the vision of the masons. The vision is the same.
.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 12:56 PM
link   


members of virtually all religious beliefs and is tolerant of the religious beliefs of those it does not accept as members. It endorses charity, liberty, equality, truth, honor and noble actions which seem like good characteristics for individuals in any society to possess.


I don't know a whole lot about the masons, but from what I hear, they are a wise and benevolent organization. I don't understand all the slander and downlplaying that occurs towards them.









posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by iceofspades
I don't know a whole lot about the masons, but from what I hear, they are a wise and benevolent organization. I don't understand all the slander and downlplaying that occurs towards them.


I think it's the secrecy and the hierarchal non-democratic structure. Freemasonry may well be completely benign, but then again it may not. The only ones who really know are those at the top of the hierarchy, and they aren't telling!


df1

posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet

Originally posted by iceofspades
I don't know a whole lot about the masons, but from what I hear, they are a wise and benevolent organization. I don't understand all the slander and downlplaying that occurs towards them.


I think it's the secrecy and the hierarchal non-democratic structure. Freemasonry may well be completely benign, but then again it may not. The only ones who really know are those at the top of the hierarchy, and they aren't telling!


My suggestion was intended to suggest looking at masonic philosophy as a model for the global society proposed at the start of this thread. It seems that many good ideas can be taken from their philosophy even for those that have no interest in becoming masons.
.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Impossible. It goes against human nature. What rules humanity is the collective unconsciousness. Thats what drives our behavior. A united world will only happen by two ways: forcing all humanity to think alike, or re engineering the human race.



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 05:11 PM
link   
quote AlnilamOmega

"By reformed, I mean, the power is really in the hands of the people; the government is there only to serve the people as needed and requested."


I really like that idea. I think its a possibility. I would like to see it happen. Societys psych can change. It would take a lot of calming and a lot of effort. Im not sure who they are today but worlds like this are bought about by men and women with vision and lots of guts to push that vision through. Men and women that can change/sell all them unchangeable people a peaceful and productive life. Education has so much to do with it. So would spirituality [religion].

my 2 bob

[edit on 1-7-2004 by kode]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join