Do we really need countries?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Do we really need countries?

Can we have independant city states instead (for example), but without countries?




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Welcome to the New World Order....



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


that my friend is a double edged sword



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 

how so?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
The question should really be... do we really need a unified govt.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ApolloBloodline
The question should really be... do we really need a unified govt.

yep. the unified gov is the trademark of countries sorta say.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Do we really need countries?

Can we have independant city states instead (for example), but without countries?


I believe countries are doomed to disappear one day, new world order or not. The borders are purely artificial, they exist because man cannot respect other cultures like he respect his own culture. Countries are crutches, in a world where man is wolf for man. Technology will do its work whether we want it or not. Mankind is one big family, one species, and that's the only real thing.

You may think that a country is what protects a culture from disappearing under the "attacks" of other cultures, but let's not forget that a "unified culture under a flag's country" has also eliminated the different cultures that were once existing together on that territory. So, you may think that countries are helping perpetuating cultural diversity, but countries have also diminished cultural diversity. In France for example, there are still different cultures living together, but they tend to disappear along with their specific languages (basque, breton, corse, catalan ..) in the profit of french language.

In the end, i think that mankind is still too aggressive and immature to be able to live without countries, but it is good to remember that countries are just crutches, and to remember that crutches are not meant to be used forever.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Lets put this in a simple kind of term....

If country A starts a beef with country B then country's C,D,E etc can step in and theoretically sort country A out.

But i ask you if there is only 1 world government then who sorts them out when they step out of line?


This is why 1 world country is a bad bad idea



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Master Shen long
 

how said anything about government?
what about 1 universal government very basic an city states. kind of like a cosmic empire, with many different models. grass roots city states.

but anyway, who steps in NOW?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 



And who in charge? Maybe the Nazis or even worse the Israelis



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Master Shen long
 

does anyone need to be in charge?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gosseyn
 


Some of you folks need to study some old history. For example, the early Greek city-states would be where to stick your noses. Cities are no different than countries except smaller. They all have their internal polltics, need for resources and fresh areas to take into their fold.

Yes, male aggression is the problem. But that hinderance preventing humans being truly civilized is being fixed right before our eyes, as the populations becomes more "femininized." You haven't noticed?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 

exactly.
we must create city states that are better then the old ones.

anyway, has no one heard of self organizing systems?
I would imagine a countless world as a collection of those.

I don't think gender is an issue.
I don't think male aggression is a issue.
Its a fact of life.
We have to deal with it, and in the meantime get rid of countries, imo.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
We mostly keep "countries" around for appearances' sake, and because it would be very inconvenient to privatize every civil function. But most of us are members of market states that have a lot more to do with how we live our daily lives than our nationality.

Borders are ceremonial, save where core state interests touch upon eachother. Even then, most military engagements amount to nothing more than market expansion at gunpoint.

Do we need nations? Maybe. We definitely need strong, well networked communities.
edit on 23-1-2012 by Eidolon23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by BBalazs
 


Do we really need countries?

Can we have independant city states instead (for example), but without countries?

No we don't really need countries... in the long term. Short to medium term, they are (/should be) serving as instruments for integration between peoples.

I think human society has progressed beyond truly Independent city-states. But, I guess that depends on what kind of future world you are imagining. It takes vast resources to feed a modern city, but only tiny towns (even outposts) to gather those resources. I can't think of any city that has within its radius all the necessary natural-resources to keep it functioning. So what you'd end up with is with multiple large cities all vying for resources from a smaller number of resource gathering outposts - That alone would create the need for some kind of centralised coordination - Which effectively creates states and nation-states.

 


That being said: Realities such as peak-oil, food shortages, trends in city:rural ratios, overpopulation and others. Combined with new and emerging technology such as: vertical farms, smart-grids, renewable energy etc. Will see cities become a whole lot more "independent" in food and energy production.

I don't think we have to revert back to city-states - but we can, should and probably are learning lessons from what they and other alternative systems of citizen organisation have to offer. I personally would like to see more done to re-localise not only food and energy production, but also small industry - more "mum and pop" stores instead of multinational corporations etc.

Have you researched much into:
wikipedia/Transition Towns

 


Perhaps in the more distant future when population levels have receded, we could have: one large mega-city per continent with smaller strategic satellite outposts and towns. But that's just my imagination...

discoveryscience.com/tv/Ecopolis



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ApolloBloodline
 

The question should really be... do we really need a unified govt.
I think so, the challenges and power humanity now faces and has require large scale planning and implementation. Unless human beings were purely logical and altruistic creatures sharing 1 hive-mind - in which all information, knowledge and data is ubiquitously implemented by all people - Less unity among peoples can only be a bad thing. IMO anyway...

I know government is the cause of a lot of problems - and people want to do away with it or make it smaller. What needs to happen is for it to stop being seen as an external noun, and people to start seeing the word government as a verb - in-which all should participate. Technologies such as the internet are making this more possible than ever - it's only a lag in peoples willingness to embrace change that makes this unlikely.


reply to post by gosseyn
 

I believe countries are doomed to disappear one day, new world order or not. The borders are purely artificial, they exist because man cannot respect other cultures like he respect his own culture. Countries are crutches, in a world where man is wolf for man. Technology will do its work whether we want it or not. Mankind is one big family, one species, and that's the only real thing.
The borders are purely artificial... today. But that's a new development - technically speaking; a large part of the worlds national boundaries are based on natural land barriers - modern technology has since largely erased these. Things like aviation, high-speed rail and the internet.And as gosseyn has said, technology will continue to break down these borders. Can you imagine a world in which there has been 7 generations that have grown up never knowing a world before the internet?! - A truly global culture will begin to emerge when this happens.


You may think that a country is what protects a culture from disappearing under the "attacks" of other cultures, but let's not forget that a "unified culture under a flag's country" has also eliminated the different cultures that were once existing together on that territory. So, you may think that countries are helping perpetuating cultural diversity, but countries have also diminished cultural diversity. In France for example, there are still different cultures living together, but they tend to disappear along with their specific languages (basque, breton, corse, catalan ..) in the profit of french language.
I'm not convinced cultural diversity is such a good thing anyway. But rather than one culture dominating and destroying another, I would rather see experts create amalgamations between two or more different cultures and create new ones to be taught to school children.

For example, I live in Australia - we started with an Aboriginal/Indigenous history/culture and then a White/British history/culture and now a Multicultural history/culture. I'd like to see experts from all sides collaborate and design a contemporary culture that blends indigenous and western cultures equally with pieces from our neighbours and sprinkles from others, taking the best from all. The same could be done with languages.

We shouldn't hold onto the past for past's sake, after taking the lessons from it - we should honour artefacts and achievements, build museums and theme-parks and then move forward.


In the end, i think that mankind is still too aggressive and immature to be able to live without countries, but it is good to remember that countries are just crutches, and to remember that crutches are not meant to be used forever.
Agreed.


reply to post by Master Shen long
 

If country A starts a beef with country B then country's C,D,E etc can step in and theoretically sort country A out.

But i ask you if there is only 1 world government then who sorts them out when they step out of line?


This is why 1 world country is a bad bad idea
What constitutes government? If country A is beefing with country B - it must have a justifiable reason (self-centred or otherwise). A practical example being the US's involvement in the Middle East - it's there to get cheap oil for it's citizenry who otherwise wouldn't accept paying the fair-trade price. If there was no US v. Middle East or Country A v. B - there would be just oil, to divide in a more logical manners. There'd be nothing to get in a beef with - so beef wouldn't occur.

Governments don't act - they react - to pressures and demands from it's citizenry and harsh environmental realities, at the moment this process is in need of streamlining and balancing.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Im going to say, we don't need countries, we don't need governments, we don't need states, we don't need borders, we don't need money, we don't need anyone in charge. I think we're capable, of course its a world that has never existed so it is not something easily concieved. I think it is possible, and that we have the potential, and it is just a matter of what we want. Right now what we want is, no change. We want money, we want material things, mansions, cars, whatever, we want power over others. We've always wanted these things. I feel different though. I don't really want money, cars, power, or whatever, I just want to live my life. To do what I want to do. But you can't do that now. You have to pay, to live. Period. If you live in America, you have it easy, period. Most of the world is hidden from us, because there no electricity, or cameras, or anything to bring it to us for us to see. Thats why as americans we don't have the most accurate view of the world, and many times we forget how good we have it here. If all you have to worry about is food, shelter, and water, then you're lucky. Most people have to worry about there heads getting cut off on a daily basis.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostsoldier
 




You have answers, not that i beleive everything.
Reverting to city states wont work for 1 reasons: population.
Too large cities.
Anyway, classic city states were huge, they had a catchment area, so getting stuff not a problem.
City states is 1 idea.
I feel we need a purge.
Get rid of 90%. But thats just my idea.

Anyway, since you have answers:
When are we going to be a space race?
Are we going travel far and wide in space?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by BBalazs
Do we really need countries?

Can we have independant city states instead (for example), but without countries?


BBalazs, this thread of yours if a bit out there, don'a ya think ;-)

A big out there is good though


I would say yes, countries are needed. If the United States became 50 separate countries, war would happen within a few years.

edit on 24-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


I dont undestand how creating more states is a answer to wether we need countries at all...?
You write that more states more war, so in essence you are saying we need less or no states?
Scratching my head here.
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join