The Obsolete Man

This is the best episode of the Twilight Zone in my opinion. It certainly has a very relevant message, especially to all of you people who love Big Government. This is where the one world government will eventually end up. I would rather die fighting against it than live in that environment. This episode is also pretty similar to the beliefs of George Bernard Shaw who felt that a person should have to go before a governing board to determine if they severed a purpose in society or not.








What was that nagging question again? Oh, I remember... why would anyone need a 30 round magazine. I can think of a reason or two.

Thing is I am torn on a world government because eventually when we reach the stars It is the only way forward.
Countries make divisions in us all and If we eliminate borders and we all consider ourselves just Earthlings those divisions will fade away and we may just be able to get on together.
After all Star Trek had a one world government.
I just think one day a one world government is the only way forward (Many things to sort out before hand so Iam talking many many years in the future)

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Thing is I am torn on a world government because eventually when we reach the stars It is the only way forward.
Countries make divisions in us all and If we eliminate borders and we all consider ourselves just Earthlings those divisions will fade away and we may just be able to get on together.
After all Star Trek had a one world government.

I just think one day a one world government is the only way forward (Many things to sort out before hand so Iam talking many many years in the future)

edit on 28-3-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Star Trek is the best example of the Utopian fantasy world that people like Gene Roddenberry live in. That result is impossible because it is not human nature to co-exist in such an environment, which is unfortunate. I am all for a one world government if defending and upholding the principals of individual liberty and sovereignty is the cornerstone of it, but we all know that the only purpose of one world government is to control and enslave.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


No I think we will get better as a specie, we need to solve many things like energy problems, environmental problems etc before we can even think of reaching the next step but I do think it is possible...with time.
If we take away the need to fight for energy, land etc we can work together to make things right.
Like I said it will be years off but I do have faith in us and maybe If we do what we can now our future as a specie will be better.

Also I think we have to eventually aim for a one world government, do you want us to have this national pride in us for ever? It causes wars and divisions in us.
Why not international pride in just humanity? I fear though the only way the people on this planet will come together is through a really bad event happening.
Maybe it is just what we need?

I wouldn't worry too much about a one world government ever taking seat if that's a thing you are afraid of. By the time humans as a whole can get organized enough to have such an aspect of existence, I think a scenario like "Midnight Sun" will go down long before that. We as a people whenever it comes to civil and social issues are a slowly evolving lot.


I know that you see many fears that arise from the exact things that happened in that episode, but there are two sides to everything. I could make the same argument about healthcare by citing another episode where everyone has around four body models to choose from so that everyone is exactly the same but they live longer and are healthier. Advancements in just about anything have their ups and downs. I'd like to hope for more of an up but I also understand that we can't always get what we want.

reply to post by boymonkey74

Dear boymonkey74,

Hello again, nice to see you. Thanks for your thought provoking posts, I'm afraid I won't do them justice.

No I think we will get better as a specie,

Why do you think that? Are there indications that we are getting more peaceful, informed, moral, respectful, trusting, loving? I just don't see it. And I don't see that it is a law of nature that we will get better.

But perhaps you mean that if we can change some things in our environment, then we will get better.

If we eliminate borders. . . solve many things like energy problems, environmental problems. . . If we take away the need to fight for energy, land. . .national pride

Clean energy, enough space for everyone, eliminate nations, and we're well on our way? Maybe, but do we get away from religious differences? Greed? Tribal loyalties? Fear of the stranger? Desire for power? Do we get rid of the resentment over being told what to do by government? Do we eliminate the desire of some (Mayor Bloomberg?) to control us, or the desire of others (Ron Paul?) to not be controlled?

Will we last long enough to colonize space? Do the people of the world want to? And when we do colonize, do we bring all of our divisions and fears with us and start over? Rome had pretty close to a one world government, many believe that they destroyed themselves. Why will it be better now?

Perhaps I'm an unreasonable pessimist, but you deserve my honest thoughts.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by OptimusSubprime

it is not human nature to co-exist in such an environment,

Here you state a broad and sweeping assumption about human nature which is not in and of itself, true. I suppose if one limits oneself to some ideology which states this in it's list of what is and what is not human nature, one can easily find another which states differently. I'm just pointing out that by using this premise in understanding our current situation, you are possibly restricting your ability to comprehend what is really going on.

We all know that the only purpose of one world government is to control and enslave.

Here too you make a sweeping assumption. One can run with this belief but it will cramp any ability to understand the present trend towards one world government. Sure, these purposes can be part of some peoples agenda, but not all. By grouping all one worlders together under this heinous banner, you make of them all your enemy, which ain't a good thing,

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

May I ask you to expand on your comments?

it is not human nature to co-exist in such an environment,

Here you state a broad and sweeping assumption about human nature which is not in and of itself, true.

I'm not entirely clear about your explanation. It seems to me that before we even had ideologies, and through modern times, peace and "government by the people" were exceedingly rare. Pharaohs, Kings, Emperors, Tzars, all or most control in the hands of one seems to be the default position of mankind.

And peace? Have we ever had even 100 years of continuous peace since the Romans?

We all know that the only purpose of one world government is to control and enslave.

Here too you make a sweeping assumption.

Here, I agree with you, but perhaps not as completely as you'd like. Maybe not "enslave," there the poster may have been carried away. Certainly control is expected, though. That's what laws are for. There will always be people that interfere with the government's plans, either through crime or rebellion. Government will control, and a global government will control the world.

How harsh that control is remains to be seen, but it will be there.

reply to post by charles1952

I'm not entirely clear about your explanation. It seems to me that before we even had ideologies, and through modern times, peace and "government by the people" were exceedingly rare. Pharaohs, Kings, Emperors, Tzars, all or most control in the hands of one seems to be the default position of mankind.

I can't disagree with this view of history as far as it goes. But these are examples of human organization under conditions of civilization, not necessarily the result of some basic human nature. There are examples in history where these conditions do not appear to hold true. Small tribes throughout the world. Pre-civilizations. Even though these examples most often tend toward the "Big Man" type of leadership, there is, as I can see, no reason to lock into a belief system of "it's human nature" and then leave it at that.

Along with our history of conflict, there is also our history of cooperation. We didn't learn to hunt alone. We needed to learn to hunt as a tribe. As the early hunter and gatherer tribes roamed and or settled, our ability to adapt to various environments and situations began influencing the future development of those tribes. Some places relied on agriculture and others relied on fishing while others relied on conquest. The ops use of "human nature" I found to be limited. Not wrong so much as just limited.

So yes, under conditions of civilization, we do seem to have this tendency towards some level of "strong arm" leadership. However, I do not think that this NEEDS to be the case as you point out below.

Government will control, and a global government will control the world.

How harsh that control is remains to be seen, but it will be there.

It seems to me that as a species, we have been developing towards some form of one world organization all along. Stronger tribes either killing or assimilating smaller tribes. Stronger civilizations torching or taking in smaller civilizations or tribes. Different degrees of control, depending.

My disagreement with the OP was in the use of the word enslave. Use of that word and the concepts behind it severely limit our understanding of the motives of those who are in charge of the control aspect of one world leadership. By assuming that enslavement is at the core of these motives allows no option but to fight or die on the part of those who would be enslaved. But by understanding that the control aspect does not need to be enslaving we may be able to work with those in charge of "control" as something that is necessary in an advanced civilization.

Certainly we need to be aware that there are those who would enslave. And that there are those in charge who are just plane psychopathic. In these cases, our vigilance is necessary. But grouping everyone who has a roll to play in our transition to a global community as tyrant and enslaver is wrong.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Dear TerryMcGuire,

Thank you, that was an unusually thoughtful and well written post. It seems we largely agree. May I offer just a couple of impressions? Certainly not an argument or disagreement, just some stray thoughts.

In considering the US, or perhaps any country, do we find that governments tend to give up power and control on their own, or is it taken by force by a people's revolution? My first impression is that government tends to increase their degree of power, and the areas in which they exercize that power, until the people sucessfully revolt or are crushed.

And, just wondering, is it possible that World Government is too big? By that I mean, would the government be forced to delegate most practical decision making to smaller regions? The Soviet Central Planning Committees weren't able to manage the Soviet economy. Granted we have computers, but control all the world? Perhaps the world would be divided into regions; North America, Central America, South America, for example. But is there a geographic and social size limit on what can be controlled effectively? I don't know, just wondering aloud.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952
I guess it was Carl Sagan who popularized the concept of developing civilization types. As I recall the thinking was that civiliations either develop into the next phase of development or crumble. There is another concept which has been imprinted on my thinking over the years and this is the idea of the bottleneck. That development of any paradigm can only guide a civilization so far. As these paradigms, cultural contexts, political positions can only carry us so far, there comes a point when our understanding of things needs to expand in order to give us a fuller context within which to grow, both individually and collectively.

This bottleneck is where the full thrust of a dying paradigm tries to carry on with its "time proven" practices while the world is changing about it. Take a big bottle and slowly fill it with water. Pretty calm. The water level slowly rises until the bottle is full. Once it is full, and we want to put the water into a larger bottle, we must pour the water out of the smaller into the larger. As the water pours from one bottle into another, there is a great amount of turbulence. The slower the transfer the less turbulent. Pouring it more quickly creates large amounts of turbulence, and bubbling and so forth.. Unfortunately those who have been most successful in this present paradigm believe in it completely and hence do all they can to sustain it. This is one reason that we have not been able to pour the water slowly. (change)

My first impression is that government tends to increase their degree of power, and the areas in which they exercize that power, until the people sucessfully revolt or are crushed.

Crushed means crushed. However a successful revolution does not necessarily mean victory. From my gleaning of history, more often than not, revolutions, even when successful do not result in more freedom for the oppressed. What happens in so many cases, is that the people don't want to continue with their revolution, but rather want to go back to a life of whatever they were doing before the revolution. At this point, they decide to "trust" the guy with the best promises and basically turn governance over to him. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The American revolution was an aberration I think. A new and huge continent, resplendent with resources and basically open for the new nation to expand into. Mostly the natives had died off from white mans diseases, leaving little to stand in the way of progress. Expansion with little resistance allowed for the revolutionary promises to be fulfilled to some degree for generations. This is no longer the case.

Back to the main gist of the thread. I am no proponent of the present form of world leadership based on premises of existence which, though they have over time proven successful to a certain degree, no longer hold their validity. However, I do think we need to get from one civilization to the next. And given there are those who think more control without democracy is the answer, and those who think that more control WITH democracy is the answer, I choose the latter. I think it a fools folly to try and yank the controls of this transition away from those who are making the big decisions. Most I think you and I can do is support those who we believe will guide it best.

reply to post by TerryMcGuire

Dear TerryMcGuire,

We've reached agreement, I'll buy you a Black and Tan. See you around.

With respect,
Charles1952