What do we need 7 billion people for? We don't, the world probably would be better off with just 2-3 billion.
Cats lay around humping and eating. Maybe our little bit of a thought process harms us rather than helps us.
It might be interesting to try and differentiate between what mankind likes to think of as his ability to think and what man describes in animals as instinct. It used to be we could Rationalize the difference because we used tools but we now know that animals can use tools as well.
There are no fantasies in my mind...only open-minded thinking. I don't care what it takes to achieve? My point was with every nation going down their own path, with their own goals, not taking any prisoners, etc. as we have today...how is that working for you? Why do you suppose the US 50 states operate under a single government? Do you think the US has constant warfare against it's own people? Try to imagine what would happen if the 50 US states were to operate on their own autonomy? My guess, given some time, you will absolutely see bullets and bombing and warfare, etc. as the strong take over and the weak disappear and/or retreat. IMO this is what we have in the world today...ever how many nations all hell bent on serving themselves and no one else! If you ever solve world hunger, world energy, world water, world health, world anything...it will require a commitment of all nations!
My point was humans as well as everything else on planet Earth are simply along for the ride...a rather temporary ride. Makes no difference if the biological unit can think/reason or just use instincts. IMO mostly what humans do is cause problems and seldom solves problems...for example our reproductive process which by the nature of survival and lack of critical thinking we see population growth. It's stupid to try to blame one group over another for this growth because it can't be stopped...sort of like trying to blame people named Bob for all the littering. And thanks to religion and cultures it's preferred to have as many births as the female can handle. Short of some nuclear war, or new bacteria, or major geological event, all of which have the potential to lop off a couple of billion people, we are marching down the path to 9 billion by 2050 and 11 billion+ by 2100...ALL of our current problems and issues will be exacerbated by 50%-!00% or more...
The 50 states have similar language, institutions, and political history. The proper comparison isn't between States in a single country, but differing nations. I honestly don't imagine how you would expect a world government to operate as anything other than a brutal dictatorship, and I can't for the life of me see what makes that so attractive to so many people.
Exactly, and this is the only PRACTICAL solution, as 7 billion people are not about to let anybody kill off several billion of them. It may take some billions before they catch on but they will, you can't kill that many people without them realizing what is going on
what a sick disgusting comment "what do we need 7 billion people for" like human only exist to serve him and the elitist pigs like him, I guess genocide is considered great for the stock market right?
The 50 states are very different from culture, to economy, to resources, to politics, to population, to industry, etc. It would be a war between states if we did not have the federal government. I would expect a world government to operate just like the US government and we have no dictatorship. Today each nation can do anything they wish including invading other nations and raping and plundering their own and none of them need to be concerned or help fund the mitigation of things such as food, water, energy, health, etc...those things which benefit and promote the collective we...
Of course. A world government would be just like the Federation. Everyone living in harmony, all races and cultures, except a white guy born in Iowa is still the captain. I have to admit, there is a whole lot of western arrogance to assume that a world government would resemble the United States, and that's coming from an arrogant American. OK, assuming it's a democracy, one person, one vote, immediately the Chinese vote to make Mandarin the official world language. It wins by a landslide of course....democracy in action. They also vote to control the internet to eliminate all disruptive speech, no more freedom of expression....well what's the point. It's obvious you have not really thought through your proposal.
I never said a world government would resemble the US?? Just because there is a democracy does not mean that every person or nation gets to have whatever they wish. If Mandarin Chinese is agreed upon by the governing body, then so be it. A world government, just as the US government, are not managed by individual votes? We would have a world congress just as we have a US Congress. The 'point' is your examples are extreme and obtuse. I don't need to think through the details of a world government to know that our current situation of ~200 rogue nations all doing whatever they wish is not working. The ONLY way to improve our status quo is either a world government or allow one current nation to take over the world and dictate. How can we solve water and hunger issues if the collective world nations don't step up in unison?
Actually, yes you did. You don't seem to have thought out the generalities of a world government, never mind the details. OK thought experiment. The "states" of Syria and Iraq have an ISIS problem, how does the world government solve an internal fundamentalist rebellion in these two states? The state of Russia annexes the state of the Ukraine. Does the world government allow that? China wants to annex Taiwan. Taiwan appeals to the World Government to stop the Chinese invasion. How does the World Government respond?
Not going to answer your questions...this discussion does not merit this level of detail. Either you can understand the importance of a governing body or you cannot...in your case you cannot...which is fine with me. You prefer rogue nations as we have today. You prefer to let global issues either be ignored or have half-assed attempts by a couple of nations and you think this is working fine...great for you....
Oh I don't think the current system is working great, but it's certainly better than the totalitarian dystopia you're attracted to.
The underlying (flawed) assumption here is that everyone should be doing something. Work is not a moral imperative. The work ethic is a classical example of necessity becoming virtue. It is extremely depressing that we view automation as a menace instead of something positive and liberating. I can't think of one job that a machine could do that, if it were done by a human, wouldn't be considered grueling drudgery. And yet we don't see this as a possible escape from drudgery, we see it as a threat to our meager existences. Automation would eliminate a lot of jobs, true, but it would also free up more people to perform the tasks that machines couldn't accomplish. More workers allows for the possibility of significantly shorter shifts at the unpleasant jobs. Then, we could start living life, instead of devoting a third of our day (and half of our day spent awake) to merely sustaining it. The increased productivity would allow for the maintenance of a comfortable living standard for every single human being on this planet (something we are already capable of), which would then lead to a drastically decreased birth rate, which I'm sure is comforting for those worried about "overpopulation". How anyone can look at this state of affairs, and the artificial limits placed on us by the capitalist system, and not be furious about it is incomprehensible to me.
The wealth profit from overpopulation. It creates an ever increasing market for the goods and services they produce. The government gets more taxes as the population grows. The pressure on wages that comes with overpopulation keeps employers wages low and profits high. For the wealthy and government it is a win-win. It is only the working stiffs who get hosed, and no body gives a damn about them anyway....
And who exactly is going to pay people for "living life"? People who do not see the threat from automation need to go to a third world country or a homeless shelter in our own, and see if they can get a clue about the link between being employed full time and the cost of basic survival.
I wish we could add some sad violin music to go with this whining! No one gets hosed by anyone! Where do you dream up this stuff? Every person makes 100% of their decisions in life so if something is not going the way a person wants…then that person…and only that person...needs to take personal actions to change something. Nearly every successful person you are jealous of worked the same grunt jobs you are whining about…many of them high school dropouts and lots of them without college degrees. Some worked their way through the ranks while others invented stuff and others started businesses, including the unskilled worker who mows lawns and eventually has 50 people working for him...
All those people will be needed to fix the robots that fix the robots that service the automated manufacturing lines.
You can always tell the idiots by the assumptions they make... If you knew you azz from applebutter you would know everyone gets hosed by the upper class all the time... that's not jealousy, it is a fact... all those people you think are "successful" are part of the hosed class. You have to be one of the wealth elite to escape the grips of the government parasites and the ever declining economic plight that the wealthy perpetuate.
Automation would lead to increased productivity, which would in turn lead to abundance. When this happens, we can start producing directly for use rather than sale. Money would become obsolete.
Are you living in some kind of alternate universe? Since when has improvements in productivity translated into abundance for anyone except the top 1%? Productivity is higher now that any time in history, yet wealth disparity and homelessness are at record highs... Automation is simply going to expand on that dynamic.
