h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I believe that as a race, humanity must learn to ignore artificial boundaries and differences and learn to work together in order to advance as a species. I recognize that this is hard to swallow for many people, especially for those whose religious and political beliefs prevent them from tolerating other people. But surely this is absurd. We need to get past these differences and recognize that we are all essentially the same, regardless of geography. If we want to advance and explore the universe around us, we must do it as a planet, not as individual nations. One nation cannot control our destiny, as one nation does not have the resources to do so. On the other hand, having smaller governments is beneficial for keeping the peace in local areas. What I think is needed is a worldwide League of Nations (or United Nations, whatever you want to call it), a sort of government of the governments, to keep things in check, so that no tyrannical leaders would be allowed. Of course, this is all an idealization, but scientifically, it should be possible, right?

Neutrino

'advance as a species'

Advance how, and towards what?

'But surely this is absurd.'

Why? It's got us to the position we are in now, which, though flawed in many respects, is considered by many to be preferable to 'nature red in tooth and claw'. Now that, of course, doesn't make current thinking necessarily correct; but it does indicate that a stronger, more objective argument than 'this is absurd' is needed to prove it wrong.

'we are all essentially the same'

Essentially the same, yes; insofar as we share the common property of being individuals different from each other. Accordingly 'we' hopefully respect other people's individuality, the benefits that come from association with those with whom one has a _particular_ affinity, and consequently the benefits that come from the formation of groups. Is it not necessary to perceive how others differ from one if one is to respect them?

'If we want to advance and explore the universe around us'

Interesting usage of the word 'we'...

'a sort of government of the governments, to keep things in check, so that no tyrannical leaders would be allowed'

Either (a) the government of the governments would have power over the governments, in which case there is no reason to suppose that it would be less likely than any other government to degenerate into tyranny (in fact, it arguably might be more likely to do so, on account of being more distant from, and therefore less receptive to, each citizen, whose ability to exert a democratic check on the ambitions of politicians would consequently be reduced), or (b) it would not have power over the governments, in which case it would not be effectively able to 'keep things in check'.

'scientifically, it should be possible, right?'

To what science are you appealing?

One of the corollaries of having a "world government" and doing away with countries, is that we could divert the resources currently expended on defence and armaments into more productive areas.

How do you propose to have the world government prevent people from independently producing armaments and using them to kill one another, and even to overthrow the world government, if the world government does not keep itself armed?

Much greater than the prospect of World Government, I think, is the idea of a World Federation. With a structure just like Australia's federal government system, or The United State's, though with, perhaps, a bit less power, to allow a bit more dissent, countries of the world could be orderly managed, and discouraged from any form of violence towards each other, without too much control over their internal affairs.

A kind of large scale European Union is, I suppose, the general idea. As the most successful Regional Intergovernmentary Organisation in the world so far, the EU has encouraged nations to work together, and has increased the prosperity of these countries, without making them sacrifice their individual indentities. No one of these countries is likely to intiate mass violence against another at this point, not merely because it would likely create a third world war, but because the advantages of membership in the EU are probably greater than any likely spoils of war. Also, each country can relax their personally military protection, knowing that their allies would help them in any case of external threat, just as in a World Federation any aggressive nation would be quickly economically and militarily crippled by the rest of the world banding together. In this kind of world, free immigration would be totally unproblematic.

Of course, it's easy to argue that the differences between the EU and a world federation are great, as most European Countries, when they joined up, were rather prosperous and peaceful, while war-torn Africa and the Middle East aren't quite as well off, but, well, yes, that's one problem that would need overcoming for this system to work.

Do members work together because they are in the E.U., or is the E.U. a manifestation of members' inclination and ability to work together?

Be careful of the direction of causality.

~*~What I think is needed is a worldwide League of Nations (or United Nations, whatever you want to call it), a sort of government of the governments, to keep things in check, so that no tyrannical leaders would be allowed.~*~

This is a really great idea! They could stick their collective noses into eachother's affairs...and argue and bicker about which one is the more cowardly...and once every decade or so, actually get something done. Like taking down Suddam Hussein...

I'll be sure to let everyone know about it!


















































Wait a minute...

















































Don't we already have one of these?

We need something different and more effective than the UN perhaps. We need to have a common political system, but make it flexible. For example, intellectual property rules are very vague. Why can't we make up our own rules for our creations since they are ours?

I think a common worldwide currency may be a good idea, but perhaps a currency that sits over the top of the individual currencies that already exist, so that both may be used and converted at will.

Country borders and their names, I think, should still exist, but only for the purpose of describing your geographical location in the same way we have always done so.

I know those are vague thoughts too, but I can't work out the practical details right now.

Baryonic, do you remember the Hard ECU (precursor to the Euro)? Didn't work then, won't work now. If you're going to have a single currency, you just have a single currency. End of story.

The null hypothesis is whether it is possible to merge all the world's economies and currencies. I believe it is possible, but we're not there yet. we are moving towards a three-currency system at the moment, gradually, with three hyper-blocs being built (which strangely echo George Orwell's continents). The UK hasn't yet decided which way to jump.

It's possible. But it'll never happen.

The sheer organization and cooperation that would be necessary for such a massive undertaking not yet exist on our little planet.

Besides nobody is going to willingly give up their current systems because they're desparately attached to them.

Gonna have to disafree with you there, Mr. X. That's *precisely* what 10 European countries have done.

Really? When? And Who?

Er, merged their currencies. They now have the Euro. How did you miss this? are you on *Mars*?

No. The United States. And if this is Europe Isolated you can imagine why I haven't heard of it.

You're kidding me. This didn't make the news in the US? Scary.

More likely I just didn't read the paper. I'm only 16 after all. When did this happen?

Just to clarify, Mr X:

Actually 12 countries have now signed up:

Austria
Belgium
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Portugal
Spain

Click here for more info:

http://www.euro.gov.uk/countrymenu.asp

There is currently a general resistance to the Euro in the UK, with opinion polls showing a majority aginst it. The Government is pro-Euro, however, but won't dare campaign for it whilst there is a possibility of losing a referendum.

Spain, eh?

My brother's in Spain. I wonder how long it took him to get used to a new currency?

And yeah, this happened in 2002.

Maybe even twice then. What month?