Skip to main content

View Diary: We Need A Directly Elected International Body. (17 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "United Earth" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    From io9:
    Political scientists and science fiction writers alike have long been taken with the idea that humans would one day form a global government. Yet few of us take this prospect very seriously, often dismissing it as an outright impossibility or very far off in the future. Given the rapid pace of globalization, however, it would seem that humanity is inexorably headed in this direction.

    So how long will it take us to build a world government? We talked to an expert to find out.

    To help us better understand this issue, we contacted sociologist James Hughes from Trinity College in Connecticut. Hughes, an ardent supporter of global government, feels that it's an idea whose time has come. "We need world government for the same reason that we need government in general," he told us. "There are a number of things — what we can agree are collective goods — that individuals, markets, voluntary organizations, and local governments aren't able to produce — and which can only be provided through the collective action of states."

    As the article notes, a "one world order" is a staple of science-fiction with each example fitting somewhere along a sliding scale of Utopian and Dystopian natures.
    • "Firefly:" The Alliance is implied to be a successor government to the union of the United States & the People's Republic of China that occurred before humanity abandoned the "Earth that was."
    • "Babylon 5:" The Earth Alliance was created out of the union of most of the world's major powers at the time of First Contact with alien life; Europe, America, Russia, Japan and others. It's implied that many countries initially resisted the formation of EarthGov, with San Diego having been destroyed in the 22nd century as part of the resistance. However, in response, the Earth Alliance fought a war that forced the holdout nations into EarthGov. It is also implied that many countries even into the 23rd century are not equal members of the Earth Alliance, but the Earth Alliance is the sole, official representative of Humanity.
    • "Space: Above & Beyond:" On a night in 2063, Earth's colonies are attacked & destroyed by an unknown force. Thus begins a massive interstellar war between Earth & the "Chigs." The series centers itself on the USS Saratoga space carrier, and the Marine Corps aviators of the 58th Wildcards. Humanity is united in a commonwealth within a much stronger United Nations. Each nation seems to retain limited sovereignty & control of their defense forces, but the UN Secretary General sets global policy.
    • "Doctor Who:" The show has mentioned at least four "Great and Bountiful Human Empires" that will occur at various points in the future. However, within the show's depiction of the present, the United Nations is shown having much more control, organization, and respect than it does in real life; controlling the launch of nuclear weapons and issuing global advisories during alien invasions and worldwide crises. There's also UNIT, which may or may not be a part of the United Nations.
    • "Star Trek:" Unification of Earth's remaining post-World War III governments began after first contact with the Vulcans in the mid 21st century. By the 22nd century, the United Earth government was formed as well as Starfleet. The nature & depiction of Earth's government has been vague in the various television series, and there have been fan theories that Earth might have a similar status to Washington D.C. within the Federation, since it's the capital of the Federation and humanity seems to have great influence within Starfleet. However, political entities like the United States, Canada, and others still exist into the 24th century.
    •  I like the Federation model. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Especially as depicted in TNG - as a whole civilization where people live as if they're perpetual college students.  :D

      A slaver says: "Work for me or I'll kill you." A corporate executive says "Work for me or I'll take away your means of survival." Is there a difference?

      by Troubadour on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:53:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  sounds like a nightmare to me (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, Rich in PA

        but then again.. I took college seriously.

        •  If you only go to college to get a diploma (0+ / 0-)

          then I suppose it would be very stressful and unpleasant, but who finds it nightmarish to have worlds of opportunity and learning experience at your fingertips?  Doesn't have to be high tech or intellectual stuff - could be art, film, music, food, athletics, whatever.  Just anything where you cultivate yourself as a person instead of just being a mindless cog in some pointless machine, killing time until you croak.

          A slaver says: "Work for me or I'll kill you." A corporate executive says "Work for me or I'll take away your means of survival." Is there a difference?

          by Troubadour on Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 03:38:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site