Overwhelmed with nostalgia over the long-gone debate forum, i fancied starting a bit of an old fashioned discussion. I have quite a few things i'd like to talk about, but i don't want to make a thread for everything, so i thought i'd start with this. The main reason being that i spent a large portion of my christmas having a near-violent and incredibly intoxicated debate with some friends of mine that was based around this topic, and i'd like to take it further (However this time with a hint of sobriety). It's a topic that i don't really know much about, however i am quite idealistic of, so forgive me if i am ambiguous/incorrect. Just interpret what you will, and provide your views, i'll be happy to accomodate. So here we go. I'm sure we're all accustomed to disagreements over politics, systems and faith. Our one and only planet is practically tainted with what can only be described to me as structured anarchy; i see it as an impossibility to impose the social and political progression in the way of our ancestors without first demonstrating a unanymous sense of absolution and unity. In my eyes it's almost counter-intuitive to invest so heavily in certain first-world technologies, social/political structures, raised quality of life etc when there are regions in the world with such substantial issues. It is a situational irony that aforementioned investments may take many generations, if ever, to directly affect such regions, when these regions affect the world (and more specifically first-world nations) directly every day. This dilemma presents many seperate debates, such as preservation of culture and independancy, liberty, morality, but more importantly what systems work and where. There is also the common disagreement over whether to apply short-term or long-term solutions, and at what cost. I see struggles taking place around the world caused by what amounts to a variety of misunderstandings. Much of the tension and conflict between countries is a cause of ancestral disagreement, that took place tens to thousands of years ago. Nothing is left of it's origins but it's inheritance, and it's nothing but a weight below our feet, stopping us from moving forward. My ideal solution is a more profound, united and relied upon world government. At current only 3 countries in the world are not members of the United Nations, but it's rare that you'll hear about any more than 30 of the some 192, unless there is a conflict. I myself immediately think of America/North-Western Europe when i hear of the UN, possibly due to Nato influence. That is not what we should be thinking of when we hear the world government, especially considering the eastern power-shift that has been taking place over the past 10-15 years. I feel that given the current situation, the system for the UN is doomed to fail. How is it that the UN relies upon American and European influence, when America relies upon east-asian finance? Without a greater sense of unity and complete understanding of the world we live in and the people we live with, how can we progress as a whole?
This might seem like a cop out, but it's just the natural order of things. Everyone is dependent on something because they cannot or think they cannot supply this thing themselves. Therefore, we (Americans) rely on east-asian finance and manufacturing so that they may rely on us to stick our fingers in everyone's pie. As much as people seem to dislike American involvement in practically every homeland and foreign industry, I'm not so sure that if we didn't, another country or group of countries would rise to occasion. World powers do what they do because they can, and there's a damn good chance they are the only ones who can. If you're implying that third world countries should begin involving themselves with the happenings of the UN and the world government in meaningful ways, I'd have to agree with you that this cannot happen without a greater sense of togetherness and responsibility. At their current state, dozens of struggling countries can't even operate efficiently within their own borders, let alone those of another country. Even those more stable nations can't afford to do what America and certain European countries do for the world government due to any chance of disaster: environmental, political, or financial. Really, it just depends on which governments you are thinking of. Your east-Asian example is one that I strongly agree with, as the world can't last forever in its current state where some of the most powerful countries in the world are also the most secluded. Idealist or not, I think most of what you are suggesting would be helpful to smaller, weaker countries in the short term and would hopefully end up benefiting current world powers once the playing field became a little more level.