Topic: When will there ever be a United Earth?
+Anonymous A — 9 months ago #67,116
I get people are distrustful of people they don't know much about and don't even share a culture with, but wars could finally end.
+Anonymous B — 9 months ago, 1 minute later[T] [B] #667,210
United Earth?·Anonymous A (OP) — 9 months ago, 2 hours later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,229
@previous (B)
At least some kind of earth that isn't with nukes aimed at it self, it's embarrassing.
At least some kind of earth that isn't with nukes aimed at it self, it's embarrassing.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
+Anonymous C — 9 months ago, 49 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,236
A giant hugbox? Love it!
But even hippies don't get along - watched one of those documentaries following a group of tree huggers and the boners leading the group couldn't get along, even with an unlimited supply of weed and acid.
But even hippies don't get along - watched one of those documentaries following a group of tree huggers and the boners leading the group couldn't get along, even with an unlimited supply of weed and acid.
+ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ — 9 months ago, 7 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,238
This may not be the answer you're looking for but: "Where do the wars and where do the conflicts among you come from? Is it not from your passions that make war within your members? You covet but do not possess. You kill and envy but you cannot obtain; you fight and wage war. You do not possess because you do not ask. You ask but do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." (Jas.4:1-3)
Of course this doesn't apply to defending winter food stores from raids or defending your kin from genocide, which would fall under just war theory. The vainglory and greed of a few tyrants who 'justify' their actions based on caricatures that revisionists have created is driving neo-imperialism. Ideological conquest is dependent on sycophantic loyalists, then accompanied by hired mercenaries, trade wars and now tech sabotage, which are all forms of escalation.
The citizenry of each country will suffer for it. When fear gives way to hysteria it is impossible to hope for peace. I can only watch from a distance and wonder at the futility of it all.
Of course this doesn't apply to defending winter food stores from raids or defending your kin from genocide, which would fall under just war theory. The vainglory and greed of a few tyrants who 'justify' their actions based on caricatures that revisionists have created is driving neo-imperialism. Ideological conquest is dependent on sycophantic loyalists, then accompanied by hired mercenaries, trade wars and now tech sabotage, which are all forms of escalation.
The citizenry of each country will suffer for it. When fear gives way to hysteria it is impossible to hope for peace. I can only watch from a distance and wonder at the futility of it all.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,239
@667,236 (C)
But this is exactly why we must, we don't need a utopia but we need something that prevents conflict between governments in the same way governments prevent conflict between it's subjects
But this is exactly why we must, we don't need a utopia but we need something that prevents conflict between governments in the same way governments prevent conflict between it's subjects
·ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ — 9 months ago, 24 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,241
@previous (A)
> governments prevent conflict between it's subjects
I can't think of anywhere in the world where this is the case, but a relative peace can only be maintained through conflict resolution. A judge should serve as mediator in court, a representative should serve as a mediator/negotiator for their constituents and governments should serve the people, to negotiate and maintain peace through dialogue and negotiations as opposed to forced coercion marketed as 'strength'. A boot on the neck brings only cringing fear and resentment, never peace.
> governments prevent conflict between it's subjects
I can't think of anywhere in the world where this is the case, but a relative peace can only be maintained through conflict resolution. A judge should serve as mediator in court, a representative should serve as a mediator/negotiator for their constituents and governments should serve the people, to negotiate and maintain peace through dialogue and negotiations as opposed to forced coercion marketed as 'strength'. A boot on the neck brings only cringing fear and resentment, never peace.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
·Anonymous A (OP) — 9 months ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,242
@previous (ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ)
You would be surprised how much more conflict between people there would be, if laws weren't a thing
You would be surprised how much more conflict between people there would be, if laws weren't a thing
+Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 15 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,248
@previous (A)
Honestly, I agree with OP on this. Societies which are less lawful are less lawful (surprising I know). For example, countries which have stricter gun laws than America don’t have mass shootings. Like Japan or the UK for instance. (Also China, but we’re supposed to not like them because someone told us to.)
I think the main barrier to a united world was the advent of nuclear weapons by the United States in World War Two. IMO dropping the nukes on Japan was the dumbest decision ever because we basically defeated one enemy in exchange for an existential threat to the survival of our species and the endurance of the eternal existence of multiple authoritarian states (Russia, China, DPRK, probably Iran someday).
Honestly, I agree with OP on this. Societies which are less lawful are less lawful (surprising I know). For example, countries which have stricter gun laws than America don’t have mass shootings. Like Japan or the UK for instance. (Also China, but we’re supposed to not like them because someone told us to.)
I think the main barrier to a united world was the advent of nuclear weapons by the United States in World War Two. IMO dropping the nukes on Japan was the dumbest decision ever because we basically defeated one enemy in exchange for an existential threat to the survival of our species and the endurance of the eternal existence of multiple authoritarian states (Russia, China, DPRK, probably Iran someday).
·ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,250
@667,242 (A)
> if laws weren't a thing
I don't understand this inference. Laws are necessary for there to be courts, representatives or governors. My point was that they were supposed to be public servants and the people their employers, not their subjects. If we were following the laws provided in the Constitution this would be the case today.
> if laws weren't a thing
I don't understand this inference. Laws are necessary for there to be courts, representatives or governors. My point was that they were supposed to be public servants and the people their employers, not their subjects. If we were following the laws provided in the Constitution this would be the case today.
·Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,251
I’m not saying it’s all America’s fault, but it’s all America’s fault. They have excuses for it, but I don’t really believe in all that.
·Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,253
@667,239 (A)
I think international government is a great idea. In high school I had to write about the universal declaration of human rights. There’s actually an argument that drafting citizens to fight in wars is a violation of international law, because the under international law, everyone has a right to choice of work. Forcing someone to work a specific job even if you pay them without the ability to quit is technically a form of slavery. So I think there are valid justifications to legally abolish interstate conflicts, but the problem is no international body is powerful enough to oppose the will of states. Earth is essentially a confederation of nation states, but we would be better off under a global federation that imposes human rights upon nations.
I think international government is a great idea. In high school I had to write about the universal declaration of human rights. There’s actually an argument that drafting citizens to fight in wars is a violation of international law, because the under international law, everyone has a right to choice of work. Forcing someone to work a specific job even if you pay them without the ability to quit is technically a form of slavery. So I think there are valid justifications to legally abolish interstate conflicts, but the problem is no international body is powerful enough to oppose the will of states. Earth is essentially a confederation of nation states, but we would be better off under a global federation that imposes human rights upon nations.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,255
@667,248 (E)
I sure as heck don't want to defend the nuking of a city in any country and especially not one that actually happened, but what I am saying if not america, someone else would have invented nukes or just something worse in a tale of never ending conflict that is humanity.
@667,250 (ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ)
I was going to say citizens, but it didn't sound right
I sure as heck don't want to defend the nuking of a city in any country and especially not one that actually happened, but what I am saying if not america, someone else would have invented nukes or just something worse in a tale of never ending conflict that is humanity.
@667,250 (ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ)
I was going to say citizens, but it didn't sound right
·ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ — 9 months ago, 17 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,256
@667,248 (E)
I think nuking Japan was a war crime and agree with the rest of your post. WWII wasn't a victory but a transition to the cold war of ideologies and unending war fought piecemeal in the rest of the world, where what were once called 'colonies' were rebranded as 'interests'.
I think nuking Japan was a war crime and agree with the rest of your post. WWII wasn't a victory but a transition to the cold war of ideologies and unending war fought piecemeal in the rest of the world, where what were once called 'colonies' were rebranded as 'interests'.
·Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,257
@667,253 (E)
I think unions of states for example the EU and the African Union are steps in the right direction. The EU is currently stronger than the African union because the EU has a common currency. The African union seems like it’s less cohesive. But I think continental unions of states which start out as confederations, say an African union, a North American union, some kind of union in Asia, which over time become federations as the central government of the union expands could eventually lead to some kind of international federation. But I think that would be a long term goal that could take a couple hundred years at best.
I think unions of states for example the EU and the African Union are steps in the right direction. The EU is currently stronger than the African union because the EU has a common currency. The African union seems like it’s less cohesive. But I think continental unions of states which start out as confederations, say an African union, a North American union, some kind of union in Asia, which over time become federations as the central government of the union expands could eventually lead to some kind of international federation. But I think that would be a long term goal that could take a couple hundred years at best.
·Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 25 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,259
Probably the biggest barrier will just be cultural integration. All humans are different but all humans are also the same in that all humans have a natural tendency to be suspicious of outsiders, but we all equally have the capacity to get over it. But it takes time. It’s like exposure therapy.
+ducky !MwWb.dJjRc — 9 months ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,261
when humans die
·Anonymous E — 9 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,264
@previous (ducky !MwWb.dJjRc)
> when humans die
A posadist would say it’s all part of the plan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_Posadist
> when humans die
A posadist would say it’s all part of the plan.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_International_Posadist
·ᏧᏟ ᏓᏩᏙ — 9 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[T] [B] #667,266
@667,259 (E)Also a good point, but a bigger barrier is the absence of mutual respect that grows from listening and empathy which brings people together. Integration isn't the same as assimilation just as unity isn't the same as uniformity.
Today, the current hot-spots are Ukraine, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Myanmar, Sudan, and North Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo with South Kivu, Ituri, and parts of Maniema and Tanganyika undergoing destabilization incited by outsiders. If history was taught holistically in every school a lot of this could be avoided by learning from the errors of the past.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)