One World Government: For or Against

I don't see why the price of oil should come down. Who wants it down. Not Bush, Cheney or Sutherland that is for sure. Putin or the producers don't want it down. If cheap energy was the desire they would be drilling in Alaska that has an estimated 200 year supply
The plan is to crash the economies and starve about 5 billion. Even as you see it happening some will not believe. There are threads on the S American Union, The African Union, I speak of the North American Union and I see some over yonder speak of a Mediterranian Union to join the AU and EU. The only ones in the way of a one world government is Russia , China and the muslims. The EU will subvert themselves to rule from Moscow when they invite them to join.

What I can't understand youngdan, is why you would be against one world government. I have been in favour of it since I was 10. Its the multi-power world that could blow us all to pieces that I worry about.

First of all, can someone provide links about that 200 years oil supply? I can't find anything on it.

I don't think there's an international conspiracy to starve five billion people. The current food crisis has numerous causes, mainly to do with rising economies.

And numerous unions hardly lead to a world government. If anything they cement the differences between what Huntington called 'civilisations'. And there is nothing to suggest that Russia wants to join the EU, or that the EU wants Russia to join us. Why would they willingly subvert themselves?

905 wrote:

First of all, can someone provide links about that 200 years oil supply? I can't find anything on it.

I don't think there's an international conspiracy to starve five billion people. The current food crisis has numerous causes, mainly to do with rising economies.

And numerous unions hardly lead to a world government. If anything they cement the differences between what Huntington called 'civilisations'. And there is nothing to suggest that Russia wants to join the EU, or that the EU wants Russia to join us. Why would they willingly subvert themselves?

Yes 905 - but what about World, as opposed to Nation State government - what do you think? For, or against?

Personally I can't see it happening without massive oppression. It would require an unprecedented amount of stability. When you consider the trouble many nation-states have keeping it together, a fair one-world government would be impossible. The only possible government would a conspiracy theorists's nightmare of a dystopia.

An important part of group identity is having 'Others' to define oneself against. A one-world government would have nothing to define itself against, unless Martians arrive on the scene. It could only compare with the past and I can't see that being very effective the world over.

Who would you want to be top dog in the one world government. Do you expect it to be Mother Theresa or do you expect it to be a tyrant like grabs power in every country. Pol Pot would be my favourite but would settle for Mugabi or Idi Amin. Maybe a Stalin. You might have a soft spot for these but what would you do if it were a Pinochet, Shah, Franco or the well fed Charlie Chaplan. You seem to misunderstand human nature Cactus and assume that your ethics are shared by everyone. That was the mistake the Indians made when they were nice guys and fed the pilgrims.
Did that threat by Barboso not give you a glimpse into the type of charactor you are dealing with.
905. You ask why would ye subvert yourselves just a few days before Ireland is going to vote to do exactly that. You will not believe there is a plan to reduce the population. Well you ain't seen nothing yet as far as the food crisis is concerned.

I am against one world Government. If it became oppressive it would be very hard to find a way out. The more dispersed power is the less harm it can do.

I can just imagine it now. Some guy in the amazon will be told to move to new york so his farm can be reforested and I will be told to ride a bicycle everywhere and stop heating my house so I can match the per capita energy consumption of a chinese person.

The truth is that the whole concept of World Government was a just a concept for sci fi writers. It has now been replaced by the reality of globalization. Global systems are everywhere; the specs for sea ports, the specs for railway lines, the specs for airports and runways, air-traffic control, communications systems, distributioon systems, music industry, television, the working day, automobiles. Global Government wil have nothing left to do if it ever becomes a reality.

Another reason I oppose global government is that the bigger he group that you are a part of the ess important you feel. Being one of 8 billion, when everybody is saying there should only be 5 billion, takes the spring out of one's step.

i don't think its avoidable

youngdan wrote:

905. You ask why would ye subvert yourselves just a few days before Ireland is going to vote to do exactly that. You will not believe there is a plan to reduce the population. Well you ain't seen nothing yet as far as the food crisis is concerned.

I asked why we would choose to be subverted by Russians or why they would be subverted by the EU. I also asked for links to the 200 year oil notion that you have. Can I expect an answer to either? And would you care to elaborate on this idea of the food crisis and economic collapse being engineered by some evil group? Where did you get the precise figure of billion deaths?

Why are you willing to subvert your self to the Europeans. This is happening now.
There is nobody saying that there is not a huge reserve of oil up in Anwr. Why do you think they want permission to drill there. Any site has plenty on it and this one says there is enough for 57 years. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/EM763.cfm
This whistleblower says BP is sitting on 1 trillion barrel so ask Sutherland about it the next time you see him. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147&q=oil+reserves+in+Alaska&ei=7so9SMnpDqj2rALttOmIBA&hl=en

We are europeans youngdan.

Exactly Cactus. The next thing ye will be saying is, We are all citizens of the Earth. You have proven my point. Afterall are the Russians not Europeans too.

Well I think we should all stick together when Mars Attacks

You can rest assured Cactus that we would all come to your defense if at all possible if you were under threat from any quarter. Unfortunately in a one world government situation there would be no allies to come to the rescue.

As Cactus says, we are Europeans. Have been since the Bronze age. The Russians are not Europeans. Even Greece has a lot of difficulty fitting into the European scheme of things. Russia underwent a brief period of Europanisation under Peter the Great, which really served to emphasise Russian desptotism and was largely unsuccessful anyway. The US has more claim to be European.

Alaska has large reserves but there is nothing to objectively support the 200 year claim. I hoped you had something more concrete than a man on a podium. The ANWR area has reserves that could supply the US for between 12 and 32 years if other foreign supplies remain secure. On its own the ANWR could supply America's demand for a maximun of two years.
Arctic Refuge drilling controversy - Estimates of Oil Reserves

We don't know how much is up there but it is a lot. One person who does know is the boss of BP which is the main oil company there. His name is Sutherland. Politicians here have prevented all energy sourses from coming on stream. No nuclear for 40 years, No drilling off California and no windfarms off Nantucket. I am not well up on coal liquidification but it worked for Hitler. Instead they went on the wild goose chase of biofuels. McCain is against drilling because he is worried about antelopes or artic foxes or something. Why dosn't he put them in the hospital beds with the amputees and the rest can be put in Arlington Cemetery.
As regards Russians Putin, Mendevev, Lenin Andropov Gore-bechev all look pretty European to me.

Most things can be dealt with locally, but there are some things, like regulation of the globalised economy, nuclear disarmament, trying to mind the last bit of rainforest, climate change and fish stock management for example that clearly need to be dealt with at a global level.

That's why I'm in favour of World Government, to do those important things that Nation States have been shown over and over again to be incapable of doing.

youngdan wrote:

We don't know how much is up there but it is a lot. One person who does know is the boss of BP which is the main oil company there. His name is Sutherland. Politicians here have prevented all energy sourses from coming on stream. No nuclear for 40 years, No drilling off California and no windfarms off Nantucket. I am not well up on coal liquidification but it worked for Hitler. Instead they went on the wild goose chase of biofuels. McCain is against drilling because he is worried about antelopes or artic foxes or something. Why dosn't he put them in the hospital beds with the amputees and the rest can be put in Arlington Cemetery.
As regards Russians Putin, Mendevev, Lenin Andropov Gore-bechev all look pretty European to me.

So no, you cannot back up that 200-years-of-oil notion with anything concrete. And have you anything else to say on Russia's Europeanness other than what they look like? And are we any closer to explaining where you got your idea of a deliberate starving of ost of the world's population?

If the Russians are not Eoropeans what are they. Are Albanians European. Are Icelanders European. I always thought Europe extended to the Urals but maybe I was wrong.
Is not the entire Sustainable Development movement not based on the theory that the Earth can no longer carry it's present population on finite resourses. I can get back to this later but this article lays out the situation clearly. Ted Turner when he was giving the UN 1 billion dollars was uncouth enough to blabber in the open that the population should be reduced to a billion people. Maybe that is why he sized his donation at 1 billion bucks
http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/global-population-reduction-confronting-the-inevitable/

One world government would never work once the airline infrastructure collapses. And with the oil price where it is, that might happen relatively soon. The slower the travel, the harder a large area is to control. My crystal ball sees more fragmentation, not less

What about the World Wide Web ?

youngdan wrote:

If the Russians are not Eoropeans what are they. Are Albanians European. Are Icelanders European. I always thought Europe extended to the Urals but maybe I was wrong.

Russians are Russians, there's no need for them to be anything else. More importantly, they have shown little inclination to regard themselves as European. To my knowledge Albanians are the same. Icelanders probably regard themselves as European. Don't make the mistake of equating Europe as an identity and Europe as a geographical region, which is where I think your questions about the Urals and Iceland come from.

youngdam wrote:

Is not the entire Sustainable Development movement not based on the theory that the Earth can no longer carry it's present population on finite resourses. I can get back to this later but this article lays out the situation clearly. Ted Turner when he was giving the UN 1 billion dollars was uncouth enough to blabber in the open that the population should be reduced to a billion people. Maybe that is why he sized his donation at 1 billion bucks
http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/global-population-reduction-confronting-the-inevitable/

I'm well aware of the Malthusian dilemma, from Diamond's book if nowhere else. I can't see how the article avocates mass slaughter though. Is that your source for all this, Ted Turner?

That there will be a large-scale reduction in global human numbers over the next two or three centuries appears to be inevitable. The primary issue seems to be whether this process will be under conscious human control and (hopefully) relatively benign, or whether it will turn out to be unpredictably chaotic and (perhaps) catastrophic.

That seems to be the core point of the article (which is not by Ted Turner). It is probably a question in a lot of peoples minds. The unspoken issue is the prospect of resource wars as a chaotic and catastrophic alternative to tackling the population issue as part of the human response to sustainability.

Oil use has provided the fuel for population growth and cant be relied on much longer.
My understanding is youngdan that you think it is not running out, but that there is an elite conspiracy to pretend it is and to use that as an excuse to wipe out more than half the human population. As the elite are major beneficiaries of the status quo I cant understand why you would think they would want to change it in that catastrophic way. Is that what you think, and if so why?

youngdan - following on from cactus' point - you also see a return to feudalism at least in Europe.. Now, I don't know how you see this happening because the English started cutting off the heads of kings back in 1639 and then the French went for the same fashion on a big scale too over 100 years later so I'd imagine if anything like that happens again then we'd haul out the guillotine again I'd love to see the heads rolling and the see the start of the horror stories again -

Quote :

Marie Antoinette along with 2,000 other people were killed by guilotine in this plaza area! So much blood filled the streets that the oxen wouldn't cross the street.

Place de la Concorde, Paris, France

I am interpreting from your fears though that you see restrictions on people's freedoms rather than a new feudalism as such? Feudalism is working in fields for kings and not owning nothing and getting bubonic plague and dying at age 40 and considering yourself old at that. Also believing in the Diving Rights of someone... Will this upsurge of feudalism be in concert with a rise in religiousness?

Well lets see does everybody agree that the Earth at the moment can not sustain it's present population as the once poor begin to use resourses at the rate the first world does. Next do we agree that the whole idea of sustainability is to structure society so that it can be sustained into the future
The fact of the matter is that without heavy machienary and fertiliser enough food can not be produced to feed even a fraction of the people. Who do you think will be able to afford the food. I am reading that farmers can no longer afford fuel so how can famine be avoided. Many would believe that there is 5 billion too many the only question is which group are you in. Ted Turner is a clown but he intends to be one of those fed. I expect mass slaughter and so do many. I do not see people being rounded up and shot. They will actually kill themselves. When food is gone from the city it will be every man for himself and their will be a mad max scenario.
My view on oil is that it is running out but I think there is more to it than that. The good news is that the necessity for oil for most transportation is running out too. Electricy and the air car will see the end of the petrol engine. The oil companies have prevented drilling here as much as possible. While it is debatable exactly how much is in Alaska we can agree that it is a lot. The oil companies have milked it for all it is worth while they can because the old sourses are running dry
If tyrany returns there will be no help available. Police states are being set up and the superstates will be too powerfull to attack. Anyone who believes that a powerfull EU army is needed to fend off an attack from outside is fooling themselves