Bet 22
By 2100 a world government will be in place and in control of: business law, environmental law, and weapons of mass destruction.
Prediction 22
Duration 98 years (02002-02100)
Predictor
Colin R. Glassey
Challenger
TBA
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Why? The logic seems self-evident to me. All humans face global problems of the greatest importance. Such as: global warming, global pollution of the air and seas, the degradation of the world's oceans, global corporations which play one country off against another, and global criminal groups that seek to better themselves at the expense of just about everyone else. Global problems can only be solved by global solutions. The way to get global solutions is through a global government. Obviously many powerful entities exist which will try to prevent this from occurring. I predict that the United States will be one of the last hold-outs to a global government, even though the U.S. is well on its way to becoming the "de facto" world government as of 2002. Still, I'm hopeful. The same sort of logic that propelled the 13 colonies to join together in a Federal system of government back in 1789 is at play today, but on a worldwide scale. What it will take is a recognition of problems as being larger than any one country, and recognition of all human's common bond with each other. Intellectually I would like to acknowledge my debts to: Robert Wright, Kim Stanly Robinson, E. O. Wilson, and David Brin. One-worlders unite!
Sign in to challenge Colin R. Glassey to a bet on this prediction!
By 2100 a world government will be in place and in control of: business law, environmental law, and weapons of mass destruction.
If I had the money I'd definitely take this bet...
I have to agree with some of Mr Glassey's premise - we do all face fundamental issues of great importance. Although I'd disagree that the only solution is global Government. But I don't think these problems will lead to a global government.
I'd probably also agree that some kind of global business law is inevitable, but it will be the rules that corporations want to have. This is already happening to a degree - the Multilateral Agreement on Investment could certainly be seen as a first step down this path.
The simplest reason why there will never be global government comes from basic game theory. As more and more countries join, the incentives to stay out of the pool grow. For instance, if this one global government has a corporate tax rate of 15%, why not stay out and make the tax rate 14%. The extra corporations moving to your country will more than make up for the loss. So there will always be an incentive for some countries to stay outside the system.
More fundamentally, I think there's a system design problem that cannot be resolved. Have a look at the difficulties experienced in the formation of America (or, more relevantly for me at least, Australia). There were long, and sometimes passionate debates about issues of the scope of the Federal Government, the role of the States and so on. Now in this case, the participants were from the same class, the same social background, and had strong incentives to get together in the form of a powerful external foe. In the case of a world government, we're dealing with different classes, backgrounds, average incomes, educations, prejudices, objectives and perceptions of the problem. Add to that the fact that the 'problems' are not clear cut - environmental problems are seen very differently by the developing world and the developed. It's very hard to see everything working out as planned.
Consider the problems involved in getting a world government up and running. The closest system we currently have, the UN, is beset with problems. It's almost impossible to get anything done there already, and that's the way the countries involved like it (for the most part). In order to get a global government controlling environmental law, for instance, it would be neccessary for every sovereign country in the world (around 200 last time I looked) to surrender their sovereignty in that respect. The only way they'll do that is if there's something in it for them in the form of safeguards or incentives. Not to mention problems in countries like China or the USA, where any surrender of sovereignty to a world body goes strongly against the existing political grain.
I believe that even if we decided that we should have the global government today, it would take more than a hundred years just to negotiate all the kinks.
Robert
(These are just my opinions, and not my employers)
Robert, what's your opinion of the future of the Commonwealth, and how does that play against this bet?
(Re the $1,000 US, some bettors have found sponsors for their bet, or have gone in with friends---in which case their argument may have multiple voices. I hope you do find a way to bet on this or something else; I'd love to see what Australian or other non-US charity you'd want to see benefit from your foresight.)
The Commonwealth is really a bit irrelevant, and it's irrelevancy backs my fundamental point up, I think.
For instant, recently the Commonwealth was unable to put together a reasonable sanction package against Zimbabwe. And why? Because the relatively affluent nations wanted one thing, and the African countries another. And there simply wasn't any way to bridge the divide (within the organisation, at least).
And if anyone's interested in forming a group on this bet, I'm definitely willing to help. As for Charity - well, it'd probably have to be the Australasian Model UN Conference (www.amunc.net). After all, if we don't have World Government by then, they'll be needing all the help they can get... :)
Robert
i don think that this is going to happen ,although we have smaller examples with the union of the United States or Australia,things in Europe are going towards the other direction.Europe has many differents and distinctions from one country or population to another.Cultures that are not going to be dissapeared or forgotten neither by militaristic or cultural expansionism.
The rise of the neo-nazis and their distinctive political agenda of maintaining their country's cultural ,ethnical ,religious,ethical and many more ideas is another factor that is functionig backwards towards such important decisions.Although that we are greeting this kind of parties as a dangerous minority ,the lack of education (by it s truly meaning of the ancient greek word of paideia) will increase their numbers in political elections and therefore their power.
If we concetrate in a much more needed for a global government sector ,as the sector of ecology really is,we will still find many countries of the so called economically advanced nations(mainly part of the G7) that haven t signed many important ecological treaties for the pollution of the enviroment( the US still haven t signed the Kyoto treaty )
As for the economical part of the conversation since i am a Greek citizen of the EU,i believe that i know first handed that the passage to a new currency is neither an easy task neither an acceptable one ,by many people .The multinational companies will still be able to affect economical decisions of countries that are still advancing as they are doing ,but their role at least in the advanced nations wiull be the one of influencing decisions and not taking them. The example of the multinational mining company TVX and the villagers of a small greek village in Chalkida that have prevented the mining and the destruction of their psycial enviroment or the winning of a trial by author Eugenios Trivizas vs the Coca Cola Company are explaining easier and better than 1000 arguments would.
Lastly i would like to point out that although all of us have the outopic dreams that the japanese comic books of the 80s of a unified earth government that represented all that was good ,have created in our subconsious but this doesn t mean that it is going to happen neither that it isn t going to happen neverless the time limit that was set by the bet was far too little to prove such a theory
Who will be alive to collect the prize in a hundred years???
are you dudes like 1,5 years old now??
Well, let's see. In 2100...
* the winner's charity will be alive to collect a considerable sum
* the winner's younger friends and family will be alive to enjoy an enhancement to their memory of the winner (if deceased)
* a good many viewers of the bet and people interested in the subject will be alive to ponder the whole thing
* the subject of global governance is almost certain to be alive, and the outcome of this bet and its discussion through the decades might usefully inform public discourse. "Remember when we thought... "
Theories of social morality are always the product of a dominant class which identifies its interests with those of the community as a whole. This the the kernel of the 19th century's fallacy of the 'harmony of interests,' but sadly, what is good for one nation is not necessarily good for another. Therefore it's a chimera to chase after a solution equally beneficial to all. Every option will have positives for some and negatives for others. Although it's a nice dream, research has repeatedly shown people cannot identify a self without the idenity of another to define them. Therefore a world government, emobdying the collective interests of humanity as a whole, is impossible, as long as humans are human.
Unless, of course, we were to come into conact with an alien race.
The notion that a "limited" world government - one that could only contend with the areas of business law, environmental law and weapons of mass destruction (would that include commercial aircraft loaded with fuel?) by 2100 is absurd.
However, the concept of an "all powerful" world government is slightly more likely - as such might be imposed by a long term conspiracy involving coercion over many generations. But, here is why such a long term conspiracy is, at best, a very unlikely longshot. First, elected officials in the USA are required to take an oath of office that makes the preservation of the U.S. Constitution their foremost duty. For any elected official to breach that oath and advocate a world government, even after public service would be properly viewed as an assault on the Constitution they've sworn to protect (and a threat to the Rights our Constitution guarantees to every American citizen.) So, for any elected official to ever be identified with, much less leading, any scheme designed to circumvent, or ignor our Constitution would be in breach of their oaths of office. (And, even lead to charges of treasonable conspiracy).
Conversely, for any unelected body to seek to impose a "limited" world government upon Americans is even more unlikely given the very independent nature of our American heritage. Just consider the great numbers of our ancestors who have risked, dedicated or lost their lives in the cause of securing or maintaining America's liberty and preserving our Constitution. Those numbers are staggering.
Now, if some were to be truly motivated to actually conspire to bring about a world government, they would have to begin by describing it as "limited"; they would neglect mentioning how it would be financed or who would enforce its world laws. Such a brazen conspiracy would need to simultaneously take steps to make certain American History was neglected in America's public school systems (in order to bring about a much more pliable and gullible generation). They would do this by advocating for history schoolbooks which emphasized "pop culture" instead of spreading knowedge of the true facts of the sacrifices that were made to create the most free nation on this planet. They would want to make sure America's history books focused more on the inflaming, "hot button" issues such as Washington and Jefferson as slave masters instead of the pointing out factually how they risked their very lives, their farms and homes and comfortable lifestyle, as well as risking the future happiness of their families to bring about a republic. Such a conspriacy would require the media to always refer to the Independence Day holiday as the "4th of July" and show only pictures of fireworks, instead of focusing on the significance of the Declaration of Independence and the heroic efforts of the farmer/soldiers that defeated the most highly trained and well-equiped military force then on this earth during the long Revolutionary War that followed. Once such a conspiracy's "dumbing down" is underway, and the U.S. Constitution sufficiently slighted, then fear tactics concerning the environment or the world economy or weapons of mass destruction in the "wrong" hands (i.e. the ones in America's arsenals?) - might be successfully implemented to sway the masses to support the misleading notion of a "limited" world government. But, I would not bet on it, nor would I hold in much respect anyone who would.
I find the wording of this bet to be vague. What does "control" mean? IMHO two major criteria of a "world government" here:
1) ability to directly use weapons of mass destruction
rather than request some nation to do so. IMHO it will be
especially significant when the UN or equivalent body
has a nuclear arsenal larger than any single country.
2) ability to tax/fine national governments.
Right now, the UN is similar to the US under the Articles of confederation. One big issue is that the UN has no ability to tax-it depends on contributions.
ok I understand...how can I and a friend place a bet?
Probably you'll want to peruse the Bet Rules and FAQ, both of which lead to the detailed Bet Procedure, which should answer all questions.
Then you can float a bet idea in the Bet Prototype discussion above, or proceed directly to Place a Bet in the menu bar. Remember that once you have a taker for your bet, both bettors have to put up their money before the bet can go On the Record.
Would a limited world government be a result of a political development or an answer to a problem? Examples of recent steps of globalization due to a political development are the Free Trade Agreement in North America, and EU. While the FTA is a rather insignificant change, the formation of EU is more significant. Yet, it is still far from a Global organization, and by its cause, its formation goes against such a goal. Although the action of the formation of EU was that of unification, the main reason of the formation of the union was the reinforcement of the position of Europe as an economic rival of the ever more powerful USA. Thus, globally, EU was a step towards polarization.
In general, I find a step towards a global government, even limited to particular issues such as Ecology, Finance, or Global security, unlikely as a result of a development. A reason for this is the general reluctance of the world powers to initiate change, as it is the current state that makes them world powers.
However, a fundamental change such as a global government may be an answer to a global crisis – political or ecological. It was the crisis of the WWII that initiated UN. There will have to be something bigger than WWII, but as conflicts have generally grown larger and more gruesome over the centuries, a new conflict this century is almost certain. Whether it would lead to a global government as described in the original post is anybody’s guess. A more reasonable bet will be whether a large global political crisis will explode this century.
The historical trend toward political amalgamation seems to have only a couple of causes: offensive or defensive military objectives, or economic objectives. The formation of a world government for military objectives certainly won't happen. That sort of amalgamation is almost always (I'm tempted to say "invariably", but I won't) the result of a perceived (military, economic, cultural, whatever) threat, and there isn't, at present at least, another "world" out there to pose a threat.
Economic amalgamation, like the EU, is tougher to make predictions about, but it does of course require that the participants, as discrete societies, have a common economic objective (or at least _some_ common objectives) and percieve amalgamation as a means of achieveing the objective(s). But what does Europe or the US have in common with, for example, Gabon? The former are, in general terms, in hot pursuit of slick new toys, while the latter would be pleased just to avoid starvation. Not a lot of common ground there.
Nope, 'tain't gonna happen.
has anyone pondered the idea that if the theory is true, a global government might have banned gambling/betting, and the winner would have lost the 1,000 bet. But hey, lets all think short term and not worry about that. Just Play'in.
I think "rje" makes some good points. Unification was hard for the United States (I can't comment about Australia's history). And yes, there are good reasons to stay out of any union for good selfish reasons. However, look at the pressure for unification:
1) Business interests are very powerful and are frustrated in many areas by different governmental regulations and law. The EU was clearly pushed by European companies that were constantly running into the morass of French/German/Italian/English law and regulation. Businesses don't really care about political unification unless it helps produce common laws and regulations (which it does). Even though some small nations (such as Lybia) might want to stay out, they can be forced to join. If the majority of the big nations agree on a common trade framework/legal system/regulation then everyone else will be forced to join, even without having to use physical force. Just look at what Monaco and Liechtenstein have done lately. If they don’t become as compliant as possible with EU rules, they will lose their economy. No one will trade with them. Companies that try to relocate will be shut out of the world trade zone.
2) Air pollution, water pollution, water rights, and sea fishery rights are all huge global problems. Some method for resolving and enforcing disputes MUST come into being. There are steps along these lines (U.N. conventions, treaties, etc.) but the current methods are still treating nations as though they have the right to "opt-out" or ignore the treaties. The only workable method is to have treaties with real force behind them. And by force I do mean that in the future, countries which insist on taking more than their allotted share of water from the Jordan river will be taken to the World Court and they will be held in violation of the World Law. And if they still don't change their ways, the World Police will come and arrest the relevant members of the country in question. The alternative is what? Going to war over water rights? That is the world today, ultimately if two countries can't agree they have to threaten war. Alternative methods of conflict resolution are seen every year inside the United States between states of the union.
3) The United States is moving towards the position that if anyone but reliable countries have nuclear bombs, it represents a real danger to the United States. The logical end result of this position is that no-one should be allowed to own such weapons (except for the United States). But what country would give up these weapons unless the United States agreed to give them up also? So, the deal I imagine is in 2099 the United States, China, and the European Union all agree to transfer their last stockpiles of weapons to U.N. control. The alternative is what? The United States must threaten to wage war on any state which seeks to produce such weapons. This is exactly what we are talking about doing vs. Iraq. After we do this two or three times, the alternative (putting them in the hands of the U.N. will seem a lot better.
I’m not saying this is going to be easy for anyone. But the alternative is so much more inefficient, more polluted, and more dangerous, that within 100 years, it will seem to be the lesser of all other evils. At bottom, I’m optimistic about the future. It is possible to imagine a world government which is not that different from the United States government of today. A government which gives as much power as possible to local and regional authority but keeps control of the things which must be “globalized”.
-- Colin Glassey
"Business interests are very powerful and are frustrated in many areas by different governmental regulations and law."
True, but at the same time businesses take great advantage of different laws in different countries. In ways that don't always shed a favourable light on the companies in question. [E.g. to avoid environmental controls, labour protection laws etc.]
"World Police will come and arrest the relevant members of the country in question. The alternative is what? Going to war over water rights?"
I hate to disillusion you, but I think situations serious enough to be taken to the World Court would be led by politics in the relevant countries, and governments would quite probably rather go to war than allow politicians to be arrested by 'world police'. It's much more likely that the penalty would be in the form of trade sanctions and such.
"The United States must threaten to wage war on any state which seeks to produce such weapons. This is exactly what we are talking about doing vs. Iraq. After we do this two or three times, the alternative (putting them in the hands of the U.N.) will seem a lot better."
I think you are way out here, I think its more likely that, by 2100, the USA will grudgingly put up with small hostile countries having small stocks of nuclear weapons - if the alternative is handing a single weapon over the the UN.
Of course 98 years is a very long time, but the US would have to change a _lot_ before that is likely. Two or three wars wouldn't be nearly enough, particularly as the US is itching for excuses to start those wars at the moment.
I don't think the situation is ripe for a true global government right now.
My reasons are that most of the powerful nations are democracies. Thus the only form of global government they would allow would be democracies.
However, the vast majority of nations today are run by dictatorships (or effective dicatorships). These dictators would never allow their own people to democratically elect representatives to a global government. Instead, they would send representatives who are their cronies and who are out to represent the narrow interests of the dictators only.
Now why would anyone living in say the USA or Germany want to abide by laws that were effectively passed by dictators?
So the only way to have global government would be 1) all the nations of the Earth become vibrant democracies (how long would that take???) 2) Or some mighty coalition of nations conquers everybody else (the United States would be a good candidate since the USA with Europe and Japan is powerful enough to wage WWIV against all the other nations combined...but why?)
I could use a spare $1000 too, though I'm not sure I'd use it for the bet. (Living expenses, sigh...)
You bring up some good points in your post. Just adding to what's here IMHO the world government prospects will hinge substantially on (1) the state of international law germane to the global environment, (1) the degree of involvement of the world at that point with space exploration/settlement, and (3) the language issue. My sense is that as long as people are earthbound, they'll define themselves so much by their individual clan/tribe/city/nation/culture as to obviate, for all practical purposes, the prospects of a single world government. I still think that international treaty organizations and UN-type assemblies will be increasingly important simply because the ecosystem challenges cross borders and redefine the meaning of sovereignty. The greenhouse gases/CFC's/water pollution released by one country, within its borders, are not confined to it alone. Furthermore if the greenhouse effect indeed is shown to pan out significantly, then carbon emissions in one country could become a major foreign policy concern to others. This would be the case particularly with island nations like Ireland, Britain, Japan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Maldives, and so on, whose very existence would be menaced by a significant greenhouse effect. (Not necessarily in that the islands would be totally submerged but that the disappearance of so much of their coastlines, w/o a significant interior, would totally wreck their economies.) Furthermore, deforestation, overfishing, and soil erosion could, once again, have serious effects that would cross international boundaries. So these kinds of ecological concerns could, IMHO, spur a kind of world legal/enforcement body with genuine teeth in its rulings.
As far as the single government again this would, IMHO, be contingent upon a thoroughly committed worldwide space program evolving. This is the only "cultural event" that I could foresee bringing people to forsake, at least at select times, their restricted affiliation with a particular nation or clan and deep-down regard themselves as a member of a greater "human" family. Both the practical challenges of space travel and settlement and simply the phenomenon it would represent could very well reveal the pettiness of so much of the bloodshed-inducing conflicts down here on the 3rd rock (well, it'd be a start), and move us more toward a bona fide world government. Still, I don't think people would "melt" into a single culture; rather, said world government of a spacefaring people might operate more like the EU today, with common arbitration and legislation, common currency, etc.
The final issue would be language. Could a polyglot world run a world government? Well, I think they're at least making a start out there at the EU, and in any case it seems to me that it's the nature of language to differentiate in any case into local varieties to meet local needs, so that even if everybody decided to speak Urdu tomorrow, within 100-200 years the common tongue would break up into shards the same way that the Vulgar Latin of the Roman Empire fragmented into the various Romance languages, modern communications notwithstanding. I think there may also be some wild cards here and there. Perhaps machine translation will become far more efficient, or perhaps (ugh) neural implants might become commonly used, making language study far easier than it currently is and reducing the difficulty in picking up others. Frankly, I'd hope that we remain polyglot even in a world-government type situation; having distinct languages and cultures is, IMHO, one of those details that makes life interesting in the first place.
Nice post, Jacob.
As a linguist you might be interested in another activity at The Long Now Foundation (parent of Long Bets). It's called the Rosetta Project and is collecting all the world's languages online at:
www.rosettaproject.org
"and in any case it seems to me that it's the nature of language to differentiate in any case into local varieties to meet local needs, so that even if everybody decided to speak Urdu tomorrow, within 100-200 years the common tongue would break up into shards the same way that the Vulgar Latin of the Roman Empire fragmented into the various Romance languages, modern communications notwithstanding."
I think 'modern communications' _will_ have a big effect, but not in preventing languages splitting.
(As has been proposed elsewhere) I think it possible that languages will diversify on a world-wide basis along lines of work or sub-culture. How often have you heard some accountant* talking about something and wondered what language he was speaking? Maybe that will literally come true ^_^
* or whatever
A Common World Government is impossible. This is a fundamental law of government. How will Russia, China, and the United States along with such countries as Israel, Afganistan, and Pakistan, all agree on a world government by 2100? The Cold War took decades to "resolve" and that was only ONE problem. We have many more problems than that in our world today. There is absolutely no way that they can be soved in 100 years. If anything, our nation's government will not last until then. The expectancy for the period that a capatalistic nation could thrive has already been overlived by our country. Don't get me wrong, though. I like the government(sort of). It hasn't messed with me(yet). All that I am saying is that if you show me a person who can work out the details of this world government with all of the world powers in this century, then i will show you a master politician.
Impossible is an over-used word.
The difficulty of _continuing_ to run[1] a world government, in comparison with running - say - the USA, is merely one of scale. The scenario I find most likely for 'world government' would be a fairly loose federation with individual countries continuing to have separate interests and local laws / governments. In order to qualify as a 'government' it would need to be able to enforce it's will at least a fair proportion of the time over those areas it does have juristriction. Specifically, unlike the UN, countries should not be able to get away with not paying membership fees / failing to acknowledge judgements of the world court / unilaterally vetoing resolutions without means to attempt redress.
[1] As opposed to establishing in the first place, which is whole different ball game.
If it exists it will not mean anything more than ours in the US does. Our country is not run by the government nor has it been for some time. Fighting and dying for principles on a national scale is supremely unwise. The almighty dollar runs this country and the world. Those in charge live in a world we can not concieve of, and play by rules that control even them. There is no one in charge. The muse runs the show and we my friends are going to have to pay the piper.
I agree with the person placing this bet. However, I do believe that a World Government could be a reality sooner than 2100. No, I would not care to make a wager on that, I am just an interested observer.
I would say no because when any thing gets to big it bursts, we already see america not wanting to help with the environment for the sake of personal stability and this is my point. The organisation would rip its self apart.
There is the part of the different cultures that exist, this is why some people in the east don't like the west, they want there own way not Mcd's, suits and ties.
There is on all sides the problem that every one wants what is best for there own and that usually conflicts with the others, you would have to deal with social up risings and internal wars, the only way you would get a golbal response, would be for there to be an inpending gobal disatser.
This is not star trek, there is a lot of missery and suffering in this world, you who are reading this are probably luckly, you live in a house with clean water blarr...blarr... blarr.
Who wants to dictated to by some other country that knows nothing of your culture and imposes laws that are not wanted because they create more problems. I live in europe and quite frankly some of the laws they made about bannans being bent and the lark is wrong, and the fact that a shops must show the weight in Kilo grammes in bigger letters than those in pounds and ounces. HEY i learnt metric at school but i still want to by my cheese and bacon in POUNDs and OUNCES.
Most western companies are full of people that talk a good talk they all ways find loop holes to get away with doing what they want, a golbal government would have to be very select about who it select to rule a region and would need a massive law enforment infastructure. The problem is massive, even the romans who were the most successful rulers of the modern age could not create a golbal government.
I think that in another 500 or so years when cultures have the ablility to live with each other it may be a possibility
I heartily agree with the last poster, in terms of the USA allowing itself to be dictated to.
Also add to that the fact that before a world government can be put in place, I think the Israel situation would have to be resolved, and more specifically the increasing polarisation between Western Capitalism and Islamic Militancy would have to be resolved, and for that to be resolved the West needs to spend money on improving conditions in Islamic countries instead of bombing them, and when in history has a powerful nation dealt with potential enemies by aiding their economy?
Im trying to keep out of politics, but policies past and present increase this polarisation as the rich countries get richer and the poor ones get poorer. I think the only thing that might change this is a war on such a scale that the rich nations of the world actually take responsibility for the poor ones. But the fact that they are so rich and so powerful means such a war cannot happen.
"and when in history has a powerful nation dealt with potential enemies by aiding their economy?"
That would be the Marshall Plan.
I agree that America has become increasingly insular and unwilling to deal with other countries. (See any number of recent treaties & summits). Possibly a reaction to 1) the lack of competition with the USSR and more recently b) 9/11
However don't forget how much change the US has been through over just the last 50 years or so - plenty of time for the bet to be met.
"Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth."
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech."
So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of the earth. - Genesis 11."
Certain things dont mix: Religion, Language, Habits, Beliefs. Mixing people with these beliefs cause discussion and later war. The world has been dividing. Only markets have consolidating. The Eurpean Community still has seperate goverments.
"Certain things dont mix: Religion, Language, Habits, Beliefs. Mixing people with these beliefs cause discussion[1] and later war."
Actually it's the _lack_ of mixing that causes the most trouble. People in the same countries with no understanding of those living a couple of blocks down the road.
"The European Community still has seperate goverments."
That's pretty much irrelevant to the bet. The bet called for a world government in charge of 'business law, environmental law, and weapons of mass destruction.' That would not necessarily require individual countries to give up the right to call themselves 'goverments' or to maintain (most) of their soverignty.
[1] Did you _really_ mean discussion?
This bet is not formulated as a question about World Goverment with powers which goverments usually have, but restricted to much more narrow field. The World Goverment with state power is in my opinion highly unlikely by 2100 - there are too many oposed interests and the world is much too divided for that. Globalization today often means neocolonialism, and it is quite apparent that US tries to use its current position of a cold war winner to extend its influence as far as it can. But China, and to some extent EU are players in this game too - and none of the opposed elites would want to lose their position and give up the power for some obscure interests of the people - that is simply naive.
This more restricted prediction of the bet however I believe is much more likely. There is economic interest in globalization and so there is a need for global regulations. WTO is already a reality - what does exactly "business law" mean? The ecological global laws will have much less imediate future, but once countries pass a certain level of development, and once technology advances enough, this "luxury" will be something world could pretty easily accept by 2100.
The issue of global goverment in control of weapons of mass destruction is something I dont think will happen, and for the reasons I gave in the beginning. The ultimate power of any state is military power, and this is the control one is least likely to give up. We can have nice global trade laws, and ecology is pretty benign, it is all usefull for all, but giving up military power is a completely different issue - that would make world de facto one state, and I strongly disbelieve different powers would merge by 2100 - there might be some balance and coordination, but a unique control - well... only if there is to be a WWIII. WWII has come to a conclusion in the last decade of the last century, and USA is the ultimate winner, but it is not the only power that has left.
The Marshall Plan was just western europe wasnt it? Helping potential allies and future markets. However I'd agree that it was partly motivated by the fear of communism taking over.
With regards how much change the US has been through over just the last 50 years or so, surely the result of that change seems to have been increasing unilateralism, in the knowledge that no one can really tell it what to do?
It will be interesting to see how the US position on the environment changes as the worsening environmental problems start to have more tangible effects on its own population.
I think you are right about the length of time for the bet to be won...we do tend to underestimate just how much things will change, and how soon, 9/11 being an example, but perhaps 1989 being the most relevant one in this case.
"Helping potential allies and future markets."
It should not be forgotten that Germany imediately after World War I could have been (if handled differently) as much a 'potential ally' as Germany after World War II was. I think it's worth comparing and contrasting the actions & results for the two occasions.
However I do agree that it is rare for a country to put _serious_ money into improving the lot of a different country - even if the potential lives saved include those of it's own citizens.
I think after WWII the powers that be did not want to repeat their earlier errors, alienating a people and encouraging both left and right wing elements through the breakdown of the economy. The end results, not just of the Plan but Americas general support for democracy against communism reaped such tremendous rewards that I suppose it must be plausible that some kind of similar attitude might once again develop. However, it took a horrific war for it to happen, a point made in a previous post. The dangers of mishandling affairs with nation states had been rather painfully brought to light, but note that nothing was done right up to the outbreak of war.
I think that unless terrorism gets completely out of control, probably involving more attacks within the USA, or nuclear/dirty bombs, or biological/chemical weapons, the current stance will continue to be adopted.
The USA does not need to join any global government, certainly not one that would dictate to it on environmental issues. Furthermore, until the threat of so called `rogue states` and terrorist organisations is resolved (!), I think asking the American people to cede control of their nuclear arsenal to a world body (also note the levels of corruption, beurocracy, and general inefficiency in both the EU and the UN) is unthinkable. The world government may eliminate the threat of China or North Korea using nuclear weapons, but not those of terrorists. It is not beyond reason to imagine that in the future a similar situation to the Taliban/Al-Qaida one might develop in which a nation state becomes involved in a terrorist issue. If those terrorists used nukes, I think the US would reserve the right to counterstrike (maybe they would not necessarily do so) to prevent more such attacks.
I just can't bealive that you are such an innocent man. I guess in less than 20 years the world will be totaly controled by the US goverment. And I ain't talking about law economics and politics. I'm talking about culture, the most preciate thing for this world. ?Cause culture is what makes the money, Movies, Burger King, Mc donalds, Coca cola... This are not products these are cultural products. In less than 20 years Afganistan will be consuming as much as they can of the american culture, and Hey! this is not critic it's just the truth, and me as spanish guy I know I've lost my cultural identity, indeed I'm just another american. But I'm happy 'cause it's not a bad choise, you can't think but you can choose things like terror films or love films like adidas or reebok like coke or pepsi, like rock or rap... Anyway, I think we are all already under their supremacie, and it's just question of time to be under their gouverment too. The world will be the United States of the World and that's a bet. I'm sure that will be the name of the earth in just 50 years as longer.
I agree with you on aspects of the culture thing, but you made one important error in assuming that the US government has anything to do with that.
The world is controlled by business. Companies large and small. These control the US government just as they control the governments of every country in the world. How? Because if the government does not offer incentives for multinational businesses, then the businesses build factories in countries that do.
American culture, through American companies, is completely different to the American government. The fact is that the American government does NOT have control over these multinationals, otherwise there would be no sweatshops in developing countries. You only have control over a company whilst it is in your country, and you have to fight for that by making life as easy as possible for that company, whilst still appeasing the voters.
Read the work of sociologist Anthony Giddens, he says what I have just tried to say except he says it better and with supporting arguments etc.
In addition, look at the backlash in western countries with regards anti globalisation, and the upsurge in smaller local industries making use of their countries cultural assets, one of the benefits of globalisation meaning that they can sell their culture as a product much more easily than before.
And look at the increasing devolution of culture throughout the world, as people strive to fight for their own unique identity, usually on ethnic, religious, and cultural grounds. Read Durkheim (not sure on the spelling) about `neo-tribalism` and you will see what I am trying to get at.
U.S. culture has a massive foothold, and this will increase, but it only occupies a niche in a persons life, it does not take it over.
I can speak from a position of some authority on this having lived in Japan the past couple of years. I dont think you can find a single country that apes the USA as much as Japan, its in every single sphere of life, and yet the people are still keenly aware of their own cultural traditions, and strive hard to keep them and promote them.
And America does not want to control the world with regards government, because that would mean it would have to deal with world poverty, and at the moment if you read the papers you can see that the american government has no desire to do so...
Was in a hurry...misquoted sources. Bauman not Giddens or Durkheim.
I am ambivalent as to whether a world government will exist in 2100. Certainly most of the posts so far seem to have been unduly optomistic in suggesting that it will take the form of modern western liberalism to at least a limited extent.
That as may be. The bettors argument in support of his bet is extremely weak though. Condensed it says that because there are a number of major problems in the world, people will act together in a rational manner to solve them.
I struggle to think of any example when the populace of a country has acted out of rational self interest. Caertain leaders might, but the 'mob' as Burke delicately described them will not. We all know that charismatic individuals are effective in persuading individuals to act irrationally - Hitler in the mid thirties, Churchill when Britain was about to go under a decade later. However consider the neutral example of people with limited information about the choices and motives of others making their own choices. Adam Smith famously invoked the explanation of an invisible hand creating rationality out of entirely selfish choices and creating effective markets. Given a choice of two options to person A. If option y benefits person A and also person B, but option x benefits person A more than option y and provides no benefit to person B, person A will chose option y. That selfish rationality will scupper all attempts to provide global solutions to global problems, unless the cost to all individuals from the present situation is less than the cost of the global solution at a minimum.
Which leads me to the point which the author made about the environment. There are arguments against much of modern environmentalism (Bjorn Lomberg springs to mind), and from personal experience I have seen little evidence of these claims (save only claims of the desertification of north africa and the middle east by the ancients and the annhilation of large animal life through australasia and the americas). However there does seem to be evidence that human activity changes the environment in many ways.
All the current environmental bete noire of the enviromentalists are irrelevant to the day to day decision making process of much of the world. Slash and burn today to bring a harvest in to feed my family this winter, or preserve the forest for future generations who will not be my descendants because they wll ahve starved long before? There are too many issues that come first for the worlds poor and deprived. Food, shelter & safety spring to mind.
Consider also the moral issue. Developed nations have caused much of the problems according to the arguments. We should stop polluting now, and cut back on our energy consumption. To do so either involves disenfranchising the underdeveloped world from the same benefits of industriliastion that we have received or it involves us accepting significant cuts in the standard of living we receive. The first would seem to be morally indefensible. The second will fall against the power of selfish interest.
So as a noble utopian ideal world government will not happen in my lifetime (assuming little biotek plugins and nanobots). As a rather darker future I'm not going to tempt fate and gamble!
To my surprise I voted for this one. What convinced me was the attention to business law, environmental law, and weapons of mass destruction---all indeed global issue which will likely be vexed during the century and eventually lead to global structures for control of them.
This has already been attempted twice, true to a lesser degree, and both organizations have (will) collapse into misrable ruin. The first is the League of Nations, which everyone, except the U.S. governemnt, thought would be a neat idea to keep the planet under some unified control. That went well, didn't it? As soon as WWII came about, it fell to pieces.
The other organization is the U.N. Alright, I know it's still there, but for how long? Bush, Jr. has defied its demands of reason not to attack Iraq out of common sense. The UN is the worst thing that happened to MOST of this planet. For example: It is the UN (and world opinion, but those are mutually inclusive) that prevents Israel from attacking the Palestinians, who have no rightful claim to anything whatsoever, have denied all efforts of pease, and continually kill innocent civillians. It is also the UN that put Libya, of all countries, on the head of the Human Rights committee and Iraq on the head of, what else?, the Disarmament committee. It was also the UN that was tryi8ng to hold Bush back from attacking Iraq in the first place.
"May the same fate that struck down the League of Nations soon befall the United Nations."
I think that the concept of Coalitions of the Willing will survive and develop into more formal "working groups" to solve intractable global issues.
By contrast, as previous posters have pointed out, global government has been tried and found wanting.
My argument is not that national government is better in any way than global government, merely that writing the same errors larger will do nothing to change the fact that they remain errors and shouldn't be committed.
By contrast, loose coalitions have the virtue of being what Alvin Toffler called "ad-hocracies" with little or no overhead or institutional inertia to interfere with the mission at hand. It's not a perfect approach, but compared to the difficulties NATO and the UN have both experienced lately, "coalitions of the willing" at least have flexibility, as well as empowering members to "opt out" of actions they don't care to share in. Modern communications and information technology make Toffler's "adhocracy" idea much more practical and powerful than it was when "Future Shock" was first published.
There are several working examples of coalitions of the willing, apart from the occupation of Iraq - the Australia Group monitors worldwide sale of materials usable in chemical or biological weapons, while the International Atomic Energy Authority does the same thing for dual-use nuclear technology, and the Contadora Group was key in transforming the messy situation in Nicaragua into a stable one in which democracy eventually prevailed.
Finally, as with the Federal Government here in the US, the temptation for power blocs within a global government to play Robin Hood and start redistributing wealth from the developed to the developing world will probably be too hard to resist, in which case the world government will dissolve, either peacefully or otherwise. The chance that it might be "otherwise" seems to me to fatally weaken the main argument for world government.
I mentioned IAEA earlier as an example of a coalition of the willing. The objection will be, of course, that it is part of the UN bureaucracy, but actually, it works more like an less formal coalition agency. Countries have to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to get nuclear technology from other countries who have signed the treaty, and only then does IAEA have the right to inspect their nuclear facilities. So far, North Korea is the only nation interested in selling nuclear technology which is not now bound by the NNPT (they had been in earlier, then bailed out, citing "overriding national interests"). So the IAEA works almost like the Australia Group, it just falls under the UN's administrative umbrella.
A very good argument could be made that if and when the UN implodes due to the absurdities committed by the General Assembly, and the Security Council's growing irrelevance to world peace, that IAEA, the World Health Organization and a few other UN agencies can and should survive as executive agents for informal coalitions of the willing. This would result in greater accountability over funds appropriated for actions than is the case now with the UN, and likely more effect per unit of money spent.
Adrian, as an American, I'm flattered to hear you're ready for the Pax Americana, but the USA isn't ready for the responsibility of owning an entire planet.
Seriously, the cultural diffusion should be, and I think will be two-way. For one thing, since trying paella for the first time last year, I have become addicted to it. Definitely something good from Spanish culture, and I can mention a dozen more without trying hard.
Spanish is practically on an equal footing with English here in Denver - governmental offices, stores, clinics, hospitals all have signage and forms in English and in Spanish because of the large Hispanic-language community here.
In my native Louisiana, there was a brief upsurge in interest in French as an everyday language, to the point that one of the TV stations translated the Watergate hearings into French for the older listeners. THAT lent a whole new angle to the proceedings...
One of the things I'm proudest of as a citizen of the United States is our willingness to welcome other cultures and adapt to them in forming our own culture. America is anything but a cultural monolith.
I made an inadvertent error in my last post on this topic:
"So far, North Korea is the only nation interested in selling nuclear technology which is not now bound by the NNPT."
Actually, France is bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a Nuclear Weapon state, but has exported nuclear technology all over the Middle East regardless, to both Islamic states and Israel. The safeguards dictated over French dual-use nuclear technology sold to would-be nuclear weapons developers are probably inadequate to prevent diversion of fissile material to nuclear weapon development programs.
In addition:
- neither India nor Pakistan are currently bound by NNPT; both are trying to become exporters of nuclear technology;
- Israel has probably the largest nuclear arsenal in West Asia save the Commonwealth of Independent States' facilities in the former Soviet Union, is not an NNPT signatory and is also trying to become a player in the nuclear technology export market - indications are that Israeli help was crucial to the South African nuclear weapon program (now voluntarily shut down) and may also have been provided to Taiwan;
- Although the Treaty of Tlateloco essentially makes the whole of South America a nuclear-free zone, Brazil and Argentina have both tried to become suppliers of civilian nuclear technology to other states;
- Mainland China is not a party to NNPT either, sells civilian nuclear technology openly and is alleged to have sold Pakistan a proven nuclear weapons design;
- Iran has such an advanced civilian nuclear program that it, too, can export expertise in this area, even though it IS still bound by NNPT - as of this writing, the 45-day clock is ticking toward the first open confrontation between an NNPT signatory and the UN Security Council. I am skeptical that UNSC can do more than embarrass itself in dealing with Iran;
- in general the nuclear cat is far out of the bag.
The intelligent and moral thing would be for us to assume that proliferation of nuclear weapons is a real thing and act accordingly, assuring would-be nuclear aggressor states of their fate at the hands of the "willing" - so far, that looks like the US and UK. France wants to sell its nuclear technology and bolster its position as the leader of an increasingly nonaligned bloc of countries, and thus is not a realistic prospect as nuclear world policeman.
Germany is an interesting case - its own nonalignment policy re: the US meshes neatly with the strong desire of its own nuclear industry to sell weapons-usable technology as France now does. A Green/Social Democrat coalition in Germany determined to buck Anglo-American pressure and play for influence in the Islamic world looks like the enabler for German nuclear firms to complete deals which more conservative administrations quashed in the past.
The remaining responsible nuclear weapon states need to concede that nuclear weapons proliferation is a fact, and move on to some sort of realistic attempt to establish dire penalties for nuclear aggression in the 21st century.
In order for the nations of the world to join forces you would need some gigantic event that would significantly alter world politics. Or some third party threat would be needed to make human beings place aside their differences such as a threat from some outer intelligence.
You do not need a huge cataclysm. World War 1 & 2 helped to usher in the United Nations, so I can see why you would think so. However we are at a different stage as of now. The Globalization of economies, politics, and law will usher in a federal world government. Global conflicts will also help to usher in a federal world government. Examples of global conflicts are wars, genocide, global warming, terrorism, etc. A federal world government means it is not a totalitarian government. Nations will still retain real sovereignty over their jurisdictions, but they must uphold the international laws. They will also have to disarm their individual militaries, and become a central military force, known as the world police, which will help to enforce international law. Democracy will be the law of international politics, and much like the USA, individual freedom will be increased.
Seems to me all man-made institutions ... government , religion etc are fruit of our "nature" ... our innate characteristics.
The relevant characteristic in this issue is our need to dominate ... individual and collective.
History is replete with manifestations of this innate characteristic ... the popularity and sheer size of the Olympic events also point to this.
The difference today is only the scope of dominance ... we have progressed to a global scope ... facilitated largely by technology.
Communication has always been perhaps the most significant barrier ... in both increasing and retaining control/power.
Today we have overcome so many earlier barriers regarding communication ... speed, distance ... language etc
The stage is set for the players in this next round of this ageless game ... I don't see the players as nation states ... simply a handful of very small groups of people.
Please sign in to comment.