1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Do you think its possible to unite the whole world and erase all the boundaries !!

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by richierich1m, Sep 25, 2009.

  1. #1
    Hi,

    There a lots of fear based threads in this section, just thought of starting a positive thread.
    Do you think there is a possibility that the whole world unites and all boundaries are erased forever.
    Its a bizzare thought with no possibility in near future, but wouldn't it be wonderful to have it.
    All countries could unite the economy and work together to sove all world problems ethically and honestly. There would be lots of disagreements but don't we find it in every country.
    No passports and no visas, with same currency all over the world.

    We'll fight the aliens then ;)

    What's your thought guys? do you think this is possible?

    Regards,
    Richie.
    SEMrush
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2009
    richierich1m, Sep 25, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. danzig

    danzig Peon

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    No I don't think it is possible.

    People are tribal by their very nature and will always find things to fight about.
     
    danzig, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  3. richierich1m

    richierich1m Peon

    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    19
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #3
    Everything changes buddy! :)

    Europe union currently works on a similar nature, if more countries unite similar way, atleast those which are on same economic level can unite and later they can expand to all countries.
    Globalization would eventually bring all countries on almost same economic level. :)

    Regards,
    Richie.
     
    richierich1m, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  4. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #4
    The same thing was once said about city-states: "there is no way in hell a Spartan and an Athenian will ever coalesce." Both cities considered themselves fully a "nation," as sovereign and utterly distinct from the other city-states as nation-states consider themselves to be today.

    I take a pretty functional view of political economic organization, a view based on social structure, and material need.

    As Europe has shown, as strong as nationalism and nation-statehood has been (and remains, even with the combined cataclysms of WWI and WWII), functional requirements and solutions can impel a different organizational model than what one would have thought possible.

    In other words, I don't consider there to be anything intransigent and immutable about the current world form, nation-states. It has less to do with "feelings" and sensibilities, in my mind, and more to do with underlying political distributions of power, as well as underlying economic pressures, driving the call for changes to the organizational model.

    Only a brief historical example - Europe of the 19th century, the heyday of nationalist movements that saw the unification of many former principalities and sub-national regimes (think, Italy and Germany, for example).

    If the "engine" of intellectual ferment was the fact that ideas are cheap, and can travel lightly and well across state boundaries - resulting in an intelligentsia in relatively more "backward" places, like pre-unification Germany, crying out for redress vis-a-vis relatively more "developed" countries - the underlying social structure, the reality of distributions of power, guided the form and content of the nation that would become.

    The result on the national level, was an Italy, with its unitary system, and Germany, with its relatively strong "anti-national" pull from a traditionalist (and relatively well-heeled) Bavaria, coming up with a federal system of shared center-periphery power.

    Go to Europe from esp. the 1960's on, and one can see similar strains and pressures that impel at least some level of supra-national cooperation, to what we have today - each nation's "sentiments" kicking and screaming nonetheless.

    I just see it as very functional, having little to do with whatever sentiment exists popularly - see it as a thing of function driving sentiment, largely.

    Interesting topic.:)
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  5. bimal32

    bimal32 Active Member

    Messages:
    460
    Likes Received:
    7
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    60
    #5
    Well its not possible unity depends on 3 things 1. language, 2. religion and 3. colour of skin.

    Anyway but i liked your positive thread :)
     
    bimal32, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    1. language - don't tell Belgium, or Switzerland;

    2. - religion: don't tell about every nation-state on earth, the U.S., as one example;

    3. Colour of skin: again, don't tell countless nation-states - my own, once again, as only one example.

    In fact, nation-states have been constructed under an incredible variety of supposed "barriers" to nation-statehood and "unity."

    Again, functionality drives things, all else tends to act as a kind of ideological validation.:)
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  7. Traditione

    Traditione Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    23
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    120
    #7
    Unity just depends on removing anything that might intimidate your chance of survival.

    That being said, when the world is happy an unified is when everything will crumble down.

    We don't need unity, we need humanity; very different.
     
    Traditione, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  8. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #8
    I couldn't pull that off with the neighbor next door, so I doubt it's gonna happen with the entire world population.
     
    robjones, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  9. browntwn

    browntwn Illustrious Member

    Messages:
    8,347
    Likes Received:
    848
    Best Answers:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    435
    #9
    Good fences make for good neighbors.
     
    browntwn, Sep 25, 2009 IP
  10. tesla

    tesla Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,836
    Likes Received:
    155
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    203
    #10
    No, it probably won't happen, but the Bilberberg Group is sure trying. If the world is united whoever runs the government would rule the world. No country will give up its sovereignty to "join the world," this has been tried before in history and it failed, The League of Nations was an attempt to do this.

    The biggest problem with all the countries in the world uniting is the question of who tells who what to do. I don't even like the U.S. government telling me what to do, let alone being forced into an international unification with other nations.........screw that.
     
    tesla, Sep 26, 2009 IP
  11. ChaosTrivia

    ChaosTrivia Active Member

    Messages:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    40
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    65
    #11
    I agree with all the rest:
    it is desirable but not possible. At least not in the near future.
     
    ChaosTrivia, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  12. NiTS.In

    NiTS.In Peon

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    2
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #12
    Who'd be the president? and what would be the worldwide currency?
     
    NiTS.In, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  13. mrdesigner77@yahoo.com

    mrdesigner77@yahoo.com Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    798
    Likes Received:
    30
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #13
    people unit when they face a common enemey
    when eliens attack earth we will unit to fight them
     
    mrdesigner77@yahoo.com, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  14. robjones

    robjones Notable Member

    Messages:
    4,256
    Likes Received:
    405
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    290
    #14
    I'll go ahead an be president. Not like I could do worse than the real politicians, and I already have the ego and a perfect suit for the occasion, so it'd save time.

    The worldwide currency will be Cottonelle Toilet Paper (which will be handy considering how many of the inhabitants are full of shit to begin with). It'll come in only two denominations, 1 ply and 2 ply, and will not last long due to its nature, but it'll have the advantage of being earth friendly due to its biodegradability. This will encourage rapid spending and thus stimulate the economy.

    Under my wise and beneficent rule, no groups in Robland (as first world pres I I took the liberty) will be allowed a military. Anyone that attempts to do so will be denied toilet paper and their economy will collapse (not to mention another huge mess on their hands).

    Disagreements will settled by softball games of no more than 7 innings duration after which the losers will drop their argument and report to the Cottonelle manufacturing facility for 3 days public service. Their sadness at losing will be partially offset by the fact that after the conflict the winners will be required to pay reparations.

    Granted this may seem a bit farfetched... but then have you read the premise of the thread? :) You are all now free to bask in my glory.
     
    robjones, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  15. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #15
    If Cottenelle toilet paper is the currency I plan on being this girl's banker

    [​IMG]
     
    earlpearl, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  16. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #16
    I think if one imagines how "real," and how "permanent" former organizational models were, in the minds of the subjects or citizens of their time - in their time, the sovereign city states of Hellenia; the absolutist monarchies of Europe, the tribal societies of the south pacific, under all of them, it seemed completely absurd to imagine something different, much less, something like the nation-state of today.

    Hell, ask an "Italian" living in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia in 1849 if he considered himself a subject of the King of Lombardy-Naples, or a citizen of "Italy" - and we would have dropped his jaw, wondering what the hell you were talking about, since there was no "Italy," only principalities, petty kingdoms, suzerainties to greater powers, separate, sovereign states. This was a mere 160 years ago. This subject would have been as certain of the immutable "reality" of his kingdom, as we are today, who live under the nation-state.

    Given this view, I think it's not too far of a stretch to conceive of a world without "nation-states." "Nation" itself is completely malleable, and exists in many different ways, all over the world - no one criteria defines "nationhood;" "state" is a functional thing, and tends to follow developmental need. It, too, is malleable, as shown throughout human history.

    Basically, I think one can see there is nothing magic about this thing that's been around a mere 200 years ago or so, over the 10's of 1000's of years of human history. It all goes to underlying function as a real, organizing principle, with "ideas" ("Liberté, égalité, fraternité") providing the validating cloak.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  17. willybfriendly

    willybfriendly Peon

    Messages:
    700
    Likes Received:
    17
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    I would disagree. Unity depends on a single thing

    1. A common enemy

    Disparate groups will coalesce around nothing else. Why do you think the neocons have kept the US involved in armed conflict for most of the past 50+ years? First the red threat and then the axis of evil and then the muslim threat.

    Without a common enemy individuals are free to think, choose and act.
     
    willybfriendly, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  18. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #18
    I'd agree, it helps. I wouldn't go so far as to call it either a necessary or sufficient condition, but it helps.

    In this respect, I love the historical example of Alfred the Great (who reigned under a period of intensive Norse invasions), not because of the surface apparents - "common enemy, unity under the Wessex king," but precisely for the functional thing I'm talking about.

    A very practical need - that his orders were carried out in the distant parts of his realm, under the exigency of the invasions - effectively created a "pipeline" that linked up subjects, and promulgated broader concepts (what sociologists have called "exo-education" or "exo-socialization"), heretofore unknown to each other. To aid this, in his rather short reign, he effectively introduced mass literacy, after a fashion, where nothing of the kind existed before.

    It was mass literacy, a communications infrastructural advancement, that in a breath showed the subjects of his realm that they were "a people" (really, a kind of proto-nation), much the same way that the advent of: First, moveable type, and then, a few hundred years later, (2) true mass communications by way of "national" papers and so forth, heralded the golden age of true nationalism, 1000 years later. Prior to these advancements, orientation was much, much more particularized, atomistic, turned to local, village-level life.

    This is what I drew from his history, anyway. And I think it does give a clue to what may become of the nation-state, due to developmental needs.
     
    northpointaiki, Sep 27, 2009 IP
  19. Valley

    Valley Peon

    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    47
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #19
    Absolutely!
    First I'd cause a financial crash called the credit crunch or something
    Then I'd havea half cocked attempt at a single currency. I would start a Flu virus and try and get the dollar and the Peso combined.
    I'd call it swine flu.
    Then........
    Open your eyes...
    You aready in this story. Next step is two new leaders in US and UK





     
    Valley, Sep 28, 2009 IP
  20. Sandy James

    Sandy James Active Member

    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    61
    #20
    Nope, it's not possible but a great idea!
     
    Sandy James, Oct 1, 2009 IP