One World Government

[Marsh]

Progress, smogress

Progress does not happen by relying on precedents. Progress happens by creating them.

I didn't say that progress happens by relying on precedents. What I did say is that, when one takes a good long look at history, it is quite clear that the future will more probably be of degeneration than of progress.

My personal take on history: progress is a figment of the human imagination. What has humankind done that's so great, or important, or astounding? When new treatments for cancer are developed, the world rejoices at its creative ability, not understanding that these treatments were necessary because the pollution, radioactive fallout, and ozone layer depletion that we ourselves caused increased the frequency of cancer. When the Soviet Union fell, the west rejoiced at the victory of democracy, not realizing that-- had it been developed correctly-- communism is the only really socially-just system of government ever developed by a human mind. When I look at history as a whole I don't see progress; I just see change and continuity similar to the half-life of a radioactive element: the best it can do is stay the same; the worst it can do is degrade.

I will admit that there have been some pretty cool moments in history. Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing guy, and his contribution to the civil rights movement helped many individuals in America achieve a better standard of living. But this wasn't progress on a large scale. The history of African-Americans is one of sorrow and outrageous criminal behaviour; the progress that Martin made, though great in its time, did not nearly outweigh the several hundred years of degeneracy that still mark American society today.

I'll sum up my argument by comparing the world to a casino. Although individuals may win sizable sums of money on particular days, the majority of the people lose, and it is this massive loss that makes individual gain possible. Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

 

[arthra]

Things are looking up!

Marsh wrote:

I didn't say that progress happens by relying on precedents. What I did say is that, when one takes a good long look at history, it is quite clear that the future will more probably be of degeneration than of progress.

My personal take on history: progress is a figment of the human imagination. .....
I'll sum up my argument by comparing the world to a casino. Although individuals may win sizable sums of money on particular days, the majority of the people lose, and it is this massive loss that makes individual gain possible. Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

My reply:

This is a good point Marsh, we Baha'is tend to be more optimistic about the future of the planet and are looking forward and beyond to a glorius future for humanity.... I think this is very important ...

If you have positive attitudes about people they will generally reflect more positives back at you and with each other... In the same way. You could say negative expectations affect people... Possibly you recall a professor in school that only expected the worse from his students and sure enough, he won't be disappointed in the course of the semester.

I'm also a student of history and I see trends that are encouraging today as compared to when i was a teen in the fifties. We've mentioned a few here already.... The internet or global comunication.... satellite technology.... greater international cooperation in the space industry.... an world court and the United Nations are all signs that were not envisioned by most people over fifty years ago.

- Art

 

[QueryGuy]

When new treatments for cancer are developed, the world rejoices at its creative ability, not understanding that these treatments were necessary because the pollution, radioactive fallout, and ozone layer depletion that we ourselves caused increased the frequency of cancer.

Yes, but let's not forget that people who get cancer these days are actually living long enough to get cancer. That sounds funny, doesn't it? But think about it...only a few hundred years ago people were lucky if they lived past thirty. Now, thanks to medical progress it's considered very unusual if a person dies of non-violent causes before fifty, with average life spans quite a bit longer. Doesn't that count for anything?

When the Soviet Union fell, the west rejoiced at the victory of democracy, not realizing that-- had it been developed correctly-- communism is the only really socially-just system of government ever developed by a human mind.

Personally, I don't have any fondness for Communism as it has been implemented historically. What it was meant to be...I don't know enough about that to establish an informed opinion.

I will admit that there have been some pretty cool moments in history. Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing guy, and his contribution to the civil rights movement helped many individuals in America achieve a better standard of living. But this wasn't progress on a large scale.

Concerning civil rights....Have you so quickly forgotten the elimination of slavery in almost every corner of the globe? Doesn't that count for something? As for the civil rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's (and earlier, to a limited degree) ... quite frankly I think changing American policy toward its own people was a large scale change, even if it wasn't global. It's all a matter of opinion, I guess.

The history of African-Americans is one of sorrow and outrageous criminal behaviour; the progress that Martin made, though great in its time, did not nearly outweigh the several hundred years of degeneracy that still mark American society today.

If you truly think it is shocking or unjust that the legacy of hundreds of years can't be undone in a half of a century, that is your perogative. I, for one, prefer to acknowledge that progress has been made and find it difficult to so easily dismiss the enormous sacrifices that have been made to accomplish it. Learn from the past, don't live there. Progress is still being made today.

Similarly, although great achievements-- which seem like progress-- happen at particular flashpoints in history, they seem great only because they appear on a backdrop of suffering and affliction caused by degeneracy.

But does that really diminish their greatness? Progress comes at a cost, and sometimes that cost can be dire indeed. I won't argue that. Still, progress has a ripple effect. Sooner or later an improvement in one area spreads outward until it covers an area beyond its initial effect. It takes time though.

Since we're using America as an example: The standard of living among the American poor has increased dramatically over the past few centuries. This isn't to say poverty is pleasant, but thanks to things such as electricity, running water, greater public health awareness, improved labor laws and improvements in social programs--the poorest Americans still have it much better than the poor in many other areas of the world. This is due to the ripple effects of progress. Running water and electricity were once signs of great wealth, no matter what form they took. Now, they are so commonplace that it is considered an affront to human dignity to force someone to live without them. Well...in America anyway. Are you to tell me that isn't progress? With luck, this "bare minimum" standard of living will apply to everyone in the world over time, and continue to move upward from there.

My recommendation: Really look at the world an be very, very careful what you take for granted. What you see is what you get.

QG

P.S. Which type of computer do you prefer when you're accessing the internet? Do you own your own, or is it one that is freely available to you at a public library?

 

[Marsh]

I hope the carpet beneath our feet is nailed down...

Marsh wrote:I'm also a student of history and I see trends that are encouraging today as compared to when i was a teen in the fifties. We've mentioned a few here already.... The internet or global comunication.... satellite technology.... greater international cooperation in the space industry.... an world court and the United Nations are all signs that were not envisioned by most people over fifty years ago.

I agree that all of these things you have mentioned are unprecedented achievements. However, unprecedented doesn't necessarily mean good.

Let me use the example of the internet, which was actually a weapon in its origin. It is an incredible feat in my opinion to be able to connect computers in the same room instantaneously, let alone between continents. I've played chess against people from countries I have never visited. Indeed, some amazing things are possible online.

About three years ago I saw a very eye-opening article on the web, which had published the 100 most frequently visited websites for that year. To the best of my memory, close to 90 out of the 100 were porn sites!

Technology is not a foundation worthy to stand on; at best, it's a carpet lying on top of the foundation to make it look, well, pretty. The irony of technology is that everything that proves to be useful eventually becomes used as a weapon, and in this way it becomes as much of a liability as it is a benefit.

Just as you have been looking at the trends toward globalization and technology as signals of a beautiful new future, I'm sure others felt the same way when they saw the first airplane take off into the sky, when manufactured products came out of the first factory, and when word returned to Europe about the 'discovery' of South America. Within the same generation in each case, the carpet was ripped out from underneath society's feet: long-range bombers, child labour, and slavery.

I'm not a pessimist, though I probably seem like one. I'm just saying that we need to be very careful: our greatest mistakes seem to happen when we least expect them.

 

[iBrian]

There have certainly been massive strides in the past few centuries - but the internet issue, yes, porn drives the internet. From weapons system, to porn distribution system, it is the biggest market on the internet. This forum has been hit repeatedly by porn spammers.

 

[arthra]

Inventions change our world forever:

I agree that all of these things you have mentioned are unprecedented achievements. However, unprecedented doesn't necessarily mean good.

Let me use the example of the internet,

.....

I'm not a pessimist, though I probably seem like one. I'm just saying that we need to be very careful: our greatest mistakes seem to happen when we least expect them.

Yes Marsh I see your point.... just about every invention known to man has at some point probably been horribly abused by men..... but i don't see us abandoning the internet or our cars or our satellite systems... We still buy airplane tickets after 9/11.

We probably we'll have some feature or program that will scan the spam and the race will go on.

What these inventions have done though is shrink our world and make us more interdependent than ever.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


not to derail the thread...



Marsh, the internet was not a weapon when it was developed by DARPA. The Internet is a worldwide network of thousands of computers and computer networks. It is a public, voluntary, and cooperative effort between the connected institutions and is not owned or operated by any single organization.The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn.

The Internet began as a computer network of ARPA (ARPAnet) that linked computer networks at several universities and research laboratories in the United States. The World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).​

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story070.htm​

 

[9Harmony]

Namaste all,


not to derail the thread...





Marsh, the internet was not a weapon when it was developed by DARPA. The Internet is a worldwide network of thousands of computers and computer networks. It is a public, voluntary, and cooperative effort between the connected institutions and is not owned or operated by any single organization.The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn.

The Internet began as a computer network of ARPA (ARPAnet) that linked computer networks at several universities and research laboratories in the United States. The World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).​

http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/story070.htm​

I thought Al Gore invented the internet. LOL!

 

[iBrian]

You mean he didn't?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


<begin thread derail>

however... Al Gore's claim of inventing the internet always seemed rather like Dr. Evil (Austin Powers) retelling his childhood story in group therapy.. remember the siloquy... my childhood was quite typcial, really... summers in Rangoon, luge lessons... at the age of 14 my testicals were ritualistically shaved by my Zoroastarian nurse... my father made all sorts of outlandish claims... like he invented the question mark... "

</end thread derail>

 

[bruceg]

If this thread got any more derailed, the NTSB would need to be called in.... (for those not in the US, the National Transportation Safety Board is the agency that investigates major transportation problems like train derailments and plane crashes).

 

[Marsh]

And now for Paul Harvey's rest of the story...

Marsh, the internet was not a weapon when it was developed by DARPA.

Check your facts, Vajradhara. The internet's first application was to coordinate NORAD defences, which makes it a weapon in its beginning just as I said.


Now to reply to Art, who said:

"We probably we'll have some feature or program that will scan the spam and the race will go on.

What these inventions have done though is shrink our world and make us more interdependent than ever."

Yes, some Bill Gates-type person will probably make a kajillion dollars when they invent and market a spam-scanning program. However, by that time we will have invented, what, maybe a hundred new pieces of technology that can be abused and/or used against us? Or maybe a thousand? It seems to me that the relationship between technology and progress is similar to Malthus' observation that population grows exponentially while food supplies increase arithmetically: by the time we solve one problem, we've already created fifty more-- sometimes, ironically, in the process of solving the first one.

This brings me back to the idea of having one world government. There isn't a government on earth that is not in need of an over-haul, and yet if there was a world government it would be based on one or more of the existing, flawed systems of government, with the idea that the bugs could be worked out in the future. I'm obviously not convinced that they ever would be worked out, at least in time to prevent other bugs from arising.

 

[QueryGuy]

Check your facts, Vajradhara. The internet's first application was to coordinate NORAD defences, which makes it a weapon in its beginning just as I said.

So even if that's true, I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that makes the whole internet morally objectionable? Do you have any proposed solutions to the problems you mention? (That's probably material for a whole new thread, but I'm curious.)

However, by that time we will have invented, what, maybe a hundred new pieces of technology that can be abused and/or used against us? Or maybe a thousand?

Ingenuity is a double-edged sword. What do you suggest we do? Nothing at all, a cessation of all progress?

This brings me back to the idea of having one world government. There isn't a government on earth that is not in need of an over-haul, and yet if there was a world government it would be based on one or more of the existing, flawed systems of government, with the idea that the bugs could be worked out in the future. I'm obviously not convinced that they ever would be worked out, at least in time to prevent other bugs from arising.

Nor am I. I can acknowledge that most, if not all of what you are saying is true. However, our attitudes concerning it are profoundly different. I simply see it as the way of things, challenges to be met and obstacles to overcome. I get the feeling that if we were to follow your line of thinking they would not even be obstacles, for if something is to be an obstacle you must first set out on a path.

QG

 

[arthra]

World civilizaion and world government:

Check your facts, Vajradhara. The internet's first application was to coordinate NORAD defences, which makes it a weapon in its beginning just as I said.


Now to reply to Art, who said:

"We probably we'll have some feature or program that will scan the spam and the race will go on.

What these inventions have done though is shrink our world and make us more interdependent than ever."

Yes, some Bill Gates-type person will probably make a kajillion dollars when they invent and market a spam-scanning program. However, by that time we will have invented, what, maybe a hundred new pieces of technology that can be abused and/or used against us? Or maybe a thousand? It seems to me that the relationship between technology and progress is similar to Malthus' observation that population grows exponentially while food supplies increase arithmetically: by the time we solve one problem, we've already created fifty more-- sometimes, ironically, in the process of solving the first one.

This brings me back to the idea of having one world government. There isn't a government on earth that is not in need of an over-haul, and yet if there was a world government it would be based on one or more of the existing, flawed systems of government, with the idea that the bugs could be worked out in the future. I'm obviously not convinced that they ever would be worked out, at least in time to prevent other bugs from arising.

Well conside how the United States developed...there was first a loose Articles of Confederation with very limited taxation powers and later came the Constitution we have today with more of a federalist design...

My idea is that yu will have a gradual transition from the current UN model to something closer to a federal model but it may take some time of course...

Consider how the EU has developed over time ... this is i think a very likely scenario.

THe World Government will be borne out of necessity and will first be politically created.... A world civilization has alread started but will definitely be accelerated with a World Governing body.

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

Check your facts, Vajradhara. The internet's first application was to coordinate NORAD defences, which makes it a weapon in its beginning just as I said.

Namaste Marsh,

you mean other than the facts that i've posted already?

don't believe me though, check it for yourself: http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2235.html

 

[Marsh]

In response to everyone...

Vajradhara,

By "check your facts" I mean know the whole story. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't (or didn't want to) make the connection between the US department of defence' sponsorship of the research that would eventually create the internet, and the internet's origins as a weapon. This is from http://www.cyberpub.co.uk/cyberpub/howto/history.html

"We've all heard of the educational and intellectual sides of the Internet and of its advances in high speed world-wide communication. In its early days it was used mainly by academics and students for serious purposes and was in fact originally designed for NORAD. As a method of controlling defence systems in the United States. They were worried that if the USSR could pinpoint their main computer system, one well-placed atom bomb could make them helpless."

That pretty much sums up what happened. Your timeline is good, but it was from an IT history point of view; not a political history point of view, and I was discussing political history.




Art,

Are you forgetting that little (and by little I mean enormous) Civil War that you had down there after your country became fragmented by slavery, competing cultures, tariffs, etc? Apply that era of US history to the possibility of a world government and you get a Third World War. And before we begin arguing whether or not the world, united under one world government, would become fragmented let me say this: The US, to the best of my knowledge, was torn-apart by political and economic reasons. Our current world still has those divisions, plus added divisions the least of which not being language and religion. Take a good look up north to Canada to see what kinds of problems competing languages and cultures can have on a country, and to Nigeria, India, and the Middle East for religious fragmentation.



Query Guy,
1. Do I have any solutions to the problem I pointed out? Of course not. If I had solutions to problems like this I would be speaking at the UN instead of on a web forum. What I do have is an opinion, and that opinion is simply that whoever remains ignorant of the past shall repeat it, and as the steps we take get bigger, so to do the mistakes and subsequently the consequences of those mistakes. Oppenheimer wanted to un-invent the atomic bomb, but it was too late. Similarly, we will never be able to 'un-invent' a world government once its been established, and since we have not yet invented a system of government able to effectively govern a diverse nation, the idea of world government at this point is ludicrous and smacks of pride.

2. If you'll take a look at my initial posts in this thread, you'll see that I'm of the opinion that technology isn't necessarily progress. Should we stop inventing things? No. But we should stop inventing bad things. The idea of technology as a double-edged sword is a pretty lame way to validate all of the problems technology has made for us.

3. You're right: I would rather have not set out on any path than to follow one that includes hydrogen bombs and long-range stealth bombers, the child labour epidemic of the 19th and 20th centuries, holes in the ozone layer, the fall-out from Chernobyl, toxic waste dumped into the water table, the Exxon Valdez and the multitude of other oil spills, the unibomber, the mechanized and chemical warfare of the First World War, the assembly-line genocide of the Holocaust, free internet porn accessible by six-year-olds and sometimes even sent to them by email, a mass media that can create Nazi Germany if it falls into the right hands, mercantile trade and the subsequent use of slaves to drive it, heartless multinational corporations that pay ludicrous salaries to what is surely the equivolent of slave labour in the third world, the Cold War arms race and the resulting collapse, poverty, and crime now plaguing the former Soviet Union, and every armed robbery, rape, assault and murder that has involved the use of a fire-arm.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of that path...

 

[arthra]

Short sightedness and the long view:

Marsh wrote:

Are you forgetting that little (and by little I mean enormous) Civil War that you had down there after your country became fragmented by slavery, competing cultures, tariffs, etc? Apply that era of US history to the possibility of a world government and you get a Third World War. And before we begin arguing whether or not the world, united under one world government, would become fragmented let me say this: The US, to the best of my knowledge, was torn-apart by political and economic reasons. Our current world still has those divisions, plus added divisions the least of which not being language and religion. Take a good look up north to Canada to see what kinds of problems competing languages and cultures can have on a country, and to Nigeria, India, and the Middle East for religious fragmentation.

Reply:

Thanks Marsh... No I haven't forgotten the Civil War in the US...but remember, that crisis resolved a few issues of states rights in a federated system. No one should ignore the possibility of testing a world federal system. It's occuring now when some countries defy the Inetrnational Court rulings. We can think of a few recent examples.

But our vision is over the long course of events. Just as stock investors will point to the overall growth of funds over say thirty years... We need to have a similar view of the developemnts in international law and government.

March wrote:

Do I have any solutions to the problem I pointed out? Of course not. If I had solutions to problems like this I would be speaking at the UN instead of on a web forum. What I do have is an opinion, and that opinion is simply that whoever remains ignorant of the past shall repeat it, and as the steps we take get bigger, so to do the mistakes and subsequently the consequences of those mistakes. Oppenheimer wanted to un-invent the atomic bomb, but it was too late. Similarly, we will never be able to 'un-invent' a world government once its been established, and since we have not yet invented a system of government able to effectively govern a diverse nation, the idea of world government at this point is ludicrous and smacks of pride.

Reply:

Actually I think Oppenheimer was trying to control the misuse of the developement of the hydrogen bomb. His nemisis was Edward Teller was i recall and the establishment ended up supporting Teller. Sakharov was like Oppenheimer in that respect. A sad story.

But the processes to establish world government are already in motion i think and when it does become a reality, it will be similar to the EU in being established in our own time except on a wider scale.

One thing that will become more likely would seem to me to be that scientists with conscience like Oppie and Sakharov will find greater support in the future world community than they did in their own more short more sighted nationalistic communities.

All the best!

- Art

 

[Vajradhara]

namaste marsh,

thank you for the post.

Vajradhara,

By "check your facts" I mean know the whole story. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't (or didn't want to) make the connection between the US department of defence' sponsorship of the research that would eventually create the internet, and the internet's origins as a weapon. This is from http://www.cyberpub.co.uk/cyberpub/howto/history.html

"We've all heard of the educational and intellectual sides of the Internet and of its advances in high speed world-wide communication. In its early days it was used mainly by academics and students for serious purposes and was in fact originally designed for NORAD. As a method of controlling defence systems in the United States. They were worried that if the USSR could pinpoint their main computer system, one well-placed atom bomb could make them helpless."

That pretty much sums up what happened. Your timeline is good, but it was from an IT history point of view; not a political history point of view, and I was discussing political history.

what?! why on earth would you be evaulating the timeline of a techonolgical development through a political lens?

i'm not sure what to tell you at this point... your site doesn't have a single source to verify the information that it's purporting to be correct, yet, the majority of the internet world has a completely different view.

it's up to you, of course, which view that you'd like to have. if you'd rather believe that the internet was/is a weapon and that was it's original intent, so be it. you won't find too many serious technologists that agree with that view, in my opinion.

by the reasoning that you are suggesting that i use here, anything that has ever been developed by DARPA or any other militarily related group, is preforce a weapon. which i wholeheartedly disagree with.

i would suggest that you research this information with an open mind. other than the links that i've previous posted, please feel free to review these:

http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml

http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/

http://www.w3.org/History.html

http://www.walthowe.com/navnet/history.html

http://webreference.com/internet/history.html

 

[Marsh]

Why are you arguing with History?

I won't find many technologists who agree with me that the internet was a weapon in its origins? I probably also won't find many neo-Nazis who believe Hitler was a war criminal, or Britney Spears fan club members who believe that her act is a bad influence on children.

what?! why on earth would you be evaulating the timeline of a techonolgical development through a political lens?

Uhhh, 'cause that's what historians do, guy. Look, I'm really tired of trying to explain this to you, because you aren't listening. This is from ARPA's official website (www.arpa.mil):

"The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) was established in 1958 as the first U.S. response to the Soviet launching of Sputnik. Since that time DARPA's mission has been to assure that the U.S. maintains a lead in applying state-of-the-art technology for military capabilities and to prevent technological surprise from her adversaries."

If you would actually have done some reading, you may have come across something called SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) which was developed by ARPA in order to "receive data from various detection and tracking radar systems, interpret data from unidentified aircraft and direct defensive weapons at incoming hostile aircraft. The SAGE machine could receive information continuously through the computer’s memory from telephone lines." This, my friend, was the internet in its origins.

All the web references in the world won't change the facts, guy. I consider the matter to be concluded.

 

[QueryGuy]

I won't find many technologists who agree with me that the internet was a weapon in its origins? I probably also won't find many neo-Nazis who believe Hitler was a war criminal, or Britney Spears fan club members who believe that her act is a bad influence on children.

Huh? Comparing internet users to Nazis and...and...Britney Spears fans! Thou dost go too far...

I've heard several accounts of the creation of the internet as we know it today. They tend to agree, the "internet" was invented a few decades back when a few universities (and maybe research companies) got together to create a common front-end system so their individual computers (big, clunky, widely incompatible things back then) could communicate with each other.

SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) which was developed by ARPA in order to "receive data from various detection and tracking radar systems, interpret data from unidentified aircraft and direct defensive weapons at incoming hostile aircraft. The SAGE machine could receive information continuously through the computer’s memory from telephone lines." This, my friend, was the internet in its origins.

Fine, that was a computer network. But multiple, otherwise incompatible computers using the same languages didn't happen till a few years later--and that's what the internet really is. Of course we could argue this all the way back to the telegraph or smoke signals if we needed to...