The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.
Today our planet is divided into about 190 different sovereign nations. Each of them must grapple with challenges of security, trade, economic viability, resource shortages, health care, education, poverty, ethnic tensions, and more.
For centuries now, visionary cosmopolitan thinkers have argued that the best solution to governing a global human family is a single world government. Pragmatists say that approach would be unwieldy at best and most likely a disaster.
But what do you think?
We’ve just posted a new IEET poll (see sidebar) asking for your opinion. Here are the answers you can select:
Yes, we should have one world government.
Yes, but sovereign nations should persist within a framework of overarching international authority.
No, the status quo is fine.
No, I’d like to go back to strong nationalism, i.e., ditch the UN.
No, I prefer anarchism, the complete elimination of the state.
Please cast your vote!
Mike Treder is the Managing Director of the IEET, and former Executive Director of the non-profit Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
Print •
Email •
permalink •
(11) Comments •
(1810) Hits •
subscribe •
•
•
•
•
•
COMMENTS
I'm in favor of bringing up the standards of living and education of all countries on the planet to First World standards and then having a serious talk about a global democracy. Until then, I'd like to see some stronger mechanisms for international cooperation.
"2% of the adults in the world have more than half the world's wealth, the richest 5% per cent have 71% of the wealth, the top 10% have 85% of the wealth...The bottom 50% has less than 1% of the wealth. " http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/21708
I chose "other" because i believe in a "world government" as in anarcho-syndicalist/libertarian socialist federations. Globalization is a reality, but we should also respect the opinions and interests of indigenous populations. I suggest a reading of books like Metaman to writings of Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Goldman along with researching modern sweatshops, slavery, and inequality in a world which is turning into a global "superorganism"
During a talk at Google on July 1st 2009 Kurzweil said:
"The tools of disruptive change are in everybodies hands. And i often get asked about the have/have-not devide but these technologies by the time they work well become very inexpensive and very ubiquitous."
Kurzweil@google: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zo82W7aPI
But how true really is this statement? In a recent article by the BBC they claim that 1 billion people are starving. How can 1/6.7th of the worlds population be starving, yet Kurzweil makes the claim that disruptive information technologies are ubiquitous around the world? If its true that 50% of the worlds population has less then 1% of the wealth, is useful information technology really spreading as much as we would like? I would like to hear some opinions on this matter. What role would world government play in the spread of information technologies? We also need to consider the sweatshop conditions that many of our important gadgets are made under - gadgets which may be the future tools of revolutions.
However is it fair to workers in 3rd and 2nd world countries to not only be making cell phones and computer technology in sweatshop like conditions, but even worse - people fighting over the metals that go into such technologies, to children in Asia picking through our 1990-2000 computer trash?
The G20 Summit will be taking place in Pittsburgh Sept. 23-25. Talks of this sort are crucial for a world wide system of trade. Prior to 9/11 there was a growing movement however, of people protesting the globalization of corporate greed and western imperialism, which started in the West, with the WTO protest in Seattle in 1999. Shortly after people tried to shut down meetings and summits of the IMF, World Bank, G8, and FTAA. Recently this movement has been growing again given the current economic downturn. Should members of the IEET be part of these meetings, or help protest such summits because of their poor track record of globalizing exploitation over liberation on a mass scale? What are some ways we can replace organizations like the WTO, IMF, and World Bank? Where does the IEET stand on issues such as global trade and corporate greed?
http://www.nlcnet.org/index.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_Goldman
PBS: Emma Goldman - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4639638807498225813
Doc. "The Take" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8149373547373833649
I voted Other: I am for a GLocal government. I wish to see global decisions, ie decisions yhat impact everyone on the planet, taken at a global level, and local decisions, ie decisions that only impact a group of people, taken _by and only by_ the people concerned. I am in favor of a world government, but with the important caveat that it should not micromanage, and have no enforcement power on, local communities.
These are great ideals yet the thing is how could you possibly make this into reality?
It would be good to see some serious discussion on how this could be achieved. Most of us would agree that some form of global governance would be of benefit to the world as a whole, (as long as it catered for the hopes and needs of poorer nations, and not just the west).
How could we hope to overcome political problems concerning the Middle East and non-democratic countries that refuse to accept any form of united global responsibility?
I'm not saying the west is perfect, and the current world situation is far from ideal, however perhaps we should give some more thought towards the UN and G20, and instead of attempting to create something new, work with what we have in place already?
I think I'd vote for "ditch the UN." I'm not sure how much that will result in strong nationalism, though.
"For centuries now, visionary cosmopolitan thinkers have argued that the best solution to governing a global human family is a single world government."
I'm just thinking that some sharia-minded radicals have their own idea of governing a global human family.
As the world gets smaller, so should the ultimate target of responsibility.. i.e., each individual should be allowed to govern him/herself in whatever way they see fit. Therefore, anarchism is the ultimate governance...
A number of you, particularly those who have identified themselves as support GLocal govenment or federalism, may be interested in learning more about the World Federalist Movement (www.wfm.org) or its U.S. branch Citizens for Global Solutions (www.globalsolutions.org). Their efforts are dedicated to the realization of global justice, peace and sustainable prosperity through the democratized global institutions, a division of international authority among separate agencies, and the global application of international law in ways that complement the diversity and autonomy of existing national and local communities.
If Syria and Libya can get a seat on the UNCHR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights
then I can just imagine what a global government would look like.
Brenda - do you have any understanding of the process that would allow Syria and Libya a shot at those seats or the regional politics that play a part? You might want to consider boning up on those before casting a blanket and ignorant accusation about a world government that would function with substantive different processes.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.
Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376
IEET Blog