Loyalty,progress halter?

[Inuzuka]

This thread was made to bascially question loyalty as a 'halter'(*delayer,in another sense*) to us,the world becoming a whole.
The first thing i want to address is about the concept about 'the global village'.This concept,in my opinion will be a very important factor to consider in mankind's progress,individually and as a whole,to reach another pinnacle of 'the Golden Age' of the twentieth centuary(*Ok,maybe not so soon*)As we know,the term 'Golden Age' is used to describe a civilisation when it has made great advances in arts,military might,etc.The global village concept will help unite the world as one planet,one entity,this will thus result in the elimination of mudane setbacks,such as racism,etc.(*When people realize that we,as one ,are the human race they will naturally forget about the color of your skin,because we are the same species!Must we wait for some weird alien invading force to attack us beofre we untie as a species?
I'm not sayign that alieans will just come out of nowhere and attack us,and is they did they'd be pretty stupid and narrow-minded too,but what im saying is the Global village will end mudane acts of stupidity like racism and terrorism*)On a relating issue i want to discuss about terrorists,now as the world is slowly drawn together,a new threat has arisen to threaten the 'peace'(*Or the stale state*).
The terrorists,in my opinion,are just a bunch of incredibly smart dumbass.As we have seen the terrorists heads are capable of planning such complex strategies etc.,this is why i say the terrorists are smart,on the other hand terrorists are also very narrow-minded people with too much time on their hands,because at the end of the day,they will have to ask themselfs' this question 'what are we doing this for?'and when you think about it(*why they are comitting such acts of terrorism*)the answers seem pretty meaningless don't they?(*'We are doing this cause' we want a f!@#ing new world order!',etc.*)I mean,what good will a new world order brought on by force and terror do?Hate begets hate,the sad thing is the terrorist don't see that,neither do the Americans,the key issue about this 'terrorism subject' is that neither parties realise that nothing,important,can be realized through martial force,because we must realise,man is alone and always will be,one can only be affected,motivated.etc by oneself,the americans and terrorists don't realise this and thus they are only contributing to the endless cycle that i think,we can only come closer to breaking by making the world a 'global village'.
The other issue at hand is the main disucssion of this thread,Is loyalty to one's country slowing the dream of 'the global village'?
Loyalty is a good thing,in a sense that it acts as a motivational unit to drive us to get jobs and contribute to the society,but loyalty,in the sense of dying for your country can be both good and bad,because dyign to save your country from some racist madguy(*hitler*)is good,your doing it for the good ideals,but this very concept also slows down the concept of 'golbal village' because when you are loyal to your country mant tend to stray down the 'dark side' of this ideal,it being thinking that saying other countires suck is being loyal,it dosent.Because ulimately no matter how advanced a country is,it is still a plot of land,if the plates of the earth shift,is defending the spot of ocean where your country once was being loyal?
This is what i wanted to point out in the thread about loyalty being a slower in 'the global village' and other related topics,environmental problems,terrorism,ethics and philosophy etc.
Thank you.
(*Thank you also for for reading this far and tolerating my numerous spelling errors.*)

[Kyolux]

Straight to my point

Globalisation = some kind of chaos
= Rich people even richer, but more poor people
= World controlled not by the best ideal, but by the people with money

Now do you want that?

[guest]

Originally Posted by Kyolux

Straight to my point

Globalisation = some kind of chaos
= Rich people even richer, but more poor people
= World controlled not by the best ideal, but by the people with money

Now do you want that?

I think the question is not whether you wan it or not because it is going to happen anyway. It IS already happening now! More importantly, there is no way to stop it. So I think the real question would be “how we are going to adapt and make the best out of this situation.”

Btw, I thought that Inuzuka was for globalization, not against it? But from Kyolux, you seem to take Inuzuka’s message as against globalization? I am just confused.

[Shadowlord]

as long as we have a good president to represent Earth, everything will be fine. In other words, no one like Bush, Sadaam etc.

[Roots]

Originally Posted by Shadowlord

as long as we have a good president to represent Earth, everything will be fine. In other words, no one like Bush, Sadaam etc.

What about "friend" from 20th Century Boys?


Honestly, I don't think a 'world government' will ever happen. The reason is is that its too hard to fairly represent the opinions and culture values of 7 billion people across the globe. That's why countries are formed. And even countries split up into states or provinces, which split up into counties (perhaps), and go down to the root level of cities. If there was a 'world government' in which people in the Amazon were voting for protection of natural resources, the rest of the world isn't going to care since it doesn't pertain to them, and thus its just a waste of everyone's time.


Instead, there should be a global council (better than the UN) for the leaders and representatives of countries to meet and discuss issues that influence each other. Ok I'm not going to babble on any longer because I'm sure by now someone is already probably laughing their ass off at me.

[Shadowlord]

Instead, there should be a global council (better than the UN) for the leaders and representatives of countries to meet and discuss issues that influence each other.

There is nothing wrong with the U.N., its countries like America that disregard what the U.N. says that renders it innefective. That, and the U.N. has no way to enforce its policies.

[Yamano667]

The UN never worked in the WWII or WWI. The UN was made only to entertain the media and make political science more and more entertaining.
The True United nations is commanded by the US Pentagon and its affiliates

Originally Posted by Shadowlord

There is nothing wrong with the U.N., its countries like America that disregard what the U.N. says that renders it innefective. That, and the U.N. has no way to enforce its policies .

[HoboGod]

the world ruled under one person is ideal, but such a thing cannot be achieved without a great conqueror like alexander the great, julius caesar, napoleon bonaparte, or adolf hitler. war is the only way to create such unification. but most powerful countries in the world do anything to avoid war.... so such a conqueror probably wouldn't obtain power.

as for loyalty, i think what you are trying to suggest is an absolute democracy with no leader... such a thing would be highly ineffective on a large scale unless there was a secure form of wide-spread communication, and the internet just isn't that reliable yet.

as for terrorists, hate DOES beget hate, but put yourself in their shoes. they have no country to support their views, they have no freedom to live the way they see fit, they want change and love isn't going to win them a home. America once rebeled against the world (mostly the british and native americans) for our freedom, is it so wrong that these people rebel against the world for theirs? i'm not advocating that they should win, i hope they lose and i get to keep my way of life, but i am not close-minded enough to say they are foolish.

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Yamano667

The UN never worked in the WWII or WWI. The UN was made only to entertain the media and make political science more and more entertaining.

That's because there was no UN in either war,the UN came only after WWII

[Yogo_Pogo]

Now there are no country governement but money government, it's the people with money that rules the world. hehehehe
Election exist to give people the impression that democatie exist, they give them the liberty of speech but don't really listen to them.

I did not red the first post yet because it is illisible for me, my eyes hurt.

[Forsaken102]

Originally Posted by Yamano667

The UN never worked in the WWII or WWI. The UN was made only to entertain the media and make political science more and more entertaining.
The True United nations is commanded by the US Pentagon and its affiliates

Umm... the UN wasn't around for either of the Great Wars... (*finds a few good history books to refer to Yamano667*)

[HoboGod]

i think he might be refering to the league of nations, which was started during or shortly after world war i. after WWII, it trasfered all assets to the UN.

[Kyolux]

quest, nope I didn't thought he was against globalisation. And I know it's underway. I was more like telling what I think is wrong with it. And in no way 7 billions people would listen to one guy. I wish it wouldn't be happening, but it's unstoppable at this point, at least as long as capitalism stands still. And I'm not much for capitalism, but it's kinda hard to find something that is good for everyone that would be effective against it. You can easily control your enemy with money. At this point, Capitalism is an omni present monster controlling everything. Oh I might be babbling..

[Imazul]

Oh well,

The world doesnt revolve around military or government anymore, its all about money. I would be less suprise that we drop the whole government thing and that we work with a corporation system in a far future.

[Kyolux]

Now? lol... it has been for a couple of century, since monarchy was abolished in Europe, and the "Bourgeois" dunno what it is in english, in the industrialisation age, I think it was the worst, but still the only difference is that instead of using people in there country, they use people elsewhere. All we can do is dream of a better world, but it is just what it is, a dream. There is no utopia anywhere. Here I go babbling again. My memory isn't really good, so I'm not good at organizing ideas.

[7thMethuselah]

Originally Posted by Entropy

That's because there was no UN in either war,the UN came only after WWII

Wrong, after WWI the so-called League of Nations was formed, however it was unable to do anyhting useful at all and was dissolved, but the idea stuck and after WWII the UN was formed.

The UN have done quite a bunch of good things, but their orignal goal "to prevent wars" in that they failed horribly over the last 50 years. Even peacekeeping isn't to be called a succes.

The weakness of the UN is due to the veto's 5 countries have, and the fact that these are also major sponsors of the UN, so if the UN would dare go against them, they'd lose all their funding. The good thing about the UN is that poor and politically unimpotant countries have a forum where they can voice their opinions.

About the globalistation and a world government: A good preview of this would be the formation of the European Union. Here we have dozens and dozens of cultures in different countries getting together. It's safe to say that a unified world would follow more or less the same pattern as the EU does.



Economically the EU is working perfectly, but this is because they've been working for 50 years allready on the economical part. The introduction of the euro was a major succespoint in the economical developmet of the EU (even though not all countries have switched to it)
Lately politicians wanna incorporate social and political aspects as well. As expected no one is really eager to give up/alter their social systems and give away political power to europe. The idea still has to grow. Personally I think a social unified europe is coming, with equal right and duties throughout europe for all (like we have equal quality demands for almost all products, equal economical rules right now). However since this evolution is still young most people and politicians still have to get used to the idea, hence the opposition. But in time it will come.

A political unified EU might take longer since the nations still exist, and (in my humble opinion) a political unified europe has to be a union of cultural regions not countries which are often made up out of several cultures or cultures split over several countries.

a bit more on topic again.

I think it's more realistic that we get a European Union, an Asian Union an African Union and so on, seems alot more logic that we'll evolve in that direction rather thatn 1 global governement.


ABout the world turning around mon,ey these days : it's a logical first step: many people and countries are poor and will put economy at the first spot, once their situation improves, the views will broaden and there will be a demand for more social rights amidst workers, countries themselves will start caring more for environment etc. It's a pattern that has been seen countless times in history. Economy grows first, then social movements arise, then more cultural / environmental movements. In that aspect Europe and America are in the latter stage while many developing countries haven't reached stage 1 yet. China for example is going through the economic phase right now. You can put money on it, within 20-30 years people in China will demands better work conditions, more social rights etc.. It's an evolution which can be slowed but not stopped

[Lambda]

Originally Posted by Kyolux

Straight to my point

Globalisation = some kind of chaos
= Rich people even richer, but more poor people
= World controlled not by the best ideal, but by the people with money

Now do you want that?

But that isn't a problem with globalism per se, it's just an indictment of the way that globalism is currently happening, ie. at the behest of the big corporations.

What we really need is a way to limit the power of such entities which are by design, totally amoral.

[Kyolux]

That would be ideal I guess, but, how can you expect the people with the money to accept the fact they can't do what they please with their money. And there's always underground stuff happening that people are unaware of.

[Lambda]

Regulation, and cultural change in the higher echelons of politics away from the "it's good for the corporations, so it's good for the economy, so it's good" philosophy. Just banning paid political advertising on TV in America would probably have quite a large effect.

[Kyolux]

Even though I have to agree with that, my point was more toward the fact that who's gonna go ahead and make it happen? I'm a bit unheard has how exactly important decisions are made in the USA, but I know in Canada that the Prime minister has more power over Canada then the USA President over USA.