Not possible! However, if those 20 Super-super soldiers that went missing should ever come back and some of them are corrupted in some fashion........
Planetary Unification - more than a Sci-fi trope?
- Thread starter Amor_Fati
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Not possible! However, if those 20 Super-super soldiers that went missing should ever come back and some of them are corrupted in some fashion........
Nope, I didn't get a chance to name any of them - they just had numbers... 1-20....
I always liked the name Horus, though....
The vast majority of humanity hold some form of "diety-based philosophy" and prefer their own morals and cultural traditions. The reason the "unified earth" that you refer to is frowned upon is, I have a hunch, is because it tends to be used as a euphemism by people like you for "if only i could force everyone to abandon any religious/moral/cultural ideas I don't like or disagree with and 'unite' around my post modern secular humanism, they would finally behave as I, their better, believe they should"
It is an odd type of cognitive dissonance that allows you to in one sentence argue that your own myopic cultural/religious/political imperialism be imposed on the rest of the species "in the name of humanity", and in the next breath spout cliches about how we are all the same species and conflict will be the end of us.
Just an opinion, but when you attempt to justify the "unification" of an entire species with thousands of languages and belief systems around your specific absolutist regional minority view and then declare anyone that is against you "immature, outdated, and dangerous", you sound a lot more like ISIS than the enlightened, superior, future looking humanist in good standing you no doubt tell yourself you are.
- 8
- 4
I meant that as a goal to work towards, not as something enforced. For whatever reason, people always think that everything has to be enforced with the threat of violence rather than things happening on their own given an environment that allows that. Indeed, I'd argue that without the threat of violence, people would slowly converge on their own out of convenience rather than staying separated. As we are progressing through the 21st century, we're increasingly seeing that actually, people are starting to agree upon certain things as universal morals, and as a whole many different groups of people are starting to drop religion entirely. It's slow now, but as time goes on the amount of atheists will only keep increasing. Separate nations are unnecessary and once again dangerous, seeing that no nation on Earth is actually controlled by the people it's supposed to represent.
And on that animal point, the only animals that kill just to kill are other primates. There's a very real difference between cannibalism and killing rather than cooperating.
Good thing you're simply mischaracterizing me to fit your narritive.
You seem to think that conflict will suddenly stop at some point even if states continue to exist. I don't see how humans are different enough from each other to warrant staying separated and to warrant being pitted against each other when the reality is cooperation would accomplish everything that conflict could with less bloodshed. Perhaps you like war? Perhaps you think your people are superior? So long as the actions of the many are dictated by the will of the few, war will continue, and eventually it'll escalate into something you couldn'tve predicted.
I especially find this part interesting "It is an odd type of cognitive dissonance that allows you to in one sentence argue that your own myopic cultural/religious/political imperialism be imposed on the rest of the species "in the name of humanity", and in the next breath spout cliches about how we are all the same species and conflict will be the end of us."
I don't recall ever laying out any morals that should be followed - In fact, the only thing I recall saying is that the world would be a better place if. YOU are the one that decided to take the extra step and tell me what I'm trying to say, as though it wasn't clear already. A world government can (and would) have people of different religions, with different value systems, and different languages, but any sensible person would realize that eventually all of these things would converge out of convenience, which I think would ultimately lead to a better world.
Last edited:
- 7
- 5
Just because people hold different values does not necessarily mean that they will be unable to work with each other. Human diversity can be a strength - conformity tends to lead to narrow-mindedness, which in turn leads to stagnation. If humanity hopes to survive in the long term it will need to be adaptable and willing to change according to the circumstances - it will be easier to achieve that if there are people who are able to think differently.
- 6
- 1
As an African, I take offence at this statement.
I would normally not point this out, but since you addressed it specifically to me, I thought it would be remiss of me not to reply.
- 7
This is all irrelevant since civilisation will collapse under pressure fromthe changing climate anyway.
- 3
- 1
- 1
That's not quite true. The multitude of differences between the colonization of Australia and that of Africa cause these differences, not the people rejecting them.
- 5
But across how vast differences? As I've stated before, when people imagine a functional world government, they always imagine an idealized version of their own existing political views. Most people in western nations imagine a democratic, secular organization with free speech and some degree of respect for human rights.
Well then, how does that work with nations that reject concepts of secularism, democracy and free speech? "Let's form a union with a country that daily performs deeds that we consider abhorrent in the name of humanity!"? Nations which will commit fraud when they elect the people to send. Or must they accept our ways, because our ways are better? That'll require, as others here have stated, the use of force and will face armed opposition.
If instead you require that all nations fulfill a series of requirements beforehand, you end up with just adding the same states that are already in all kinds of international organizations.
I'm no big fan of the EU, but Turkey (which I'm not really sure really wants to join) argues that it's time it's included in the EU - then fails or refuses to fulfill the requirements because they're big and important and should just be members regardless. Is this something we should accept?
welp.. thats worse than I imagined... future of imeprium might get screwed over... but, eh, will be fine
Well, I'd be lying if I said I could give you all the answers - it's a really complex problem and there is no simple solution to it. One big problem though is that when people talk about unification they tend to imagine a process that will take place in our present world over, say, a decade, or at most over their lifetimes. There's no way that's going to happen - mainly for the reasons you describe - nations with contrasting values and beliefs are unlikely to form a long lasting, stable union unless there is some factor forcing them to. However, opinions and values change over time - just because our disagreements are irreconcilable today does not mean they will be in a hundred years. Globalisation and the internet, despite all of their (sometimes awful) problems, have given people an awareness that there are other human beings out there with very different views to them, and awareness is the first step towards understanding. Even over my short 28 years of life I have seen the UK become a far more tolerant place - there is less racism, sexism, homophobia etc than when I was younger - for me that is evidence that people with very different values and beliefs can learn to work together.
Regarding free speech and human rights - I don't think it's a matter of forcing people to conform to 'Western' values because they are somehow 'superior' - I think you'd be hard pressed to find a nation where there aren't people campaigning for free speech/better human rights if they don't have them already (take Burma/Myanmar for example - they certainly aren't a Western nation). Human beings tend to dislike being oppressed - the desire for freedom is not an inherantly Western ideal. Democracy and secularism are a little more complicated. It is possible for nations to work together for mutual gain without sharing the same values though. Take your example of Turkey - they may have an autocratic dictator in charge but it doesn't mean the EU isn't going to try and work with him. Do I think they should? - No, but then it's not like my opinion is going to change what the unelected wealthy bureaucrats in Brussels are going to do anyway.
All that said, I hope that one day there will be a tolerant, enlightened human utopia, even though I am confident I will not live to see it.
- 1
- 1
Colonization and imperialism focus on the forcible transfer of resources, wealth, and (in the case of Africa) people from one nation to another. In the case of Australia, the colonists never left, and they continue to gain the benefit of that redistribution of wealth. In Africa, there was less direct colonization and more simple extraction of wealth back to Europe and the U.S, leading to one of the major reasons why the continent is poorer. (Another is soil quality--humans have been farming in Africa much longer.) Consequently, rather than any simplistic choice, the wealth disparity has a lot more to do with how the presently wealthier parts of the world literally took the stuff of the poorer parts of the world. And this still goes on today through multinational corporations
As for it not being on the news, it kind of is, just not in easy soundbite form. There are entire academic fields and subfields concerned with the subject, and there's no real disagreement in economics that imperialism played a big role in this wealth disparity. The news itself, however, doesn't go into explicit coverage often because 1) viewers want brief snippets of whatever is going on, not the longer explanations necessary to actually make sense of what happens in the world, 2) the average European, American, or Australian has little awareness of or interest in Africa, making it unprofitable to discuss in the news and 3) it's to the direct benefit of the nations with wealth not to look to closely at why a place like Africa largely lacks it.
And yes, I will kindly see myself out before the topic is further derailed.
- 4
You forgot the part where you tell African nations to pull their pants up and stop listening to gangsta rap.
- 5
- 3
- 1
Well fair enough, everyone has the right to be offended, I am just going to point out I never intended to offend only to reply with my thoughts on the matter.
EDIT: Yes I understand that the way I went about it was pretty poor to be honest. Going off on one like that is a bad idea when trying to make a concise and polite point.
Once again fair point but my intention was to point out that mistakes happen and its not always the rich's intention to exploit the poor even if it does happen ie Its not a wise idea to always blame people that appear to be profiting from other's misfortune.
In addition I find it terrible to see people generalize ourselves as something horrid just because of the actions of a few people. If anything by going what I've seen in my country its the complete opposite, I see people attempting to save others - completely selfless behaviour, people donating to charities, All sorts of funds, The community helping one another if anything, being selfless is a fundamental part of civilization.
Well done on missing the point and assuming I generally dispise Africans: see above
Last edited:
- 6
For the Chinese perhaps, but the Russians were caught with that radiation soup assassination attempt, and the US has knocked off individual leaders in various countries. Diem in Vietnam for example. Some South American countries. The Shah of Iran, last one, even. Libya's dictator, recently. Some of it is due to bombings, others are due to more subtle assassinations and coups. Kosovo too.
- 1
What is your point, that the US isn't funding the UN or that the UNECE doesn't have any effect on Europe?
- 1
- 1
Australia didn't *choose* to be rich. The nickname "The Lucky Country" is quite apt.
Like America, Europeans invaded, displaced the natives by force and bred. Aboriginals form only a few percent of the modern Australian population and weren't even recognised as citizens until 1969. We've got a LOT better, but.until the 70's we were easily one of the most racist and reactionary nations on earth.
Comparisons to African colonialism are dodgy at best, spurious at worst. Most European colonisation in Africa (and Asia) was to support trade. Australia had no worthwhile trading - the British colonies were set up initially to dump convicts and later *became* the trade partners once they moved beyond subsistence and were able to export.
Probably also worth mentioning that tropical Africa killed off Europeans far worse than anything in America and Australia. Malaria and other diseases decimated colonists.
Like America, Europeans invaded, displaced the natives by force and bred. Aboriginals form only a few percent of the modern Australian population and weren't even recognised as citizens until 1969. We've got a LOT better, but.until the 70's we were easily one of the most racist and reactionary nations on earth.
Comparisons to African colonialism are dodgy at best, spurious at worst. Most European colonisation in Africa (and Asia) was to support trade. Australia had no worthwhile trading - the British colonies were set up initially to dump convicts and later *became* the trade partners once they moved beyond subsistence and were able to export.
Probably also worth mentioning that tropical Africa killed off Europeans far worse than anything in America and Australia. Malaria and other diseases decimated colonists.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
- Status