Do you think we'd be better or worse off if the entire world lived under one government, one currency, one flag? Surely the number of wars would decrease since so many have been fought in the name of nationalism and patriotism? And we'd certainly not have to worry about illegal immigration anymore because everyone could live and work where they want. Religious differences would still remain of course but would there be greater toleration if we were all fellow citizens? And would poverty and starvation be likewise diminished under a universal government? Europe has started doing this with great success, why not the entire world? What do you think?
2007-05-17 12:31:15 · 14 answers · asked by abdiver12 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
it won't last long, different religious groups and cultures will still live separately in their own terrotries (countries) and civil war will be everywhere.
2007-05-17 12:35:16 · answer #1 · answered by MrSmarT 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would fail. the world is too large and the population far to great to be ruled over by one central government. some would argue against this, saying that the one central government could set up mini governments to watch over certain regions. but in time, those regions would break away from the single huge country because of nationalism. that would lead to a whole bunch of countries again.
and regarding poverty and starvation... there is no solution. as long as there is an upper class, there will be a lower class. all things are created in duality (although there may be an inbetween sometimes) ex. good and bad, rich and poor, long and short, fast and slow. nothing can be done to rid the world of poverty/starvation, and a united earth is not an exception.
i admit it is strange though, how the U.S stays together. in the past, countries struggled when there were multiple ethnicities and religions ex. austria-hungary (well ethnicity anyway). but the U.S is one of the most diverse countries, and it still functions. so perhaps the one single country could be tolerant of others. even so, the inability to govern over such a large country would be its demise, and splitting it up to rule easier would just result in what we have today.
2007-05-17 12:41:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not a good idea. In the first place, there would be numerous civil wars, that would make the U.S. civil war look like a skirmish. Americans are not well liked, and we would be picked off one by one. Religion would cause alot more problems than you might think, if we were all under one banner. I just don't think this would work.
2007-05-17 12:45:07 · answer #3 · answered by bikinybandit 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Very naive. First. No uni-united states of america economy might want to artwork. devoid of shopping for and promoting companions, you've a communal authorities and it hasn't been operating so nicely for china. Communism would not artwork economically. One authorities putting the costs will grow to be very oppressive very instantly. One militia police stress contained in the hands of the purely authorities and no different countries like the U.S. or the U.ok. to placed them in verify? sounds like an rather precarious position for a unified human beings to be in. we're not giving to the undesirable, no longer because we are able to not, yet because it truly is counter effective to human nature and nature as a rule. no longer each homeless individual needs help. now and again the susceptible want to be left alongside the line aspect. lots of the homeless were given there because of undesirable judgements and undesirable habit. in case you teach weak point in society or contained in the wild, you'd be destroyed. no longer my cruelty speaking, it truly is the survival of the fittest. in case you grow to be reliable, and in society, money equates to power, then why might want to you supply that as a lot as help those who were too lazy to artwork, too stupid to plot, and to susceptible to apply the platforms that are already in position. in case you supply someone who hasn't made an attempt to do better than live to inform the tale, then you are paying for the minutes at the same time as they purely have hours left. it truly is continuously a nasty funding. you do not develop them out of the water or the mire, you carry down a hand or throw them a rope and allow the alternative to tug themselves out of their seize 22 mission be theirs no longer yours. we've the money for practise, what we lack, is the prefer to renounce the frivolous life that avert us from contributing to further practise and we do no longer have a sturdy health device because no individual has a sturdy theory for the device that's mandatory. save questioning.
2016-11-04 07:03:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there will be to much conflict during the process of turning all the governments into one system and it would be abandoned.
2007-05-17 12:35:24 · answer #5 · answered by Kenster102.5 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
where is the european success? they are more at odds than ever on how to implement a unified europe. That idea sucks to say the least
2007-05-17 12:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bad news bears. One world = one leader. If that leader happens to become the next Hitler -- we're screwed.
2007-05-17 12:33:57 · answer #7 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Lets just hope that the government does not come under control of christians/muslims
2007-05-17 12:34:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
wouldnt work out! civil war is on the process then ! to many different cultures!
2007-05-17 18:51:50 · answer #9 · answered by bubbles 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
same as the first guy their is bound to be another american(or country revolution
2007-05-17 12:35:59 · answer #10 · answered by mrincha 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋