Albert Einstein wanted world government.

[Donk]

So - however pie-in-the-sky a World Government might be, I don't see it as a negative prospect in the conspiracy-theory illuminati one-world-government satan-is-coming-and-boy-is-he-pissed light, I see it merely as very, very far off in the future, at best, and virtually indiscernible from what you see around you currently.

...

The only way to unite the planet in such a way as to:

a) Actually require a world government

Making a world government even remotely possible on the short term

is to declare Venus an enemy planet. There simply is no other way.

 

A big post, B. A lot of ideas. Thanks

 

The part about "dropped borders" resonated with me. Corrupt and tyrannical states exist all over the world, and the main reason they do so is because international borders are closed to their people. If the borders were dropped, people could simply vote with their feet - dictators would have to get reasonable, or have nobody left to dictate to.

 

EU member states have opened their labour markets to EU citizens. The results have been positive: we get a fair bit of grumbling in the UK about "all these Polish workers", but they add more than they subtract from the local economy. They also add variety: I like hearing ten different languages in a five-minute walk; I like browsing the International Foods shelves in shops and supermarkets. I like asking them about how they see this country. It's fascinating to hear an outsider's view - especially an outsider who's trying hard to become an insider!

 

That's my solution: drop the borders; drop the work permits. Yes, I can hear the screaming: "what about our jobs! What about terrorists!" :Glasses:

 

In 1972 the UK had to take in around 30,000 Ugandan Asian refugees when they were booted out by Idi Amin on virtually notice. They mostly arrived destitute, but thrived. Our economy grew faster because of their skill and energy. The government later took fright and changed the laws about Commonwealth citizens when they realised they might be faced with taking in five million Hong Kong chinese. I wish they hadn't - we'd have been much the richer for having them.

 

As for terrorists, they seem to get in if they want to. There will always be lunatics, but a peaceful, united world would leave them much less to get angry about.

 

Full world government is a long way off, but I can see federations such as the EU incorporating new members. That would do the job, eventually.

[Eclipse Now]

Full world government is a long way off, but I can see federations such as the EU incorporating new members. That would do the job, eventually.

 

Precisely! But on the other hand, not everything in the EU has to be a part of a world government. EG: The right to immigrate from anywhere to anywhere might not come into play in the first decade/s of an initial world government, or we might have 800 million African's fleeing Africa. Some of these ideals might be staged, with Constitutional guarantees that hypothetical "Part A" of such and such a plan will be implemented by referendum in 10 years, "Part B" in 20 years (again by referendum and if the world population agrees, do it!), "Part C" in 30 years etc.

 

There may even be a box to tick that you want Part C to be instituted earlier when voting on Part A... but you get my drift.

[Boerseun]

How many American's starved to death last month?

 

Not many, to the best of my knowledge. But this reply of yours is a bit disingenuous. Because poverty is not necessarily defined by starvation. For instance, a better question from you would have been "How many Americans live in trailer parks?"

 

The rich guy in Beverly Hills will not be a rich guy if everybody in the States lived in the same conditions he lives in, with the same amount of money he's got. If everybody has his money, then he is just another commoner.

 

The US of A will not be a rich country (it isn't, by the way - pay what you own China for a change: The illusion of Wealth is not Wealth, after all) if there were no poor countries to be measured against, by the same token as the Beverly Hills example above.

 

But then again, it might be possible to integrate the world politically, regardless of the integrating country's individual wealth levels, seeing as you do get the desperately vulgar wealth of places like Beverly Hills and the desperate poverty of places like Detroit all in the same country, already. It's a bit like Switzerland and Gabon being politically united, in a sense.

[TheBigDog]

Our social structures have evolved as our needs have changed through time. From tribes and clans to countries and dynasties; there is a process of incremental change tied to inspired leadership and social need. There are experiments along the way of varying effectiveness. We learn, we adjust, we slide back, we step forward, and over time we manage to make things better.

Nicely put, just as the EU has evolved out of the sheer need to stop WW1 and WW2 repeating themselves across Europe.

So far so good.

What change needs most is a reason.

Like Climate Change, peak oil, world standards to save money on everything from power-points and Electric Charging paddles through to chemical pollutants, preventing wars, world health, saving monumental amounts of money by having a global currency, etc.

You list many reasons. World government is not the only solution to those problems and in fact you have not demonstrated that it would be a solution to any of those problems. All it would do is change the way problems are dealt with, it would never guarantee to solve them. You think that a world government would create global harmony and synchronization of effort on all those topics and more?

Evolution happens from better form fit and function. The opposite of the world government is the individual. Governments that deny the individual have only stayed in power through tyranny. Governments of individuals descend into chaos. Balance of individual rights and rule of law must be found, and in our world's history and current state of human social evolution, smaller is better.

Nicely put, except for the last jarring sentence. The EU has both Federal standards and yet allows for local counties to do their own thing in some areas like energy production, culture, local town planning decisions, etc....

It lets them do their own thing, and yet it will solve global issues through everyone doing he same things. Uhhhh....

We need to find peaceful ways to compete and retain peaceful respect

Which is what this is all about, politically.

Sports are wonderful for this.

Yet was Hitler saluted at the Olympic games just before WW2.

WHAT?!?! Would your global government have preemptively dissed the elected leader of a member state at a civilian event? This is the type of garbage statement that led me to wanting you to READ and RESPOND to what is written while considering the point you are trying to make with any sort of consistency.

We do not need a global army unless there is a global enemy to fight.

OK, but what would you call Darfur and Afghanistan and issues in Zimbabwe? The enemy to fight seems to be pockets of warlords that want to remove other's human rights.

And then begins the slicing and dicing. And continues your inconsistency with your own point. What rights are given to the local governments, and what rights are owned by the global government? You pick some extremes here that obviously need attention, but where are the lines drawn. What is a local matter, and what is a global one? When is culture that is inconsistent with global sensibilities allowed to stand, and when is it abolished? Cock fighting? Bull fighting? Boxing? Prostitution? Public urination? Spanking children? Refusing medicine? Handling snakes? Preaching in public? Sex in public? Bigamy? All of these things are legal in some places and illegal in others. As the global government begins to write more and more laws to even things out the diversity of the planet's social systems begins to erode. Every government body tampers with everything they can get away with because that is how they define their own purpose, by "making things better" and reacting to the hot issue of the day.

We need do not need a global police force, we need rule of law and objective respectful justice to be upheld globally through localities.

It might take a global police force to achieve the things we want.

With authority over the localities own police forces to make sure things stay the way the "global government" wants?

We need to accept pride of region, of ethnicity, or heritage as good things which can be practiced and admired.

Have these things been banished in the USA, which was once a collection of different competing colony outposts owned by the French, the English, etc, and is now one Federation? Have these things been abolished by the EU?

I never said they have been banished in the US or the EU. I simply stated that these are values that any government should uphold. What the hell are you arguing about? Are you pointing out that two large governments have managed to not attack those things? What about the rest? It doesn't matter, the fact is that those are values that government should respect and uphold.

Centralized organizations abhor diversity.

They can also enable it in certain areas like right to free speech, right to individual religion, right to individual and community culture, etc, and get rid of it where diversity is redundant, such as having a world power-plug standard or electric vehicle charging point, paddle, and battery-swap standard... and even a world driving standard. I'd be willing to learn to drive on the right side of the road. (Only 1/3rd of the world drives on the left).

Again, with the splitting up a thought. Yes, there are efficiencies to be gained, but there is a price paid in the elimination of cultural based expressions of individualism that clash with the will of the global government.

Standardization is more efficient, more just, more fair.

Exactly!

And split again.

Fairness becomes the new primary social goal and is used as a reason to strip those that have to supply those who have not.

The word 'strip' here is highly emotionally charged... why not see it as a social justice issue? You'd feel differently if you were in Darfur with your family being raped and murdered. (Yes, they are emotional issues, which is why I'm so passionate about world governance).

And split again. Emotionally charged? Thanks Mr Sports = Hitler.

Rather than levelling opportunity, the levelling is aimed at results, there is no way to make sure that everyone gets the same results for what they do in their life. So individualism is made taboo and conformity is encouraged. Those in power become the opposite of what they want the masses to be, because they need to be powerful to hold onto their power. This breeds either complete loss of the individual self, or resentment that becomes revolution.

This is confusing right wing economic policy and conservative economic speak V liberalism with social 'conformity', when actually all we are talking about is world-wide 'basic' democratic guarantees.

 

Has this happened in the USA, or EU?

What I am talking about is affirmative action. What I am talking about is subsidizing areas that cannot help themselves even with the subsidies. What I am talking about is making people feel guilty for leading a life that is not marked by hunger. What I am talking about is lowering standards of living to raise some people up to the new standard. What I am talking about is the false premise that government can fix everything; all it needs is more control. What I am talking about is corruption on a global scale that impact the global population on a scale we can only imagine. What I am talking about is attempts by humans to secure their own power at any cost because they know better than the masses what is good for them.

 

It is a battle fought in the political arena every day in the US and the EU's democratic member states. In other places it is a much bloodier battle or submission to tyrannical rule where the governments have become the all powerful entities that they tend to become without sufficient political balance. In the worst case scenarios the only solution is overthrow of those in power by whatever means.

Government needs to respect the diversity of people, promote individual achievement and insure equal opportunity.

Agreed... so how is leaving Darfur and Somalia in the current state ensuring equal opportunity, I missed that bit?

I missed where I even began to suggest such a thing. What is wrong with you? Just as a reminder...

Our social structures have evolved as our needs have changed through time. From tribes and clans to countries and dynasties; there is a process of incremental change tied to inspired leadership and social need. There are experiments along the way of varying effectiveness. We learn, we adjust, we slide back, we step forward, and over time we manage to make things better.

Where exactly did I state that things have to be left just as they are? Where exactly did I suggest that I support or tolerate or condone the tyranny happening in Darfur and Somalia? Your discussion is so dishonest that I struggle to dignify you with any response (see my first reply to this post) because you are coming off as a very insulting member who is only interested in fighting based on things not said.

And it must protect the rights of the people from the hands of government lest that government find its own path to tyranny was paved with the best intentions.

What kind of "hands" of government did you have in mind? Can you demonstrate this in a more concrete manner from the example of the EU, because I'm basically arguing that the EU go global.

The EU is an infant governing body. Its slow road to power has just begun. The framers of the US Constitution were aware of how government can become corrupt in pursuit of being "better". There is no EU Constitution yet, but when there is they had better get protection of the people from the government right or it will be a fast road to hell. I cannot give you examples in the EU, but I can point to US history and show you how the battle for protection of individuals from the government vs protection of the people by the government has been a battle heading slowly but surely toward greater government power over the individual, and is core to the political split in the US.

I think we are a very long way from either the imperative need for a world government, or the cultural readiness to sustain one.

I think we have a demonstrated model to adopt and a global crisis of enormous magnitude demanding that model be applied!

 

We have an emergency requiring global governance in climate, energy security, freshwater supply, forestry, biodiversity, marginalisation and poverty leading to terrorism, terrible illiteracy amongst the poor, oh, and the little detail that 1 billion people going to bed hungry each night!

 

How are their rights 'guaranteed' by the status quo?

You will need to show how such a model will solve the issues that you base its need upon. The EU is too young to call a demonstrated model. It is among a single geographic region with a history of conflict that helped to drive the creation. Countries of similar development. Countries with a vested interest in mutual cooperation. What is North Korea's reason to join the EU? What is Iran's reason to join the EU? What is China's reason to join the EU? What is America's reason to join the EU? Forget that it is the EU, but rather call it a global extension of the EU. How does membership provide the exclusive solution to the global and regional needs? It doesn't. There is no reason to motivate countries to join without creating FEAR of not doing it. The EU was founded on the FEAR of another European war following the two most destructive wars in history. Now it is FEAR of climate change, FEAR of energy crisis, FEAR of poor illiterate people, and guilt about those who starve under repressing rule, or through lack of natural resources, or the ability to exploit them. Even the United States, the alliance of the colonies, was based upon FEAR of war with England that none could win individually.

 

And finally, I NEVER said in any way shape or form that we should maintain a status quo. Your statement is aimed at nothing more than being provocative and shows either an utter lack of comprehension or an utter lack of class, IMHO. Your other response to me in this thread would suggest the former is the problem. Perhaps your future contributions will show that I have misunderstood you.

 

Bill

[Eclipse Now]

WHAT?!?! Would your global government have preemptively dissed the elected leader of a member state at a civilian event? This is the type of garbage statement that led me to wanting you to READ and RESPOND to what is written while considering the point you are trying to make with any sort of consistency.

 

 

 

Avoiding the point. You said sports could help solve problems... and may have had ping-pong diplomacy in mind. These are the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

But I said nothing about dissing national leaders, and merely raised the issue of the world gathering in Germany for the Olympic games before WW2 broke out.

 

Calm down and read the "flavour" of my posts please, or I'll not bother to read your posts.

 

As for why bother to create world government in the face of all the problems I listed? For massive efficiency gains, saving a trillion dollars just having a world currency(!), having the manpower to SOLVE issues like Darfur and Somalia, and breaking the "competitive disadvantage" deadlock we see in debates like the global warming debate. No one wants to go first. "We'll do it when they do it!" If we had a world government, we'd all be "we", there would be no "other", we'd be a global village, a world-nation, with lots of pockets of individuality and cultural expression yet the silly redundancies ironed out.

 

The EU is too young to call a demonstrated model.

America's constitution was young once, was it not democratic then? Also the Lisbon treaty is getting close to a constitution. But my hope is that the EU does not become a 'country' like the United States of Europe, but more of a model for how all nations can get along.

 

I'll be awaiting your plan for non-world government resolution of peak oil, global warming, etc... and getting past the "competitive disadvantage" problem will be interesting.

[CraigD]

The original post and its raise two different subjects: Eclipse Now’s draft essays on world government; and Albert Einstein’s statements about world government.

 

Being documented recent history, Einstein’s statements, and by these and private interactions of various people with the famous physicist, his views, are well known and uncontroversially (with the occasional exception, such as posts 2-10 of this thread :rolleyes:) documented at may sites. In short, Einstein was a strong proponent of a world government, to the end that it would end large scale warfare, which he believed would be unprecedentedly catastrophic due to the use of atomic weapons.

 

If the popular fiction of Einstein’s times (eg: H.G.Wells The World Set Free, Olaf Stapledon’s The Last and First Men) are an indication, the view that the combination of nations as they existed at the time and nuclear weapons (though the previous examples predate nuclear weapons, they both anticipate something like them) would inevitably result in a nuclear world war was fairly common, and Einstein’s views not atypical.

 

I believe that the popular views have changed significantly in the past 80 years or so. Intuitively, I think that change went something like this:

Immediately after awareness of nuclear weapons burst into the public consciousness in 1945, the belief that only world government could prevent a nuclear world war was common. The UN was formed in 1945, amid optimism that it was the beginning phase of such a world government.

 

After about a decade of so, as the US and USSR engaged in a massive nuclear arms race that the UN proved powerless to prevent, and fear of a nuclear war between them increased, an attitude of pessimistic resignation came to dominate the popular imagination, as reflected by a plethora of post apocalyptic fiction (eg: Andre Norton’s Star Man’s Son, Nevil Shute’s On the Beach, Pat Frank’s Alas, Babylon, Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz, Haran Ellison’s I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream and A Dog and His Boy, and sci-fi movies to numerous too enumerate).

 

With the liberalization of the USSR in the 1980s and its collapse in 1991, popularly dubbed “the end of the cold war”, an attitude of relief and optimism emerged as the dominant zeitgeist. We remain, I believe, in this period now. Although the US and USSR, and to a smaller extent, France, the UK, and China have nuclear arsenals sufficient for nation-wrecking nuclear warfare, popular anxiety is much diminished, with fears focused on much more limited scenarios, such as a terrorist organization exploding small nuclear weapons in a single or a few cities, rather than thousands of large warheads spread among nearly every major city in the world

 

In summary, I think Einstein and his contemporaries’ views on world government were very much a product of the dominant views of their times. Although there certainly remain strong arguments and proponents for the kind of world government for which Einstein advocated, they must contend with the failure of the prediction that the formations of such a world government or a catastrophic nuclear world war were the only possible outcomes. This prediction is not, however, entirely disproven, since a catastrophic nuclear world war remains very possible.

 

I’ll comment on EN’s draft essays on world government in a future post.

[Eclipse Now]

I’ll comment on EN’s draft essays on world government in a future post.

 

I look forward to that CraigD as your essay on Einstein's motivations due to the nuclear threat were fair arguments. As a counter-argument though, wouldn't a World Government still be a stronger means of preventing an accidental nuclear exchange between the USSR and America? Imagine a mutually integrated worldwide CIA... it could prevent these rather 'tense' situations. :eek_big:

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Or this...

 

20) January, 1995: Russian False Alarm

 

On January 25, 1995, the Russian early warning radar's detected an unexpected missile launch near Spitzbergen. The estimated flight time to Moscow was 5 minutes. The Russian President, the Defense Minister and the Chief of Staff were informed. The early warning and the control and command center switched to combat mode. Within 5 minutes, the radar's determined that the missile's impact would be outside the Russian borders.

 

The missile was Norwegian, and was launched for scientific measurements. ON January 16, Norway had notified 35 countries including Russia that the launch was planned. Information had apparently reached the Russian Defense Ministry, but failed to reach the on-duty personnel of the early warning system.

 

See article in Scientific American by Bruce G. Blair, Harold A. Feiveson and Frank N. von Hippel

 

Comment and Note On Probability

 

The probability of actual progression to nuclear war on any one of the occasions listed may have been small, due to planned "fail-safe" features had failed. However, the accumulation of small probabilities of disaster from a long sequence of risks add up to serious danger.

 

There is no way of telling what the actual level of risk was in these mishaps but if the chance of disaster in every one of the 20 incidents had been only 1 in 100, it is mathematical fact that the chance of surviving al 20 would have been 82%, i.e. about the same as the chance of surviving a single pull of the trigger at Russian roulette played with a 6 shooter. With a similar series of mishaps on the Soviet side: another pull of the trigger. If the risk in some of the events had been as high as 1 in 10, then the chance of surviving just seven such events would have been less than 50:50.

Key Issues: Nuclear Weapons: Issues: Accidents: 20 Mishaps that Might Have Caused Nuclear War

 

Anyway, preventing nuclear warfare is just ONE of the arguments for world government.

 

My favourites are:-

• alleviating poverty on a global scale and solving overpopulation through a worldwide demographic transition
  
• finally bringing Africa, North Korea and the Middle East into the modern world with good governance and checks on corruption
  
• a world currency that saves trillions in currency exchange transactions,
  
• world-wide "standards" that speed up everything and save enormous human manpower hours (such as someone learning to drive on the other side of the road, someone learning imperial and moving to metric, someone learning building codes and terminology that should easily be universal, etc)
  
• More funding for DARPA and NASA styled operations that get us colonising the Moon and / or Mars and / or Space Habitats, than all that money and funding going to international bankers & the military? :rolleyes:
  

 

These are good things that are in some cases only possible (and in other cases more probable) with a world government than without. Nuclear warfare is a bad thing that may happen without.

[Eclipse Now]

The social justice challenges, lack of clarity of operational performance standards, and lack of global accountability for global business models also frightens me precisely because we already have multinationals running amok on the world stage. We need global laws to help contain and describe best practices!

 

Without a world Federal government, multinationals just move their base of operations to the most tax friendly or cheap-labour friendly markets they can find. They are pitting governments against each other in a race to the bottom.

 

From the POV of someone in a multinational corporation trying to do the right thing, they have to deal with hundreds of sets of national legislation and then even sometimes the separate state legislation within a nation.

 

From the POV of a consumer of the services of the multinational, especially international banking, surely we want tighter international regulatory agreements that can prevent the GFC happening again.

 

From the POV of a traveller, what about the Euro becoming a world dollar standard that eliminates a trillion dollars a year in banking fees, again rewarding international bankers at the expense of the common man and woman?

 

These are just the financial implications of how a world Federal government could help.

 

This free talk from the iTunes university was interesting!

 

An Open, Civilized World

11/7/08 - ERNEST MAY is Charles Warren Professor of American History at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He has been a consultant to the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council, and other agencies, and was Senior Advi...

 

(Just download the audio off to the right).

[Eclipse Now]

Who thinks the African Union has a chance to develop into something like the European Union? Come on, I mean if Europe can band together and use the same currency and gradually form a method of interacting democratically, especially after WW1 and WW2 and pounding on each other with the best military hardware that money can buy, then surely the continent of Africa must have some sort of chance to become the Federation of Africa?

 

I'm an idealist, and just wish there were some way to harness all the potential of Africa's people and the resources of the African continent, in a fair and equitable and sustainable development pattern.

[Boerseun]

The continent of Africa has absolutely NO chance of uniting into any sort of political union like the European Union, because of the broken African culture of Tribalism.

 

The solution to Africa's woes does not lie in emulating Western political models in any way or form. The only solution to Africa's problems will be by abandoning it completely and letting Darwin sort it out. Or, for the Africans themselves to see why their culture does not work in the modern global paradigm, and they themselves abandon it.

 

Westerners have done it.

 

A couple of centuries ago, it was part and parcel of our culture to put heretics (people who's superstitions differ from our superstitions) to death. It clearly was a non-productive feature of our culture, and we eventually abandoned it - for the better.

 

The first solution, the Darwinian one, might be the eventual winner. Because for the second solution to work, education has to be stepped up at a vast scale, all over the continent, and those with vested interests in the Tribal approach will never give it up.

 

Don't pin any hope on Africa ever getting anywhere.

 

My 2c's.

[lemit]

So Pan-Africanism is dead? That somewhat left-leaning political philosophy used to be very popular among sub-Saharan leaders. Was it too left? Or did it just lean so much as to topple?

 

Thanks.

[Eclipse Now]

Some seem to fear... Pax Praetoriana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

But just as in the EU it was not culture, or united superstitions, or Darwin creating an EU, it was a trade agreement for European Coal and Steel.

 

From little things big things grow.

 

So now we have various African 'regions' developing common currencies and markets, and there are even moves towards an African Central Bank and common currency. This might not work on the optimistic timeline below, but the fact that trade agreements and common currencies are growing across the continent suggests some things can change.

 

African Monetary Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

African Central Bank

 

The African Central Bank (ACB) is one of the three financial institutions of the African Union. It will over time take over responsibilities of the African Monetary Fund.

 

The creation of the ACB, to be completed by 2028 was first agreed upon in the 1991 Abuja Treaty. The 1999 Sirte Declaration called for a speeding up of this process with creation by 2020.[7].

 

When it is fully implemented via Pan-African Parliament legislation, the ACB will be the sole issuer of the African single currency (African Monetary Union/Afro), will become the banker of the African Government, will be the banker to Africa's private and public banking institutions, will regulate and supervise the African banking industry, and will set the official interest and exchange rates; in conjunction with the African Government's administration.

 

The current timeline established by the Abuja Treaty calls for a single African currency to be instituted by the African Central Bank by 2028.[citation needed] Although some countries have reservations about full economic and monetary union, a number of regional unions already exist, and others are planned.

 

So one day we may just see a "United States of Africa", but why they'd want to adopt the USA initials I don't know.

 

If they were a thoroughly integrated Federation, why not just call themselves AFRICA!?

 

United States of Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

While development remains in the early stages of planning, ambitious targets have been set. The focus so far has been on building subdivisions of Africa - the proposed East African Federation can be seen as an example of this. The President of Senegal, Abdoulaye Wade, has indicated that the United States of Africa may exist from as early as 2017. The African Union, by contrast, has set itself the task of building a "united and integrated" Africa by 2025.[12] Gaddafi has also indicated that the proposed federation may extend as far west as the Caribbean: Haiti, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, and other islands featuring a large African diaspora, may be invited to join.[13]

[JMJones0424]

Eclipse, while I don't necessarily agree with the pessimistic conclusion that Boerseun has come to, his point is quite valid. It isn't just that Western style governments don't work in large areas of Africa, it's that the people don't want them to work, and will fight against their implementation. The EU comparison to a potential united African cooperative government is invalid because Europeans feel some sort of continental togetherness that a lot of the disparate tribes of Africa do not feel. At some point in the far future I think it may be possible to drag Africa into the modern age, but ultimately the people have to want it. Until then, the best we can do is to continue being generous to those who accept help in whatever form, but more important is to encourage cultural exchange of ideas through education in situ and in western universities, and to encourage investment and trade through private individuals not through corrupt governments. I think our biggest mistake in quite a few countries is government to government aid, where all we are accomplishing is the arming and support of the tyrants.

 

But don't take my word for it.

 

George Ayittey on Cheetahs vs. Hippos | Video on TED.com

 

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on aid versus trade | Video on TED.com

 

Andrew Mwenda takes a new look at Africa | Video on TED.com

[Eclipse Now]

Good post, and always good to meet another TEDer! :shrug:

 

Europeans feel some sort of continental togetherness that a lot of the disparate tribes of Africa do not feel.

 

How was that working out for them say, in 1916 or 1940?

 

The TED talks you refer to are important, and DO make some important points. (Do you subscribe to TED via iTunes? I find that the best way to watch it, however googling the TED link is also very easy for web referencing).

 

I agree with your emphasis on education, and other important points you make about corrupt government.

 

But surely corrupt governance is the POINT of encouraging a Federation that can gradually deal with all that through powerful Federal anti-corruption agencies?

 

Who are we to say African's don't want good governance... from interviews I've seen and the TED talks above, they desperately want it but despair of ever getting it, and so develop ideas about how to help African's despite their governments! :eek:

 

So I for one will help spread the Federal Africa meme, and the Federal South America meme, in the hopes that good Federal governance can gradually improve sustainable economies and demographic transitions in the lives of the people of these interesting and diverse continents.

 

Where some powers and laws can be universal, the Federal governments can implement these, and where local traditions and cultures should take precedence, local parliamentary elections and democracy can help preserve those.

 

Think of the global benefits.

It will take time to develop, for sure. We might not see it for decades. But because these things take time to develop, and we need to dream the dream with those African's that are daring to visualise a better way, not just for African stability, but for the whole of human kind. Imagine the sheer creative potential of a fully empowered, modern Africa!

 

Just think of China. They contributed an amazing number of scientific papers last year, second only to the USA. It won't be long before so many of their peasant farmers have sent their children through the long journey of a modern education and into a modern workforce, that all these workers can support a modern scientific elite that will finally eclipse even America's scientific output!

 

With 800 million people, and potentially 1.8 billion people by 2050 (IF they can FEED them all! :naughty: ), Africa could potentially eclipse even China's output! :confused:

[Boerseun]

Well, Pan-Africanism is and was nothing more than an excuse for African rulers to hide behind when criticized by the West for blowing development money on crap and basically underdeveloping their countries and not taking care of existing infrastructure. The idea is that "this is Africa, and we'll do as we damn well please and we will not listen to any non-African telling us what to do."

 

In that, African presidents backed each other up in the post-colonial days as their respective treasuries were plundered by the ruling elite, to the complete and utter detriment of everybody else. That's the extent of political unity in Africa, called "Pan-Africanism" in the West. They back each other up and cover each other's asses as they suck the continent dry of everything and anything of value. Thabo Mkebi's pussyfooting around Robert Mugabe over the last decade is a perfect illustration of this.

 

Now that everything left over from the colonial days is either stolen or destroyed, the political doctrine of "Pan-Africanism" can show its true colours, not so? Not really. Because each and every political leader on this sad and sorry continent belongs to a tribe of some sorts, and each and every one of them simply refuse to be ruled over by any other tribe, because they are inherently inferior to his tribe. Trans-national political union like that of Europe, the USA, and proposed by the hypothesis of Pan-Africanism critically depends on transcending tribal thinking. And in Africa, achieving that is a far-off pipe-dream to be enjoyed by the great-great-great grandchildren of those currently in charge.

 

In South Africa, the "most advanced" African nation, we experienced a palace revolution in 2008, when the pro-Jacob Zuma camp teamed up on Thabo Mbeki, resulting in his ousting. To the rest of the world this might seem like a normal in-party impeachment of the current leader, but in effect this was a successful coup, where the Zulus seized power from the Xhosas. The composition of the cabinet clearly illustrate this.

 

It's not necessarily a negative view. It's simply how it is. And we cannot move any closer to a solution if we're not willing to clearly and boldly state the problem:

 

African culture does not cater for Western Democracy. If we want the latter, we must fix the former. And you don't fix a culture in a generation.

 

I wager my last penny that at the time of my death (statistically another fifty or so years from now) you will not see a single African country being any better of than they are today. To the contrary, African countries will continuously and permanently become poorer and poorer until the pre-colonialism levels are achieved where the population live in mud huts and tend their few cows and little patch of veggies. There will be no private property, all land and property belongs to the Strong Man (chief in the old days, the President and his cronies today - explaining their sense of entitlement over national assets) and the continent as a whole will be back in the Stone Age - because that is what African culture allows. African culture is essentially a Stone Age culture, and does not recognize the individual - a critical component of democracy, western-style. Expecting any other outcome is naive, at best. Not a single African country ever improved on the conditions achieved during colonialism, including education, infrastructure, etc., because of this ill-informed naive thinking that you can entrust a modern country to a Stone Age culture. You cannot.

 

And the above scenario is slap-bang the fault of misplaced Western altruism, where we're supposed to recognize and respect other cultures. Africa's biggest enemy is African culture. I kid you not. If we keep insisting on treating African cultures and African States as equal partners in solving Africa's problems, we will merely perpetuate the misery in this continent. Sounds harsh? Imagine there's a tiny little nation in Europe that still finds it perfectly fine to burn witches because their superstitions are not quite in sync. Should the West tolerate it, respect it even, because it's a "cultural" affair? Bullshit. In Africa, female circumcision is "cultural". Making medicines from human body parts is "cultural". You have to kill the previous owner of said body parts, but hey - culture is culture, right?

 

African culture is the reason Africa is a shithole.

 

The only way to fix this, is to come up with a way to change the culture. And I don't know how, nor do I see it happening in my lifetime on a wide-enough scale to make any wit of a difference.

[Eclipse Now]

As someone who actually lives on the continent and has to worry about failed states on your doorstep, I'll admit that you are probably at least 20 times more informed than I am.

 

However my idealism wants to reply about tribalism. Are you really implying that Europe has not had a sense of tribalism in the past? What about the English and Germans in 1940, or should I have said Pommy's and Krouts? No, that might indicate tribalism. :phones:

 

African culture does not cater for Western Democracy. If we want the latter, we must fix the former. And you don't fix a culture in a generation.

Imperial Japan to post-war democratic Japan?

 

From Hitler to the European Steel and Coal Community founded in 1951?

European Coal and Steel Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

From a Chinese peasant farmer to his daughter being raised to work as a computer programmer in the modern industrial information age?

 

From a world with no internet to youth who use it all the time, and can't imagine the world without it?

 

And it can regress... I remember a time when U2 and INXS ruled the airwaves, and then the Spice girls took over our cultural paradigms! These things can happen fast! ;)

 

 

The only way to fix this, is to come up with a way to change the culture. And I don't know how, nor do I see it happening in my lifetime on a wide-enough scale to make any wit of a difference.

 

How? Once scenario I'll call "the new blood". What's the saying about how one scientific theory only really dies when all those who proposed it die with it? There's a similar way this can work as leaders gradually move politics in a new direction.

 

I don't believe that ALL the African leaders are pure evil. Most, the vast majority, maybe. But not all.

 

The more the 'good guys' push for a real Federal government, and make a lot of noise about it like Gadaffi has been, the more incentive there is for everyone to play ball and toe the line and gradually pretend that yes, they too want the best for Africa (while sucking the lifesblood out of the economy).

 

Gradually a culture can grow around these sentiments, and as Gadaffi eventually retires after a lifelong dictatorship, he's sown the meme, for whatever personal reason, of a unified African Federation.

 

Bottom line? If an African Federation ever comes together the political game then moves to watching each other in the larger Federal arena and monitoring the successful implementation of 'our' Federal policies in their former patch of dirt!

 

Sure they don't yet have the manpower to really deal with Darfur, not yet, not by a long shot.

 

But as long as that meme keeps spreading and Gaddaffi and friends keep parroting on about the greater good, hypocritical though that may be, I have some hope.

 

[edit: last line was too corny]

 

I just think that as one generation of leaders sows these seeds and starts building the Federal framework, then hopefully the next generation of leaders can actually believe that it could happen over the next decade or so. Remember, there's at least talk of a common currency by the 2030's!

[JMJones0424]

Eclipse, with all due respect, I feel like you are arguing that the tooth fairy exists. You have it in your mind that expansive government is the solution to everything, therefore the problem must be that expansive government has not yet been implemented correctly. You repeatedly cite examples in entirely different regions of the world with entirely different histories and cultures as a reason why your fairy tale will work. It is the west's delusion that is perpetuating the cycle of horrors in Africa.

 

Europe changed after two world wars and a cold war that made it obvious to all that cooperation rather than conquest is mutually beneficial. From your link-

 

The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany. He declared his aim was to 'make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible.'

 

The United States started off with a core group of western European dissidents with a common desire to live independently, wiped out native opposition, and only slowly accepts immigration from cultures that we are not xenophobic of.

 

Japan? How can there be any similarity between Japan and Africa?

 

China is probably the closest analogy that you could make. I invite you to read the history of how the ancient tribes actually became "one" and ask if you truly would like to see that repeated in Africa.

 

I wish I could wave a magic wand and let people see. Not everyone views efficiency the same way westerners do. Not everyone holds the same view of what a "community" is. Not everyone cares what his "countrymen" go through, especially when his "countrymen" are actually historical enemies and have not changed either. Our approach until the middle of the last century had been to protect areas from other imperial powers, and to try as best we could to enforce some political and military stability. Now our approach is to empower those in charge, but those in charge (in a lot of countries) neither have the support of the people they govern, nor do they have any inkling of the best intentions for the people they govern. IT IS A TRIBAL, NOT NATIONALISTIC SOCIETY. Historically military conquest or religious conversion are the only two methods that have successfully changed the situation that exists in Africa. For once, I hope the world can stop believing in the pan-African tooth fairy and try to actually entrust people and families (mothers) rather than governments, educate people rather than militaries, and provide a better life for villages rather than construct infrastructure that will fall into disrepair in a decade.

 

I can not believe that you are actually proposing that a continental governmental body that would elect Gaddaffi would produce anything other than Sudan-like conflict on a continental scale.