I have evidence to counter that... Mountaintop removal in Appalachia (the USA) is re-directing weather and ruining the environment, which is the beginning of a horrible cause-and-effect chain-- and a second thing to disprove you is the depletion of oxygen by flattening the rainforests.(Original post by Tootles)
We are nowhere near the capability to change this planet's destiny, save it, or destroy it. That we think we have these capabilities is proof of our own vanity.
And I know it was over the top. I actually indended it that way.
Turn on thread page Beta
Is It Time For A One World State?? Should Nation States Be Scrapped?? watch
-
View Poll Results: Do You Support The Idea Of A One World State?Yes we need a one world state5027.62%No keep the concept of nation states13172.38%Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll
-
linguisticsforfun- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to linguisticsforfun
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 81
- 24-11-2010 16:56
-
- Follow
- 82
- 24-11-2010 21:28
The rainforests have only been there for five thousand years. We've been using oxygen for millions. Phytoplankton have been producing it since the Precambrian.(Original post by linguisticsforfun)
I have evidence to counter that... Mountaintop removal in Appalachia (the USA) is re-directing weather and ruining the environment, which is the beginning of a horrible cause-and-effect chain-- and a second thing to disprove you is the depletion of oxygen by flattening the rainforests. -
Reformed2010- Follow
- 8 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to Reformed2010
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 83
- 25-11-2010 09:28
You mean't actually destroying the earth itself? my god you do deal with extremes don't you. Too much Star Trek and death stars I think.(Original post by Tootles)
Nuclear weapons are banned throughout the Western world, and are either being dismantled/due to be, or simply being ignored (I forget). They're only being tested by people outside the area where the CND happened because they think we're becoming weak - which we are.
Natural resources is irrelevant; we have plenty of wood, metal, food, and oxygen, which is more or less all we need. Trees aren't required for oxygen production (ever hear of phytoplankton?), and fossil fuels are only being used out of force of habit, and because people seem to associate the word 'nuclear' with the word 'BANG.' Though there are other potential sources of energy that would be compact, safe, and last around twenty years per unit. Food production should be easy, too, provided that the planet doesn't become so overcrowded that farms and whatnot can no longer fit on the planet. The planet also happens to be made from iron.
I also know enough about gravity and gravitational catapults to know that using asteroids would indeed work to pull us outward, keeping us in the Sun's habitable zone. And that, while this might work, it won't shield us from the jets of plasma that the Sun will emit during its death. Nor provide energy for us once the Sun has died. Nor prevent humanity's inevitable destruction, evolution, or migration to other planets. Nor prevent the cooling of the Earth's interior, leading to the disappearance of the magnetosphere and the resultant expulsion of our atmosphere (witness Mars).
Would you like me to go into more detail?
EDIT: I didn't mention planetary life: I said the planet. You know, the big round thing we live on? You've fallen into the same trap as many other people: equating Earth with the life on Earth. -
- Follow
- 84
- 25-11-2010 22:53
In case you didn't actually read my post, I said... you know what - I'm not going to bother. Carry on being contrary and stupid. I don't actually care. I see what you are, and I know that trying to tell you anything is just going to be met with argument, correct or not, so I'm not interested.(Original post by Reformed2010)
You mean't actually destroying the earth itself? my god you do deal with extremes don't you. Too much Star Trek and death stars I think.
Don't quote me again. -
linguisticsforfun- Follow
- 0 followers
- 0 badges
- Send a private message to linguisticsforfun
Offline0ReputationRep:- Follow
- 85
- 29-11-2010 02:42
And we're polluting our ocean and choking off our blue-green life, which I'm aware produces 70% of our oxygen. So thanks for helping to prove my point. And you completely ignored Appalachia-- just because it's not happening in your backyard doesn't mean it's not happening.(Original post by Tootles)
The rainforests have only been there for five thousand years. We've been using oxygen for millions. Phytoplankton have been producing it since the Precambrian. -
Sharpshooter- Follow
- 3 followers
- 20 badges
- Send a private message to Sharpshooter
Offline20ReputationRep:- Follow
- 86
- 09-01-2011 19:09
With the worlds population to hit 7 billion this year, we need global governance. To end poverty and whatnot.
-
Gnobe- Follow
- 0 followers
- 8 badges
- Send a private message to Gnobe
- Thread Starter
Offline8ReputationRep:- Follow
- 87
- 09-01-2011 21:04
^^
Tbh with I think it's gonna happen anyway. Maybe not in our lifetime but still it would massive step towards peace for humanity. -
- Follow
- 88
- 09-01-2011 21:13
Yeah!!! And we could put america in charge.
Human beings are hard wired to see differences, blame evolution for that.
If you take away some differences, like race and nationality, all that happens is that we find new ways to divide ourselves, like by hair colour or height.
The way to get rid of conflict is to learn to accept differences. -
- Follow
- 89
- 09-01-2011 21:14
It would fail epically.
-
wildrover- Follow
- 0 followers
- 16 badges
- Send a private message to wildrover
Offline16ReputationRep:- Follow
- 90
- 10-01-2011 06:01
The worlds not ready fot it, too many poor people ro bring out of poverty that would be paid for out of the g20s taxes if a socilist goverment was elected and we would all end up for worse off. People in much of africa and asia are not educated enough to be able to cast a vote that could effect the entire world and there is way too much corruption. People views differ massively from country - country and could see an erosion of liberties, things like homosexuality and adultery could easily become illegal and see people seeing the death penelty. These massive views would also lead to weak goverment as there would be many parties all with only a handful of seats. Things relevenat in some parts of the world are not in another country and as such laws for all would not be possible.
-
Sovr'gnChancellor£- Follow
- 16 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to Sovr'gnChancellor£
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 91
- 10-01-2011 14:10
-
Sovr'gnChancellor£- Follow
- 16 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to Sovr'gnChancellor£
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 92
- 10-01-2011 14:13
-
Sovr'gnChancellor£- Follow
- 16 followers
- 3 badges
- Send a private message to Sovr'gnChancellor£
Offline3ReputationRep:- Follow
- 93
- 10-01-2011 14:17

(P.S. I'm very bored, I know...) -
Gnobe- Follow
- 0 followers
- 8 badges
- Send a private message to Gnobe
- Thread Starter
Offline8ReputationRep:- Follow
- 94
- 18-01-2011 16:41
No it wouldn't.(Original post by No Man)
It would fail epically.
The world needs a one world state in order for humanity to survive or with the worlds increasing population and lack of resources things will get out of hand. Nationality is not needed and religion is not needed. Time for the world to live as one. -
History-Student- Follow
- 7 followers
- 16 badges
- Send a private message to History-Student
Offline16ReputationRep:- Follow
- 95
- 18-01-2011 16:52
Just because we need one doesn't mean it won't fail epically. Can you honestly see the world's superpowers sitting down and agreeing to share all resources & burdens, not just with each other but with all other nations too? Not a chance, not before some sort of horrible nuclear holocaust.(Original post by Gnobe)
No it wouldn't.
The world needs a one world state in order for humanity to survive or with the worlds increasing population and lack of resources things will get out of hand. Nationality is not needed and religion is not needed. Time for the world to live as one. -
- Follow
- 96
- 18-01-2011 16:53
Why is there no option for no national states and no world state either?
A global government is a truly terrifying thought, would you really like to see that much power placed in the hands of just a few people? It's giving them carte blanche to play god, with no one to hold them accountable for the morality of their actions. -
Gnobe- Follow
- 0 followers
- 8 badges
- Send a private message to Gnobe
- Thread Starter
Offline8ReputationRep:- Follow
- 97
- 17-02-2011 00:55
I was going to put that but conceded that a world of anarchy would be disasterous for the human species. We need some form of control or the world would be close to extinction as we know it.(Original post by garethDT)
Why is there no option for no national states and no world state either?
A global government is a truly terrifying thought, would you really like to see that much power placed in the hands of just a few people? It's giving them carte blanche to play god, with no one to hold them accountable for the morality of their actions. -
- Follow
- 98
- 17-02-2011 01:16
Even though i agree nationality is a load of BS as we are all humans and we have that thing in common but i dont think a world state would work.
(1) Firstly, in this world, we have communists, capitalists, socialists, nationalists and neo-Nazis(many other parties). So who is going to decide to become the leader? the people of the earth? - some nations believe in democracy and some dont.
(2) Assuming (1) works what if there is a harsh military uprising to overthrow the government? Things will just get chaos and a lot of lives will depend on it.
3) The new world state's economy will be all over the place, rich governments fusing with poor governments is a bad thing.
4) And the last thing, people nowadays, have a tendency to 'fit in' to something like fashion, nationality etc.
This solution has flaws. -
Reformed2010- Follow
- 8 followers
- 19 badges
- Send a private message to Reformed2010
Offline19ReputationRep:- Follow
- 99
- 17-02-2011 02:19
Yes sir.(Original post by Tootles)
In case you didn't actually read my post, I said... you know what - I'm not going to bother. Carry on being contrary and stupid. I don't actually care. I see what you are, and I know that trying to tell you anything is just going to be met with argument, correct or not, so I'm not interested.
Don't quote me again. -
Darkphilosopher- Follow
- 7 followers
- 14 badges
- Send a private message to Darkphilosopher
Offline14ReputationRep:- Follow
- 100
- 17-02-2011 08:40
If there was a world state then democracy simply wouldn't work.
With such a large amount of people, it will be impossible for everybody to have their democratic say.
A world state would cause many millions of people to go without their say and be forced to suffer because of it.
Also, I personally would rather not have one person/group/party in charge of the world. That is far too much power.
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions
- UK a nation of scroungers?? More than half take out more ...
- What 3 Things would YOU change about our education ...
- Minimum wage should be scrapped
- Papal visit - Sept 2010!!!!
- Should the UK scrap its nuclear weapons?
- What does good does the Monarchy really do ?
- Now EU want to ban British number plates
- Should the monarchy become elective?
- Why Brexit will be great
- Should there be a referendum on whether the UK should ...
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
Updated: June 5, 2011
Share this discussion:
Tweet