Would the world benefit if we combined all countries

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized. I would say one major hurdle that still would have to be overcome would be the language barrier. Despite all the communication advances we've made, until everybody on the planet can understand everybody else, the true power of those advances cannot be as fully realized.

 

[RyanPaulShaffer]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized.

I disagree. The US, China, Russia and the Middle East are all drastically different, for example. Even here in the US, we have regions of the country that are very different from one another.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The Europeans and England created* Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Israel and look how much trouble that caused.

*I could be wrong but aren't India, and a number of Africans countries also examples of this?

There's a ye olde english saying "as successful as Africa"
I can state for a fact your words about jugoslavia are absolute rubbish!

How about we talk about Boze and his Indian nationalists, their allegiance with nazi germany and the japs, and when they did field an army combined with a contingent of japs they got smashed by her majesty's finest!
We lifted you heathens out of the mud!
God' what a mistake!
now get back to your call centre!
blesav pizda!

WTF are you talking about?

My point about Yugoslavia is that it was a made up country, an example of what OP was writing about.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Take a look at how the soviet union worked and you will see that the net benefit (Joke) is corruption on a large scale and multiple levels of bureaucracy, that keep anything useful from being accomplished.

How I view the EU is as a large organization to promote European Control and to exclude any outside entrance into European Markets from north and south american continents. They fear freedom and anything resembling an open market when that market is from the United States.

You do realize you are a nut, right?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized.

I disagree. The US, China, Russia and the Middle East are all drastically different, for example. Even here in the US, we have regions of the country that are very different from one another.

Well I said 'slowly' becoming hogoenized. Take a longer term look backwards and compare to a decade ago, then 2 decades, 3 decades and so forth. . .go back a century. Think of how differently new generations will see their world in the years to come. Look at the advances in just the past 30 years. We're still of the generation that has seen all this come into being and we're watching it happen now. Right in the middle of it. There are those of us who will accept it and those who will shun it. But we'll die off eventually and the world will be a different place as those who have never known a world without super-sonic flight and near instantaneous global communication via any number of various media pick up the reigns in our place. They will come to know one another (and maybe kill each other) with an ease that is unprecedented.

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized.

I disagree. The US, China, Russia and the Middle East are all drastically different, for example. Even here in the US, we have regions of the country that are very different from one another.

Well I said 'slowly' becoming hogoenized. Take a longer term look backwards and compare to a decade ago, then 2 decades, 3 decades and so forth. . .go back a century. Think of how differently new generations will see their world in the years to come. Look at the advances in just the past 30 years. We're still of the generation that has seen all this come into being and we're watching it happen now. Right in the middle of it. There are those of us who will accept it and those who will shun it. But we'll die off eventually and the world will be a different place as those who have never known a world without super-sonic flight and near instantaneous global communication via any number of various media pick up the reigns in our place. They will come to know one another (and maybe kill each other) with an ease that is unprecedented.

I disagree. It is by human nature that people segregate based on all kinds of arbitrary factors, even when they have the means to unite with a much larger demographic group. People don't want unity beyond their control and zone of comfort - take a look how well that worked out in communist countries. Instead, people value their unique identity and individual freedom above any such unification.

And who is promoting this global unification? If we take a look at EU, it's not the individual citizens who are pushing the political and economic unification, but rather those in power looking to extend their wealth and power even further.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The Europeans and England created* Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Israel and look how much trouble that caused.

*I could be wrong but aren't India, and a number of Africans countries also examples of this?

They also created the U.S. and look how much trouble that caused.

This is my favorite quote of the year.

Outstanding, Red Irish. Cheers.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized.

I disagree. The US, China, Russia and the Middle East are all drastically different, for example. Even here in the US, we have regions of the country that are very different from one another.

Well I said 'slowly' becoming hogoenized. Take a longer term look backwards and compare to a decade ago, then 2 decades, 3 decades and so forth. . .go back a century. Think of how differently new generations will see their world in the years to come. Look at the advances in just the past 30 years. We're still of the generation that has seen all this come into being and we're watching it happen now. Right in the middle of it. There are those of us who will accept it and those who will shun it. But we'll die off eventually and the world will be a different place as those who have never known a world without super-sonic flight and near instantaneous global communication via any number of various media pick up the reigns in our place. They will come to know one another (and maybe kill each other) with an ease that is unprecedented.

I disagree. It is by human nature that people segregate based on all kinds of arbitrary factors, even when they have the means to unite with a much larger demographic group. People don't want unity beyond their control and zone of comfort - take a look how well that worked out in communist countries. Instead, people value their unique identity and individual freedom above any such unification.

And who is promoting this global unification? If we take a look at EU, it's not the individual citizens who are pushing the political and economic unification, but rather those in power looking to extend their wealth and power even further.

There are both people who actively promote the idea of a global union and those who are detractors. But to some degree it is just inevitable. . .bound to happen because of the ease with which masses of people can quickly and easily communicate over and physically traverse vast distances on the globe in the modern world. People will naturally adopt what they like from other cultures and shun what they dislike as ideas and cultural values are exchanged between continents. It has been going on for ages and will only accelerate as time goes on. Oceans and mountain ranges aren't the natural barriers to rapid travel and communication they once were long ago. It may still take generations yet to come but I think the world is only going to become more homogenous as time elapses, not more divided.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer

Originally posted by: ahurtt
No, the larger the population and the more expansive the area to be governed, the harder it is to maintain control and cohesion among disparate sub-groups and cultures within the macro population. It might be a good idea in principle but it isn't really very pragmatic. World history isn't exactly my forté but didn't the Roman empire at one time span a large part of the known world during it's time? For one reason or another I don't think that ended up working out too well for them after some time.

The same thing happened to the Mongol Empire and the British Empire. They became too large to govern effectively.

I did neglect to take one thing into account when thinking over my initial response to the OP now that I think about it. At the time of the Roman empire they had no means of rapid travel or communication like we have today where you can send a message to the other side of the world in a few milliseconds to let somebody know you're coming and then you can show up there in less than a days time. While the world is still roughly the same size it was then on an actual basis, when you take into account all the advances in communication and travel speed, the size of the world seems virtually miniscule compared to the size it was then. This helps to detract somewhat from the relevance of my own initial response to the OP however, the parts about the diversity of the values and the beliefs of the more localized sub-groups, factions, social mores and such still hold. However with increasingly accessible access to rapid travel, global trade, and instantaneous global communications even these differences are slowly becoming somewhat homogenized.

I disagree. The US, China, Russia and the Middle East are all drastically different, for example. Even here in the US, we have regions of the country that are very different from one another.

Well I said 'slowly' becoming hogoenized. Take a longer term look backwards and compare to a decade ago, then 2 decades, 3 decades and so forth. . .go back a century. Think of how differently new generations will see their world in the years to come. Look at the advances in just the past 30 years. We're still of the generation that has seen all this come into being and we're watching it happen now. Right in the middle of it. There are those of us who will accept it and those who will shun it. But we'll die off eventually and the world will be a different place as those who have never known a world without super-sonic flight and near instantaneous global communication via any number of various media pick up the reigns in our place. They will come to know one another (and maybe kill each other) with an ease that is unprecedented.

I disagree. It is by human nature that people segregate based on all kinds of arbitrary factors, even when they have the means to unite with a much larger demographic group. People don't want unity beyond their control and zone of comfort - take a look how well that worked out in communist countries. Instead, people value their unique identity and individual freedom above any such unification.

And who is promoting this global unification? If we take a look at EU, it's not the individual citizens who are pushing the political and economic unification, but rather those in power looking to extend their wealth and power even further.

Yeah well, you have to separate 1) will we benefit 2) can we actually unify.

Will we benefit if we combine the countries? Sure we will, hopefully there will be one main language, one standards (measurement/currency...etc), and one economic system. The trade barriers will be taken down. The standard of living will be more balanced. The difference between people will be narrowed. Hopefully we can eliminate frictions between countries and different people and eliminate war.

But can we do it? Like you said, there is just too much differences between different people, religion, culture, and human race as a whole is just not advance enough to see pass the petty differences and not discriminate against those that are different.

Will human race change in 10, 100, 1000 years? who knows....maybe when an alien race invade earth, we will see that we are all in this together and all the infighting and petty differences are just stupid.

 

[Muse]

Won't happen anytime soon.