More treaties and bigger trade agreements, fine. But a true world government is bound to be too unwieldy. How could it set a worldwide tax policy? Or common labor standards? How close to the average citizen would anyone in power be? I don't object to countries gradually moving in that direction but global warming or nuclear catastrophe will get us before we or our descendents live to see the day.

People who prophesy the "end of the world" aren't paying attention. The world will continue to roll along, with or without humankind on it. Personally, I have no problem if it's without. In fact, sometimes, I wish for a slate-wiper virus....

How are you going to "govern" people like me? I love people, it's Mankind that I can't stand, tricked out and screaming that we all need to submit to its wisdom or we will all die! We surely will all die of something eventually. I will live as I will until then. You either need to convince me or kill me- Unless you are willing to take my thoughts and feelings seriously, you stand little chance of either. Individuals will do as they will-

There is no doubting that each notch up in population means less air and water for all of us. There is also no doubt that efforts to control population are looked on poorly by all the nut jobs who are attemping to out breed each other to obtain advantage. In short, a planned global reduction of population would be a good alternative to the the chaos we now promote by providing both weapons and food instead of schools and tools. This is how our status quo is maintained.

How human impact on the planets fragile systems will lessen is still up for grabs. Here in the US it seems like the elite are doing a good job at weeding out the obsolete masses and potential challengers quite effectively, and are attemping to export such practicalities abroad as I write.

As I do my best to prolong being weeded for either being useless or a pest, both of which I am. I try also to enjoy the show put on by my fellow man, and and the same time appreciate the wonders of creation while some of it still exists.

The only problem with "planned Global Reductions of population" is "Who gets to stay?" I propose that all who advocate such policies do the right thing and kill themselves and their children, to set an example for the rest of us.

OPEC, the Arab League, the EU, NATO, CIS, SIO, and G-20, are all undemocratic institutions although some of them pretend otherwise. they're all controlled primarily by the corporations and the oil companies while they give the public propaganda that either downplays accurate science, buries it or suppresses it so that the rest of us who have limited chances to participate can't get accurate information to make decisions.

I agree with ya Lefty.

Now I've done it. I've revealed my deepest prejudices, probably with a health dose of irrationality-- as most prejudices are. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I deeply believe that it's possible to have a democratic foundation with global government, and that eventually the best, most efficient operation of government generally will be found at the global level.

First, looking at the history of supranational governments and associations in general, we find that the larger and more effective the operating groups, the less powerful the central organizing body is. That's not only because of the complexity of governing, but because of the individual power that the odd players bring to the table.

Secondly, a supranational governing body for currency and general economic policy does nothing more than set a broad set of parameters over a particular operation. And the major drivers and implementers of these overall guidelines are the national states themselves. We have ample precedents already with the operation of the European Union.

As much as I dislike Angela Merkel or Credit Agricole dictating monetary and fiscal policy, the fact remains that the terms and conditions are still 100% negotiable, and individual societies have a responsibility to their citizens. And the best way to achieve that ultimately is through a democratic process. Even in places like Russia or China, democracy will work its way through the system like a flower bursting through concrete. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.

Lastly, if you go back to the founding of the United Nations, you'll see Roosevelt's Four Freedoms in play as a working framework that was adopted by US law as part of the founding process. I think it's time that the USA went back to those Four Freedoms and tried to reorganize our society on that basis, instead of the principles of raw capitalism, which only benefits the strong at the expense of the weak.

A renewed commitment by this society to respecting and cooperating with the United Nations would be a great second step for American society to transition its way out of the empire trap. No one on the right has to tell me about the various problems of the UN right now. Everyone is aware of the UN's shortcomings and limitations, but the UN General Assembly is the best body that represents the world as it actually is, warts and all.

Eventually this country will have to free itself from the huge number of military and financial parasites that are afflicting our body politic. That's pretty much an internal political struggle. But that struggle would sure be helped out a lot if the USA were to respect international law on human rights, arms trafficking, and other things already in place by UN resolutions, treaties, etc.

And if we reform our own society, we'll find that in reality, it's actually much closer to the ideals and principles that were originally laid down in 1944 and 1945.

The struggle between the people and the oligarch is an eternal one. History has swung back and forth in cycles between equal and unequal, and we're now at one of the extreme ends. I admit that there's a huge amount of unknown ahead as to how to best implement a free and democratic world government, but I believe the rewards are well worth it.

It should be possible to have some better version of global coordination than what we currently have to work under, while at the same time we preserve the freedom and vitality of our local communities.

And that is something that I think can transcend any differences between right and left.

"17 years to a climate meltdown"

I bet you $10,000 you're completely wrong. Every climate model developed by NASA and other government funded entities have been absurdly pessimistic. We were supposed to be 5 degrees warmer already by now, in the worst of them.

The earth has been gradually cooling for the past decade. Not to say it will continue cooling, or won't get warmer. But your absurd prediction that we're 17 years away from the end of days is hilariously wrong.

the struggle of antelope against hyena goes on too, although both are running out of space to run. it's not enough to struggle, you have to win.

americans can not win, until they write a new constitution, and worrying about other nations, other transnational organizations, is some mixture of insanity and arrogance.

or more likely, an attempt to set such high goals that failure can be excused.

Someone, I've long forgotten who, did the arithmetic some years ago, and concluded that we'd need 6 Earths to supply enough raw materials to provide the rest of Earth with enough stuff for them to be sort of like the USofA. And this was before it was widely figured out that the USofA is mostly third world. IOW, 6 Earths doesn't get most of the 7 billion living the 90210 lifestyle.

While an "Earth Government" is the only sane way out (the other being permanent war and a faster depletion of what resources remain), there is a nasty calculus inherent. That is: those in the sub-Third World have to be left to their pastoral bliss, while the existing First World is put on a strict procreation diet, in exchange for not being wiped out.

Not an easy situation. In the final analysis (so to speak), the single most significant advantage of being First World isn't the iPhone, but medicine. Living longer to see how it all turns out is more interesting than toys.

“The greatest thing he accomplished was to make people all over the world feel that he, and therefore our country, actually was concerned about them and was interested in their problems.”
 Eleanor Roosevelt.
FDR was God to some, the Devil to others, I have been told by my history teacher Dad. America produces great men in times of greatest crisis. Lincoln and Roosevelt must be among the best humans
who ever took up leadership.

There is no way around it. World Government. But…it must be sort of like the old “Holy Roman Empire”, I think. A lot of kings . of every country. But a council. An election of the King of kings. Democratically. Yikes. I dunno how our descendants are gonna swing this. But the biggest crisis of all is coming soon. The death of the living mother earth? Or at least making her very very ill. Someone will rise to assume the mantle of leadership. Not just someone, a lot of someones. i know it. history proves it.


fdr:

"The true conservative
seeks to protect the system of private property
and free enterprise
by correcting such injustices and inequalities
as arise from it.

The most serious threat to our institutions
comes from those who refuse to face the need for change.
Liberalism becomes
the protection for the far-sighted conservative." HA!

Got a Wiki for you to read, that you might find interesting:

Eugene Mallove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Mallove

Bah!
Another damn doomsday blog......
;-(
.

I'm just sitting here eating gummy bears waiting for the entire shitball to explode in all our faces!! OH BOY AND WE GET F*CKED TOO!! wOOOO!! :D