I'm taking brin out at his request. I've been meaning to answer this for some time, and I sorta waited to late to get a response from the author. But, better late then never, I guess. ----- Original Message ----- From: "d.brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2002 2:55 PM Subject: Re: brin: war
> Given the frequency of irrational tyrants andzealots and the > proliferation of WMD, do you envision such a situation holding even > 50 years? > > If so, HOW can you manage such a mental feat? Because it is highly probable. The world has had states of one kind or another for at least 4000 years. The idea that, after all this time, they would wither away and a world government would form in 50 years is possible, but not very likely. It is interesting that you are the first person I've read who has hinted at all that this was an expected results. That doesn't prove you wrong, of course, but I think it shows that some very intellegent people, who have worked productively in the field of foreign affairs for years don't believe it is true. So, at a minimum, the idea that there will not be a world government in 50 years is a reasonable one. But, I argue for much more than that. I think it is very unlikely that a a world govement would form within 50 years. I've already given my first arguement: it is rare that 4000+ years of history all come to a conclusion in 50 years. Part of the reason for that is that it takes generations to change world views. For example, it is usually third generation Amerericans that become indistinguishable from other Nth generation Americans. There is a big uproar in some circles that some second generation Hispanic Americans still speak Spanish as their first language. While I agree with the need to mainstream all new Americans as quickly as possible, I should also point out that my Mom, who was a fourth generation American, didn't speak English until she went to school. In addition, if you look at Europe, you see an area that started out with a Common Market 50 years ago, and are now starting to form a European Union that is still too weak to call a government (personally, I'd put the Articles of Confederation level of federal power as the lower limit.) Since they started out with much more common culture than, say, Tibet and the US, it is probable that it was easier for Europe. Finally, dictatorships would have to be forceably ended and representative governments formed. My "daughter" from Africa points out how hard it is to transfer representative governments to places which still believe in trusting authority with little question. Finally, things like a common government take a lot of trust. For example, would the industrialized world really agree to a world government that could set tax rates? Some day, after the developing nations develop, very possibly. But, that will take more than 50 years, alas. > If not, then how do you envision a world of law coming about? If not > via the UN, then in what way? The world is full of possibilities. John's earlier suggestion of NATO being enlarged to encompass all democracies (earlier as in years earlier) is one possibility. Multinational non-governmental organizaitons is another. A totally transformed UN is a third. But, that is so many years away, that speculation on limited data now is fairly meaningless. After hearing "The Times They Are A'Changing" played in a bookstore, I was reminded of how obvious clear trends can be reversed. Finally, I've been thinking that, since db's time here is limited, we should not expect him to read our responses to him. So, maybe we should only use "brin" for direct questions a number of us would want him to spend a little time answering. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
