The One World Paper
Posted: September 30th, 2009, 10:52 am
In my youth I read in the newspaper of a decision made by Ronald Reagan, who was then President of the United States, not to sign some U.N. proposal or another on the grounds that it leaned too heavily toward one world government, that it would have compromised national sovereignty to have signed such a document.
This just floored me. I could not believe my eyes. Too close to one world government? Naive I must be, because I had always assumed that this was the ultimate goal of civilization on this planet. It was just a given with me, because it seemed so obviously to fit the pattern of the natural progression of things, of progress in general. What started out with small, nomadic, genealogically-based tribal units evolved into small, permanently-settled villages, which evolved into small towns, then small cities, then large city-states, then small nations, then larger nations---superpowers---which would eventually coalesce into one globe-encompassing political structure creating, finally, a true planetary community, right? Just like on Star Trek, all humanity united under one banner and all that.
Well, naive I am then, because it just isn’t that way. Reading this news article at 18 opened my eyes to the fact that there are forces out there working against such a global community, such a consciousness of global community, ever developing.
Maintaining the status quo of "national sovereignty," it seems, is more important than progressing as a species, as a culture, a people. I guess that even now, when we have a practically instantaneous global communication network literally at our fingertips, it is better to remain in isolated pockets of humanity, each greedily holding fast to whatever one has or can grab from another, each selfishly pursuing its own ruthless political, military, economic or social agenda, maintaining national sovereignty above all else, and the rest of the world be damned. Yes, I guess to a person who is not naive like I am, this must seem preferable to a system in which the resources and energies of all the political and economic structures on the planet are welded into one fearless and indomitable power-structure---sans the necessity of massive financial expenditures for national defense, other than modest requirements for internal security, peace-keeping forces, what would amount to personnel charged with the maintenance of law and order; police forces, in other words---which has as its function and purpose for existence the continuing enrichment of the lives of all the individuals in the collective body of humanity. Certainly the current system is preferable to anything as naive and pie-in-the-sky as that described above, preferable to a system in which all persons are taught from birth to think of themselves first and foremost as human beings---citizens of Earth---along with all citizens being encouraged to express their localized heritage---their ethnicity, religion, etc.---in whatever form they chose, within the dictates of whatever global constitutional document should come to represent this global community.
If people were conditioned to think of themselves, from their earliest indoctrination into society, from kindergarten or earlier, as members of a global community, then the energies to actually get something done, which can best be accomplished through the necessary evil of large economic and political power-structures, could be fused into one very powerful juggernaut and brought to bear on such far-reaching and truly global issues as resource depletion, environmental degradation, space exploration, etc., things that, ultimately, make each persons life a little better all the time, in theory at least. For this is what progress is when it's functioning appropriately, the continuation of things to get better, of life becoming more livable for all.
One united community---one world government---working cooperatively toward one goal---making everyone's life more livable---is, to me, naive that I am, obviously preferable to a system that involves multiple communities working in fierce competition for mutually exclusive goals. Any small schoolchild in any kindergarten or preschool classroom on the planet can understand this.
So why do our grown up leaders have such hard time with the concept?
Peace,
Barry
This just floored me. I could not believe my eyes. Too close to one world government? Naive I must be, because I had always assumed that this was the ultimate goal of civilization on this planet. It was just a given with me, because it seemed so obviously to fit the pattern of the natural progression of things, of progress in general. What started out with small, nomadic, genealogically-based tribal units evolved into small, permanently-settled villages, which evolved into small towns, then small cities, then large city-states, then small nations, then larger nations---superpowers---which would eventually coalesce into one globe-encompassing political structure creating, finally, a true planetary community, right? Just like on Star Trek, all humanity united under one banner and all that.
Well, naive I am then, because it just isn’t that way. Reading this news article at 18 opened my eyes to the fact that there are forces out there working against such a global community, such a consciousness of global community, ever developing.
Maintaining the status quo of "national sovereignty," it seems, is more important than progressing as a species, as a culture, a people. I guess that even now, when we have a practically instantaneous global communication network literally at our fingertips, it is better to remain in isolated pockets of humanity, each greedily holding fast to whatever one has or can grab from another, each selfishly pursuing its own ruthless political, military, economic or social agenda, maintaining national sovereignty above all else, and the rest of the world be damned. Yes, I guess to a person who is not naive like I am, this must seem preferable to a system in which the resources and energies of all the political and economic structures on the planet are welded into one fearless and indomitable power-structure---sans the necessity of massive financial expenditures for national defense, other than modest requirements for internal security, peace-keeping forces, what would amount to personnel charged with the maintenance of law and order; police forces, in other words---which has as its function and purpose for existence the continuing enrichment of the lives of all the individuals in the collective body of humanity. Certainly the current system is preferable to anything as naive and pie-in-the-sky as that described above, preferable to a system in which all persons are taught from birth to think of themselves first and foremost as human beings---citizens of Earth---along with all citizens being encouraged to express their localized heritage---their ethnicity, religion, etc.---in whatever form they chose, within the dictates of whatever global constitutional document should come to represent this global community.
If people were conditioned to think of themselves, from their earliest indoctrination into society, from kindergarten or earlier, as members of a global community, then the energies to actually get something done, which can best be accomplished through the necessary evil of large economic and political power-structures, could be fused into one very powerful juggernaut and brought to bear on such far-reaching and truly global issues as resource depletion, environmental degradation, space exploration, etc., things that, ultimately, make each persons life a little better all the time, in theory at least. For this is what progress is when it's functioning appropriately, the continuation of things to get better, of life becoming more livable for all.
One united community---one world government---working cooperatively toward one goal---making everyone's life more livable---is, to me, naive that I am, obviously preferable to a system that involves multiple communities working in fierce competition for mutually exclusive goals. Any small schoolchild in any kindergarten or preschool classroom on the planet can understand this.
So why do our grown up leaders have such hard time with the concept?
Peace,
Barry