♥

[Kawaii /b/oxxy loves /v/ideogames !BOxxYCh86I No.1770542]

Greetings /sci/
I bid you a fair, and excellent welcome.
I was on /v/ just a bit ago, obviously not talking about vidya, However.
That's far from the point.

Today, today, I want to touch down with you on Carl Sagans thoughts, and what the future as a society may be holding.

Would he approve of a One world government? Yes, no?..What really suits us best in todays world..We are still so, so so so so tiny, and vast, floating in a sea of shit.

What really would you like to see us become, and or meld into?...
Just curious, because having a conversation with /v/ is like talking to a brick wall with a small penis.

They just shout and scream till you leave, then they assume they are correct.

[Anonymous No.1770548]

>>>/new/

take your political and social bullshit there, this board is for REAL science.

also, cool tripfag/avatarfag/attention whore trolling 6/10

[Kawaii /b/oxxy loves /v/ideogames !BOxxYCh86I No.1770555]

>>1770548
What?..I'm not trying to attetion whore..I've never even posted on /sci/ before, but I figured carl sagan/world functions would be sci's forte.

Sorry, never did I mean to anger, or offend you, I was just looking for decent conversation regarding the topic.

Something that was brought to my attention about a book called "Brave New World" or something..

sorry again! Just let the thread die then if you dislike it, no harm, no foul!

[Anonymous No.1770557]

>>1770548
>this board is for REAL science

You must be new here...

[Anonymous No.1770597]

>>1770557
You must be new here.

[Anonymous No.1770626]

You have been nothing but courteous, OP.
H8ers gon' h8.

My absolute preference would be to see secular democracy spread to the entire world, and education standards rise to a point where it would not be sullied by corruption ( too often ).
A bit of corruption is nearly inevitable.

One-world government ? To be honest I am not so sure I would be happy with that.
The cultural differences across the world might well be too great for all of us to be very happy in a direct democracy, if we just elect one set of leaders.

I suppose something like a very strong ( militarily strong ) UN, but with more direct influence and presence in peoples minds and lives could be a good thing, and might help grease the wheels for international cooperations like Space Elevators and Mars bases and other important SciFi stuff that I want to happen.

But the UN as it is right now is just mired in bureaucracy and not getting much done.

[Anonymous No.1770632]

A one world government would never work, Earth's too large. United Nations is the closest thing we've got and that's not exactly the greatest invention since the wheel.

[Future !GUYX/6jp3w No.1770636]

>>1770626

>>My absolute preference would be to see secular democracy spread to the entire world, and education standards rise to a point where it would not be sullied by corruption ( too often ).

That's more or less happened. Every nation where autolabor supplanted traditional industry took rapid steps to restrain the rights of corporations that owned the infrastructure so that the middle and lower classes would not be 'left out in the cold'.

Globalization remains a fantasy because of controversy as to how Europe dealt with the issue of Muslim immigration in the 30s and America's ambivalence towards militant redshirt remnants, although imo the biggest (usually unspoken) reason is that corporations were the principle driving force behind globalization. When they were neutered to prevent them from withholding the benefits of robotic labor from the general public (who, having been put out of a job, would be unable to afford any of it leaving the rich to gorge themselves on robotic produce while everyone else lived on a meager dole) we also put an end to any realistic hope for a unified world government. No seamless global economy means no one world government.

The remnants believe there is one, though. At least the hostile tribes do. It's central to their ideology, along with the rapid warming effect.

[Anonymous No.1770669]

>>1770636

The picture is very related - An illustration of the worldwide corruption perception index as applied to countries.
Secular democracies with low corruption are very hard to come by in this world.

>When they were neutered to prevent them from withholding the benefits of robotic labor from the general public (who, having been put out of a job, would be unable to afford any of it leaving the rich to gorge themselves on robotic produce while everyone else lived on a meager dole) we also put an end to any realistic hope for a unified world government

So... Am I understanding you right ? - You say that a World Government is impossible because most countries impose restrictions on the behaviour of their private businesses?

I don't know where you are going with the robot-talk.

[Anonymous No.1770800]

Ideal would be a world government with the country as states. We already have the UN, which although it sucks ballz, is there.

Also democracies suck, America has a republic where you elect officials, even then its just who ever has the coolest ads wins. So, IMO, they should have a test of sufficient knowledge before you are aloud to vote. Things like, whats in the bill of rights.
Whats in the constitution (basics of course).
Things like that, so that we don't have chrisfags saying shit like THIS HERE IS A CHRISTIAN GOVERNMENT WE WERE FOUNDAD ON THA CHRISTIANS! or w/e they say cause hopefully they will understand "Seperation of church and state" the most fundamental part of america. Also voting in retards would occur less.

[Anonymous No.1770801]

>>1770669
How the fuck do you even measure corruption? I call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.1770815]

>Would he approve of a One world government?
He seemed too smart for that. But weed does funny things to your brain. One world government would be scary shit. There would be nothing to check or reign in its power. There would be no competition of ideas in governance. There would be no diversity of economic policy to ensure that the global economy is robust enough to continue despite policy screw-ups. When single countries explode you have the rest of the world to keep everything going and prevent its peoples from starving to death. If it happened on a global scale -- with no government waiting to take over, it would be hell on earth.

>having a conversation with /v/ is like talking to a brick Wall with a small penis
that's funny

[Anonymous No.1770827]

>>1770815
>Would he approve of a One world government?
He seemed too smart for that. But weed does funny things to your brain. One world government would be scary shit. There would be nothing to check or reign in its power. There would be no competition of ideas in governance. There would be no diversity of economic policy to ensure that the global economy is robust enough to continue despite policy screw-ups. When single countries explode you have the rest of the world to keep everything going and prevent its peoples from starving to death. If it happened on a global scale -- with no government waiting to take over, it would be hell on earth.

thats what the states of USA said. there are plenty of ways that you can group a bunch of different organizations into one. Having 3 branches that balance each other like USA does is one.

[Anonymous No.1770839]

>>1770827
And the federal government has gradually taken more and more power from the states. The states no longer provide a meaningful check on federal power.

[Anonymous No.1770843]

>>1770839
And?

[Anonymous No.1770849]

>>1770843
I think he's trying to say that the balances failed.