Unified World Government

[Mitad_Lejos]

Thinking of a Traveller setting for roughly 2250 Gurps TL 10. J-1 Available.

World Earth be under a one world government? I would think it would be a loose federation with cooperation handling big projects like orbital beanstalk, disaster relief.

Or would it be similar to the US? A federal state? What are your thoughts?

 

[rust]

I would expect a federation of regional organizations (EU, African Union,
ASEAN, NAFTA, etc.) under the umbrella of a reformed United Nations
organization, with some of the old major powers (e.g. USA, China) less
ready and the regional organizations formed from several minor nations
(e.g. EU, ASEAN) more willing to cooperate with each other and the UN.

 

[simonh]

I think there will always be some independent nation states that will refuse to integrate into a greater union. The current EU fiscal debacle could put the dampeners on further monetary unions for another century or more. Even the political dissidents in places like Russia and China have no interest whatsoever in compromising their nation's sovereignty and that's unlikely to change even in several generations. Why should they?

There are also many potential sources of conflict coming down the pipe over the next few hundred years. The oil will eventualy run out completely, which should make the Middle East even more interesting and fun than it is now.

As more people in the developing world add more meat to their diet, the pressure on arrable land will rocket and take global food prices with it. That's already happening. The move to biofuels won't help that trend much either, so as some countries develop further this will drive others into an even deeper poverty trap.

Religious differences show no signs of softening, ever. If anything, increased acess to communications and travel exacerbate cultural differences as much as they erode them, so that moderate demographics move to the centre, but extreme demographics move even further to the fringe and become estranged from moderates within their own cultural/religious group.

Nuclear technology is slowly but steadily proliferating. The genie is well and truly out of the bottle on this one. At this stage, eventual nuclear terrorism or a nuclear incident betwen third world rivals seems almost inevitable in the long term. Has anyone else noticed how it's the well educated and technicaly minded ones that tend to go all human-fireworks?

A few hundred years is a long time to either sort these problems out, or run out of many resources and enter a long period of continual economic and environmental decline and stagnation. Just look at Japan. Once the wave of the future, now they're a long term economic basket case.

Technology is the key. What technologies come along to ameliorate our coming environmental and resource constraints will make a big difference. I also haven't discussed the many and varied mega-catastrophes that could easily kock the whole planet on it's arse over that kind of time scale. In a quarter of a century it's almost inconceivable we won't get hit by something at soem point. Bet it another Krakotoa, a Tunguska somewhere heavily populated ow worse, over the sea), Cumbre_Vieja tipping over, the San Andreas Fault cracking open again. Oh, check this out. Just found it: Mega Disasters.

Now I'm a fairly optimistic chap. Glass half-full and all that. I'm sure lots and lots of realy good things will happen in 250 years. I think it may well be a better time for most people t live in than the world today. However it's not all going to be plain-sailing and ups and downs along the way will cause plenty of political problems that aren't going to be easy to solve.

Simon Hibbs

 

[phavoc]

Early Traveller history talked about the first Vilani - Terran fleet actions were undertaken by separate national navies (China, UK, US). Only after Terra had its ass handed to it by the Vilani did they realize they needed a more unified military command to fight. And at that time they gave more power to the UN, essentially starting the road to a unified Terra.

There may always be holdouts for various reasons. But unless the world government wishes to tolerate them, they will eventually come to a grinding halt as their ability to trade with the rest of the world evaporates. But our own history indicates that some nations are very good at playing the neutrality card and keeping the lights on (Switzerland & Sweden come to mind). But their success was primarily only because their neutrality was tolerated and used by opposing interests. Without a patron(s) they would have found it far more difficult.

 

[simonh]

Without a patron(s) they would have found it far more difficult.

They'd have found it a darn sight easier with a handfull of nukes, like North Korea. And Pakistan. And soon Iran. And China, India and Russia for that matter. And whoever else manages to get hold of them.

But point taken. There has been a continuing trend of economic integration and that's likely to continue. It's not a done deal though. And as for tolerating them, why shouldn't they be tolerated? Unless the world government starts taking on a decidedly more aggressive stance than the current equivalents such as the EU and UN.

Simon Hibbs

 

[rust]

But our own history indicates that some nations are very good at playing the neutrality card and keeping the lights on (Switzerland & Sweden come to mind). But their success was primarily only because their neutrality was tolerated and used by opposing interests. Without a patron(s) they would have found it far more difficult.

Neither Sweden nor Switzerland would have been able to contribute signi-
ficantly to any military alliance, so there was no reason to pressure them
to join one. And their roles as neutrals, for example within the UN, were
far more valuable than any alliance membership could have been.

As for the current European "holdouts", in their case it seems more a mat-
ter of economic strength than political ideology. Both Norway and Switzer-
land are quite wealthy and would have to pay more than they could recei-
ve if they would join the EU, and their treaties with the EU enable them to
have most of the economic advantages of a membership anyway.

 

[phavoc]

But our own history indicates that some nations are very good at playing the neutrality card and keeping the lights on (Switzerland & Sweden come to mind). But their success was primarily only because their neutrality was tolerated and used by opposing interests. Without a patron(s) they would have found it far more difficult.

Neither Sweden nor Switzerland would have been able to contribute signi-
ficantly to any military alliance, so there was no reason to pressure them
to join one. And their roles as neutrals, for example within the UN, were
far more valuable than any alliance membership could have been.

As for the current European "holdouts", in their case it seems more a mat-
ter of economic strength than political ideology. Both Norway and Switzer-
land are quite wealthy and would have to pay more than they could recei-
ve if they would join the EU, and their treaties with the EU enable them to
have most of the economic advantages of a membership anyway.

Their economic clout is only because the EU is willing to trade with them. If the EU decided to not deal with them, Switzerland's economy would collapse. Sweden has a bit more flexibility as it is not land-locked, but it too depends on the EU to tolerate it as a allied trading partner.

But neither nation is really capable of being a true neutral with today's integrated economies. They are both defacto members of the EU and benefit (and fall) from the fortunes of their trading partners and neighbors.

Take a look at Cuba. Without their Russian patron, their economy has collapsed. They are free to trade with the world - except for the largest market and economy that is just 90miles away from them. Without access to the US markets and capital, and no longer propped up by Russian largesse, they are just a few years away from insolvency (according to a Wikeleaks US cable).

 

[DFW]

Take a look at Cuba.

Cuba's biggest econ problem is hardly the US. It has more to do with no private property or business rights. They can trade with the EU & Canada (a FAR larger market than the U.S.) not to mention ALL of Latin America and yet ...

 

[rust]

Their economic clout is only because the EU is willing to trade with them. If the EU decided to not deal with them, Switzerland's economy would collapse. Sweden has a bit more flexibility as it is not land-locked, but it too depends on the EU to tolerate it as a allied trading partner.

True, but in both directions. The EU could not risk to damage the Swedish
or Swiss economy, because this would have serious consequences for the
EU economy - especially in the case of the Swiss banks. Besides, Switzer-
land is the EU's most important transit nation, each time Switzerland talks
about making transit more difficult or expensive to reduce the air polluti-
on from the many vehicles the EU economy gets a nasty cold ..

 

[phavoc]

Take a look at Cuba.

Cuba's biggest econ problem is hardly the US. It has more to do with no private property or business rights. They can trade with the EU & Canada (a FAR larger market than the U.S.) not to mention ALL of Latin America and yet ...

It's true that Cuba suffers the standard "We'll pretend to work if you pretend to pay us" syndrome... But Cuba being unable to access a trading partner the size of US definitely impacts their economy. Yes, they CAN trade with the rest of the world, but it costs more because of distance. Trading with the biggest economy that is 90 miles away is far cheaper.

Cuba has very few natural resources. Tourism is their biggest source of revenue. I'm not sure how much they get for their medical exports (i.e. doctors and nurses), but I think not that much becuause they are generally sent out for political and not economical reasons. Can't trade in sugar because pretty much every nation has closed (tariffed) sugar markets. They have very little oil, and then there is their cigars.

Having private property would not be an issue if Cuba could tap into the American tourist market. But they can't, at least not directly and not in very big amounts. But with their Caribbean weather, if they could get the US cruise ships to dock in Havana, that would be a huge jump in revenues for them. Not to mention they could get American tourists and those Yanqui greenbacks that everybody loves so much.

And they could do all that with their existing economy and laws. It's simple economic math. US market is closer and easier to tap. Everyone else has a much farther distance to fly to get there.

 

[DFW]

It's true that Cuba suffers the standard "We'll pretend to work if you pretend to pay us" syndrome...

Cuba would still be an impoverished cr@p hole even if the US were open to it.
See history vis-a-vis other similar countries...

 

[ribby]

the promblem using the eu as a reason why a world goverment couldnt work is seriously wrong
the eu had no power to direct member goverments how to direct their budgets or social programs it doesnt even have the power to dilute member state currencys that are in serious trouble and dragging down the common currancy
if the eu was a real regional goverment then certain programs could have been amended or killed off total to create a fiscal balance over the whole region

 

[Vile]

Leaving the pros and cons of existing RW political systems out of it ...

2250 A.D. Earth will be made up of independent village co-operatives. Every home will have its own fusion mini-reactor and automated micro-factory, eliminating any need for national-level power generation or production. Freely available entertainment and education results in massive depopulation so no village is anywhere near another. Without nationality or economic disparity, the only criteria for location is whether you like the surroundings.

Well, I can dream.

 

[simonh]

Leaving the pros and cons of existing RW political systems out of it ...

2250 A.D. Earth will be made up of independent village co-operatives. Every home will have its own fusion mini-reactor and automated micro-factory, eliminating any need for national-level power generation or production. Freely available entertainment and education results in massive depopulation so no village is anywhere near another. Without nationality or economic disparity, the only criteria for location is whether you like the surroundings.

Well, I can dream.

Ah yes. '...to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.'

Simon Hibbs

 

[Vile]

Interesting quote, though I can't for the life of me see how it fits with communism as I understand the concept. Maybe I should read Marx and see what he was on about, could be good setting material there.

Actually, I was thinking more of anarchy, but I guess it's not total anarchy.

 

[rust]

Interesting quote, though I can't for the life of me see how it fits with communism as I understand the concept.

The intended result of communism, the final stage of the development of
the society, is very similar to the ideas of many of the anarchists, but the
concept for the way to get there is completely different, a lot more autho-
ritarian than what most anarchists would have found acceptable.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

At J1, you will have reasonably efficient Fusion Power and Artificial Gravity, meaning easy access to space.

So natural resources are less of a problem as the entire solar system is there to exploit. Petroleum products are probably gone and will have to be replaced by something else.

As it is today, so it will be then, there will be the HAVES (access to space and resources) and the HAVENOTS (no access to space). The HAVEs may or may not cooperate; some will, some won't; just like today.

Don't forget the off-Earth colonies, some of them are probably large enough to start demanding independence from their mother countries.

The truth is there will be a world government if you want one. If you don't want one, then there will not be. There are good arguements on both sides. Personally, I don't see it happening completely, but I could see several large power blocks, mostly along ethnic/cultural lines with some mixing between.

Even if there is a single world government, there will still be regions that are richer than others. It is likely that China, India, Europe and the US will be industrial centers. You will have to decide what happened to the Middle East after the oil ran out...

It is also likely that at least one other country/region has become industrialized that is a third world area now. 240 years is a long time.

 

[rust]

By the way, GURPS Terradyne had a rather elaborate and quite plausible
near future setting, and Transhuman Space also contains interesting mate-
rial about a near future Earth.

 

[steelbrok]

I mine GURPS Transhuman Space for ideas about how people live in high TL soceities

 

[Dark Lord Skippy]

Thinking of a Traveller setting for roughly 2250 Gurps TL 10. J-1 Available.

World Earth be under a one world government? I would think it would be a loose federation with cooperation handling big projects like orbital beanstalk, disaster relief.

Or would it be similar to the US? A federal state? What are your thoughts?

Personally, if I were you, I'd go with what fits your campaign the best. We can all sit here and with varying amounts of expertise attempt to look into the future and give you an answer, but who knows what might happen?

My own belief is that such a one world government is nigh upon impossible and a bit of a pipe dream. But you should run with what makes your game campaign better.