|
2 registered members (7th_zorro, AndrewAMD),
911
guests, and 4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#99297
11/22/06 05:39
11/22/06 05:39
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
I like how Matt summarized his views. I think China will become the worlds superpower soon enough, once more and more become educated there. Past that, corperations will continue to merge, and there will be less companies, but bigger ones at that in the next 100 years. And if you happen to notice a large degree of individual business's/chains amongst this, expect these to be secretly or publicly owned by existing corperations. This is somewhat common now, as the years go buy, companies buy other private companies without announcing it, while keeping the seperate names and managers. As to oil, good job on explaining the oil reserve, I think they'll use oil till they get the last few drops, then slowly shift over to technology that could have been introduced a bit faster. 
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: Joey]
#99298
11/22/06 08:45
11/22/06 08:45
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
but i think the european union will become more and more important, overruling the countrie's own governments
I also think so, and its a good thing. I hope something similar happens with the US and North America--there ought to be a North American Union among the US, Canada, Mexico, and so forth.
---------------
Supernational governments are likely to be the future of society, and may hopefully help to prevent some of the problems in current nations, such as in Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Ireland, Korea, etc.
There to has to be some way to deal with trouble spots other than force them to lump together into artifial "nations", like Iraq.
I think in many cases, national governments fail to address the needs of minorities, so there ought to be some kind of larger regional government, while at the same time small areas with some autonomy.
Eventually, of course, the whole world ought to be governed this way, eliminating sovereign nations all together. There would obviously be resistance by many current nations, so it has to be done gradually.
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: Matt_Aufderheide]
#99300
11/22/06 22:06
11/22/06 22:06
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
I think in many cases, national governments fail to address the needs of minorities, so there ought to be some kind of larger regional government, while at the same time small areas with some autonomy.
I totally agree. However there's one thing I do not quite understand, why would a larger supernational government care more about minorities? I'd expect the opposite? I do agree that it would be a good thing if the supernational governments would take care of minority issues within all countries within the united area though.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: PHeMoX]
#99301
11/22/06 22:17
11/22/06 22:17
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615
Cambridge
Joey
OP
Expert
|
OP
Expert
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,615
Cambridge
|
it might indeed be that a "world government" would've problems with minorities, but imo this government is simply not realistic as long as there are cultural diversities which lead into this conflict.
another thought: in a book i read recently ("die saga der sieben sonnen"), all world religions are mingled to one single big religion called the "unisono", combining both christian with the jewish, the nature and the arabian/asian religions. but that's definately that much unrealistic and won't happen in a thousand years. the churches are still too strong, allthough there is already such a movement (ecumeny), which is - i hate to say that - a very bad idea, since it's not - as intended - bringing together different religions but combines them to one mixture of hypocrite antitheses. sorry for these harsh words. but isn't the church an institution to represent its religion? i don't want them to battle for their disciples, but to send their message out so everybody can evaluate the truth. we can't when we're overwhelmed by blindfolded statements.
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: Joey]
#99302
11/22/06 22:40
11/22/06 22:40
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
allthough there is already such a movement (ecumeny), which is - i hate to say that - a very bad idea, since it's not - as intended - bringing together different religions but combines them to one mixture of hypocrite antitheses. sorry for these harsh words. but isn't the church an institution to represent its religion? i don't want them to battle for their disciples, but to send their message out so everybody can evaluate the truth. we can't when we're overwhelmed by blindfolded statements.
Eventhough I'm sure I would be going really far off topic when talking too much about this, but ... this has been going on for a g e s already ... The Jewish belief have things in common with Christianity, the Islamic belief have things in common with Christianity and so on and so forth ... The Asian religions are perhaps even more mixed, especially because usually each area has it's own 'history of mixing', governments who banned certain things etc.. Certain concepts, like a 'messiah' or 'heaven' or '1 God' seem to appear in quite some religions, that's why they are not necessarily automaticaly totally 'incompatible' with eachother. I do agree though, a total mix into just 1 religion will never happen ... Too much differences, too much of a powerstruggle and cultural influences.
Quote:
it might indeed be that a "world government" would've problems with minorities
Exactly, that's why I wondered wether or not these kind of huge governments would actually care about minorities, or even if they would care, would they be able to help?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: PHeMoX]
#99303
11/23/06 07:49
11/23/06 07:49
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
William
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,320
Alberta, Canada
|
I think instead of all religions joining as one, there will be little religion. This would allow more unity, if a large degree of the world is not neccesarily aethist, but rather more neautral towards one another with a general belief of God, and all else goes. The different beliefs are a bit complex to join into one super religion that accounts for them all. It's much easier to just create a religion of "self", and as most would say, it's the easiest religion to follow. Generally, the entire world would have to be much more globalized at this point. Take Canada for an example, it's a very multicultural country, and generally, there is acceptance for everyone. Now imagine that mentality across the entire world, alongside very little religion. Is it possible that unions will replace governments(for example, an Asian union, North American, European) in the next 100 years? I'd say the chances are good, but not for the whole world, select nations at first. Of course, things can move quicker or slower than meets the eye. One has to ask, when will the madness stop, will there eventually be one currency for the entire planet? Will the final unions merge 200 years from now? What will the Playstation19 be like?
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: PHeMoX]
#99304
11/23/06 11:14
11/23/06 11:14
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
Matt_Aufderheide
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
why would a larger supernational government care more about minorities? I'd expect the opposite?
Well my view of a supernational government is that it would allow smaller semi-autonomous states to manage their own internal affairs, but also provide a framework for redress, and for social services, and for common defense and security--no one group can oppress any other group without being held accountable by higher authority.
In the same way that the UN tries to consider the needs of minority groups who are being oppressed, this new supernational framework would allow for smaller units such as minority regions, like Palestine, Israel, Kurdistan, etc, to exist but still have the benefits of being part of a larger nation, without being oppressed by a larger and antagonistic majority.
For example, Iraq currently has a number of smaller regions or cultural areas which simply can not coexist in one unified government. However, if Iraq were to be subsumed into a larger supernation, each little region might be able to exist in an autonomous capacity, without the dangers of "balkanization".
No one wants an area like Iraq or Somalia broken into several small independent states. However, in my framework, they can exist semi-autonomously, and yet still form parts of a larger nation.
Obviously this concept comes with its own host of problems, but in fact, dealing with large structural problems is in some ways easier then resolving small regional conflicts.
|
|
|
Re: Most Probable Vision of Future
[Re: ptrc1c]
#99306
11/27/06 12:02
11/27/06 12:02
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
The two factions were the Tootsies and the Hutus which did not even exist before some colonial power told them so.
Uhm, it depends on which 'theory of history' you believe in I guess. The Hutus and Tutsis are actually genetically two different kinds of people (or 'factions' whatever). The Hutus, about 80% or so of the people of Rwanda consists of Hutus, they arived at the Great Lake area in Africa somewhere around the year 1000. There's reasonable evidence for this. The Tutsis came much later, probably from Ethiopia a couple of hundred years later. There's less known about this though, smaller group, harder to track back.
The colonial powers didn't quite cause the hatred on both sides, I admit that I can't quite say they tried hard to solve it either. However totally blaming the colonial powers for the genocide goes a bit far.
Quote:
a known Russian spy was eliminated in Britain, he ate sushi which contained Polonium( a radioctive substance). It was enough to make him suffer while his organs failed and endure a painfull death. It is reckoned to do this you have to be a Nobel prize winning scientist. The reasons why this happened are unclear, as Russia is no lomnger seen as an enemy of the west. Answers please.
Yes, but who says it was the West having killed him? I don't want to point any fingers towards Putin, but it's a possibility the order came from within the Kremlin.
Being a spy is a risky business, the guy must have known that,
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 11/27/06 12:11.
|
|
|
|
