What happens to other countries on Earth?

[uniderth]

The issue with the first argument is that people thinking their arguments are rational means nothing. Yes, everyone thinks their views are rational but many, many aren't, There is a difference between believing you are rational and being able to rationally, ethically and morally justify your actions. That's where most of those viewpoints collapse.

That is of course your opinion, which you may certainly be able to rationalize. But that doesn't mean that your rationalization is the only acceptable one.

The first paragraph is silly. Cannibalism and religion are not equatable to eating insects. Insects are a food choice and a healthy source of protein. Nobody could rationally force you to eat something you didn't want to purely out of 'rationality'. It is rational to eat to stay alive, how you do that is up to you and has no impact on another individual. Cannibalism, for example does.

Cannibalism is by definition a food choice. Though I am specifically referring to endocannibalism which is the eating of one's dead. Which meets you're "has no impact on another individual" qualifier. Though I would argue that almost all human actions have impact on other individuals. In the food category, something like excessive fishing, while not having a direct impact on others, does impact future generations. The choice of a spouse, argued by many to be an individual choice, impacts others.

Your third paragraph is an oxymoron. One cannot rationally be religious. As with your original sentence, one can think they are being rational by being theistic but one is not.

Hahaha. And who decides if they are being rational or not? Religion is not limited to believing in an invisible, bearded, sky-dad, or some kind of afterlife. Religion also includes metaphorical interpretations and analysis of the physical world.

The argument is that religion is simply one of a vast multitude of outdated 'isms' that will continue to fall by the wayside as humanity advances [and human history shows this to be true]. Nobody is being 'forced' to not be religious, it will simply become so [as is happening world-wide right now].

There will always be -isms. Whether they are called Christianity, the Copenhagen view, etc.. There will always be a desire to know what is out there and differences on those beliefs. Not only that but there will be differences of belief on what is inside, what is means to be human. And I agree that current organized religions may be one its way out(hard to argue on the short term), that doesn't necessarily equate to religion or even some form of organized belief system, being gone from humanities future.

Your second part of that paragraph is quite aggressive, for want of a better way of wording it. You seem to view a utopian system as one gained through force, or revolution and whose ideals must be enforced. I think Trek hints at a reformed world where the evils of today are gone [greed, hate, hunger, poverty etc] and where religion likely does still exist but in severely limited pockets and this is perfectly acceptable.

I think you are reflective of some of the arguments made against Trek's utopian society that, somehow, it would involve repression. If that society is based on rationality then you would be free to do as you wish and diversity would thrive more than it does now...but a multitude of things that are 'wrong' and can be rationally demonstrated as being 'wrong', will be forbidden. You can't cry for a racist because his freedom to be racist is denied. He is the irrational one.

Perhaps my wording was aggressive. But your last sentence points out exactly why. (Disclaimer: I am by no means a racist so please don't interpret my following statements that way) What does it mean to have freedom to be a racist? Being racist is a belief. Forbidding someone to believe something is opening a whole can of worms, becasue now you are making thoughts illegal. And that is precisely where you enter a totalitarian regime.

Additionally, there is a difference between "our community is only for purple people, becasue we want to preserve our purple people ancestry, so no blue people allowed," and "let's go murder all the blue people."

As I've similarly said in other threads a rational demonstration of what is wrong can only be done with some predetermined goal in mind. For example. It is wrong to kill? Most people would say, yes. What if somebody is in your house raping your spouse, is it still wrong to kill? If your society values "not killing" over "self-defense" then the answer would still be yes. Take another example, an army from a neighboring country enters yours and starts killing your citizens. Is it wrong to kill? Suddenly the simple "rational" black and white morality gets fuzzier. And it all depends on what end goal you have in mind. And there can be a variety of end goals that could be rational for a person to espouse.

You cannot have a one-world government where every part of the planet does what they want. People would be free to do as they wish: so long as it was ethical, moral and rationally justifiable.

"People would be free to do as they wish: so long as it was ethical, moral and rationally justifiable." That sounds exactly like what a dictator would say, becasue people now have to "justify" their actions to the Rationality Police. Saying, "People are free to do as they wish, so long they do not violate agreed upon societal laws," sounds much less dictatorial.

Differing opinions and rationality are two different things and I think you are confusing that. Badly.

No. I'm just recognizing that rationality can lead to many different view points and doesn't inevitably lead to one unified, harmonious, view point. You may believe it does, but that just proves my point. You have your view point and you have that becasue you think it is rational.

It is divisive nonsense.

In many cases, but not all.

It places emphasis on an existence apart from this one.

In many cases, but not all.

It is dogmatic.

In many cases, but not all.

It encourages people to be happy with not knowing.

Hwhow boy. If you think you "know" things, please go study quantum mechanics, or black holes, or the cosmos. As defined by the limits of the universe we MUST be happy with not knowing things. There are so many things in this universe that we will just NEVER EVER know. Not only that, but as the body of human knowledge increases the amount of knowledge a single individual can know will proportionally DECREASE.

You cannot have multiple faiths on claiming to be right and expect, fundamentally, that to work properly. I could go on and on. The death of religion would usher in a new period of though on life, on existence and on the world in general. You also, again, are being overly aggressive in your statements: religion isn't purely responsible for us not having a united earth, it merely plays a part.

I really don't think so. I think most people just want to be left alone with their beliefs. Only a very small minority want others to convert or die. So really I can't see much resistance for a united earth coming from the religious groups. The majority of resistance comes from those in power right now. The business and political elite. They have everything to loose by having a united earth. That's why it doesn't happen.

That isn't how things work though. If your beliefs is that every blue person is inferior and should be shot, you deserve to have your beliefs challenged and changed.

There is of course a difference between the belief that "every blue person should be shot," and "every blue person should be shot, and I'm pulling the trigger right now." One is a belief, and one is an action. You cannot criminalize beliefs without becoming a totalitarian state.

Who decides which beliefs "deserve" to be challenged? The thought police? How are we going to force these people to change their views? The re-education camps? What do we do with those who resist?

I personally believe that all people should be exposed to differing view points that way they can learn and grow. But is that something someone "deserves" just becasue their views are different than mine, no.

If the objective is to create an enlightened, united Earth, then certain beliefs will have to die because they are simply irrational and 'wrong' regardless of how uncomfortable for some people that may be.

"Enlightened" By whose standard? The Spanish did a great job of enlightening those Central American "savages." The United States Americans did a great job of "enlightening" those Native American "savages."

Look, I think we can both agree that some form of benevolent United Earth government (benevolent government, now there's an oxymoron) would be a good objective for humanity. We both probably agree that education and exposure to additional information is a good thing too. The problem I have is that you are promoting your subjective views on what is rational as the only way forward, which is no different than what anyone else would do. But the way you talk about it comes off as an Orwellian nightmare.

Those three names you mention are laughable. 'Jesus' was fictional and never existed, Muhammad was a tyrant who couldn't get his own village to listen to him and needed to spread his message through violence and Gandhi was a racist monster as well. I can't stress enough how weak it makes your argument look.

Actually, that was an admittedly poor call back to the X-files episode where the genie and Mulder have this conversation:

MULDER: What the hell is this?
JENN: It's what you asked for. Peace on earth. Listen.
MULDER: You know damn well that's not what I meant.
JENN: You didn't specify.
MULDER: This has nothing to do with specificity. You don't have to wipe out the entire population of the whole planet just to effect a little peace on earth and goodwill towards men.
JENN: You didn't say goodwill towards men. So you expect me to change the hearts of six billion people? No religion in history has been able to pull that off. Not Allah or Buddha or Christ. But you'd like me to do that in your name? So... what? You can feel real good about yourself?

I also loathe the defeatist 'logic' you are using. "If x couldn't do it, why bother?" which is utterly, utterly contrary to

Which is exactly the opposite of what I meant. Because from my perspective your "if only we could get rid of religion, then we could be united," is this same defeatist attitude. You're wishing that people would be something they're not before we can have a united earth.

By saying (insert religious figure) couldn't do it, I was asking what makes your view so special that billions will abandon their beliefs and follow your philosophy, when many others have been unable to do the same. And what I meant by that was that I don't believe the world can be united by the imposition of one philosophy upon the whole. It can only be had by embracing our diversity and working WITH it rather than AGAINST it. (Granted that is of course a philosophy).

progress.

See my comments about progress not being objective, but only measured according to an end goal. There is no such thing as just "progress."

Earth is a separate but unified government. But what about the Earth colonies in the Sol system?

Good question. Would the moon be part of the Earth government or would it be it's own government? I wish Mars has greater Federation representation as an independent world.

 

[Tenacity]

memory-alpha ... The Royal Academy was an educational and scientific institution located in Old Britain on Earth.

Where on the show was Britain ever referred to as "Old Britain?"

"Alliance" is misused a lot, especially in recent years. If Kirk and others throw this word around onscreen, chalk it up to the sloppy use of language that TV writers would not be immune to

The Star Trek TNG writers and directors guide states that the Federation is a "alliance." It's on page 53.

You cannot have a one-world government where every part of the planet does what they want.

You could if the "world government" has a limited mandate as to what it's permitted to do, and legal restrictions preventing expansion of powers. I've mention allowing Earth speak with one voice.

The "world government" might have fewer than a half dozen official duties.

The majority of authority could then remain with Earth's sovereign nation/states.

'Jesus' was fictional

You're wrong, Jesus is God.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Those three names you mention are laughable. 'Jesus' was fictional and never existed, Muhammad was a tyrant who couldn't get his own village to listen to him and needed to spread his message through violence and Gandhi was a racist monster as well.

You're wrong, Jesus is God.

Let's not go here in GTD. Miscellaneous or TNZ would be the place for this discussion.

 

[uniderth]

Let's not go here in GTD. Miscellaneous or TNZ would be the place for this discussion.

My apologies for bringing it up.

 

[Voth commando1]

I thought by 2076 or something to that effect earth's nation states ceased to exist.

Someone earlier in the thread wondered why we don't see other species have nation states-my explanation a combination of lack of imagination/money and that effect that being united for a millennia or two will reduce national loyalties and boundaries especially when you start exploring interstellar space.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I thought by 2076 or something to that effect earth's nation states ceased to exist.

Not so.

I mean, why would they? In the USA, for example, individual states of the union don't cease to exist just because they are a part of the US as a whole. And city governments still exist even though they are part of a state. So there's no reason to assume that national governments would go away just because of the creation of a unified Earth government.

Besides, I seem to remember at least one instance (in ENT) where a person's address is shown and is attributed directly to the United States of America (it's where Malcolm Reed's Section 31 contact is trying to get ahold of him). So that alone is proof that nation states do still exist.

 

[Tribble puncher]

I'd be interested to see what nations are still around in the 24th century in the trek verse, would nations on the verge of collapse in modern times be "resurrected" when earth was rebuilt after ww3? I'd Imagine alot of smaller nations would be absorbed into bigger ones. I wonder if Vatican City would still be around.....

 

[Voth commando1]

Not so.

I mean, why would they? In the USA, for example, individual states of the union don't cease to exist just because they are a part of the US as a whole. And city governments still exist even though they are part of a state. So there's no reason to assume that national governments would go away just because of the creation of a unified Earth government.

Besides, I seem to remember at least one instance (in ENT) where a person's address is shown and is attributed directly to the United States of America (it's where Malcolm Reed's Section 31 contact is trying to get ahold of him). So that alone is proof that nation states do still exist.

Why would it be called United Earth if national divisions still existed?

 

[Kevman7987]

I'd be interested to see what nations are still around in the 24th century in the trek verse, would nations on the verge of collapse in modern times be "resurrected" when earth was rebuilt after ww3? I'd Imagine alot of smaller nations would be absorbed into bigger ones. I wonder if Vatican City would still be around.....

I always assumed that countries were reformed after WW3 and those borders left in place after United Earth formed for geographical reasons. Vatican City was still around during the mid-22nd century at least as Phlox mentioned having witnessed a Catholic mass at St. Peter's Basilica.

 

[Shawnster]

Where on the show was Britain ever referred to as "Old Britain?"

I cited my source. But I'll share it again. TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/42.htm
KIRK: Analysis of disputed area?
SPOCK: Undeveloped. Sherman's Planet is claimed by both sides, our Federation and the Klingon Empire. We do have the better claim.
CHEKOV: The area was first mapped by the famous Russian astronomer Ivan Borkoff almost two hundred
KIRK: John Burke.
CHEKOV: Burke, sir? I don't think so. I'm sure it was
SPOCK: John Burke was the Chief Astronomer at the Royal Academy in old Britain at the time.
CHEKOV: Oh, Royal Academy. Well

 

[Shawnster]

Why would it be called United Earth if national divisions still existed?

Nation states can continue to exist as a smaller geopolitical region of a government much like most nations today have separate smaller geopolitical areas. The United States has 50 states, Canada has 13 provinces and territories, Australia has 6 states and 2 territories, etc... These smaller areas are not sovereign of their governments. They are simple divisions of governmental control. So a United Earth could recognize the old national names and borders the same as individual countries today recognize their states and provinces.

Plus, it helps with the mail and GPS systems when you specify where you are going to include the state or nation. Especially since there are multiple cities with the same name in different countries on different continents Am I going to Canton, Ohio or Canton, China?

 

[Tenacity]

Why would it be called United Earth if national divisions still existed?

Why is it called the United Nations given that the nations aren't united?

 

[Nyotarules]

I'm not the type to descend into 'LOLZ' here but I will try to explain one last time:

1. Your argument was that Scotty was an identifiable 'Scot'. That was a baseless claim, seeing as he has a Canadian accent and drinks a lot.

2. Your ascertion that he is 'obviously' Scottish, I highlighted, could be deemed derogatory because he is a two-dimensional Scottish stereotype character [who doesn't even have the accent right].

3. A Frenchman with an English accent isn't derogatory. That is actually quite progressive [and realistic] as it highlights greater depth of heritage where he has a different accent to his nationality as a great many people do [along with skin tone and other things]. The reasons for Picard's accent could be many, and varied [parents, eduction, influences etc]. Instead of him being a Frenchman, born in Paris, who likes wine, he is an interesting, different character like a real person.

4. I also never said I was offended by Canadian sounding Scotty. I said it was 'half-amusing, half-derogatory' in reference to how stereotypical your argument was becoming [about him obviously being Scottish].

1. A baseless claim to you but not for me, I don't hear a Canadian voice when the character speaks, including the new version. The accent might not be perfect, but to me when I hear it I know that this actor is playing a person from Scotland not from Canada. The drinking aspect was raised by yourself. That was not what made me identify him as 'Scottish'. And Scotty drank no more than any other character in TOS.

2. A future Frenchmen with an English accent isn't derogatory and might be progressive? Really? Ask someone from France. I did, they were not impressed by the idea.

 

[Nyotarules]

I cited my source. But I'll share it again. TOS: The Trouble with Tribbles http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/42.htm
KIRK: Analysis of disputed area?
SPOCK: Undeveloped. Sherman's Planet is claimed by both sides, our Federation and the Klingon Empire. We do have the better claim.
CHEKOV: The area was first mapped by the famous Russian astronomer Ivan Borkoff almost two hundred
KIRK: John Burke.
CHEKOV: Burke, sir? I don't think so. I'm sure it was
SPOCK: John Burke was the Chief Astronomer at the Royal Academy in old Britain at the time.
CHEKOV: Oh, Royal Academy. Well

The present Great Britain is made up of England, Wales and Scotland, three separate countries. If the last two countries gain independence in the Star Trek universe then Great Britain will no longer exist, so it is likely Great Britain of history will be 'Old Britain' or Old Great Britain'.

 

[Nyotarules]

Why would it be called United Earth if national divisions still existed?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Four different countries, with different laws and own law making bodies making one sovereign nation. It is possible.

 

[Tenacity]

I don't see the insistance that nations would be required to surrender their sovereignty after forming a international cooperative union with a governing body.

 

[UnknownSample]

The Star Trek TNG writers and directors guide states that the Federation is a "alliance." It's on page 53.

I'm not surprised in the slightest, since they say it onscreen (I'm trusting you on that one). Every SF show now calls multi-planer governments "alliances". Babylon 5 called its unification of all the warring parties at the end of season 4 an "alliance". Again, a sloppy use of language. Either it's a federation, or an alliance. Make up your minds, writers. It can't be both. If it's just an alliance, it's even looser than you're thinking of it, it's not even a government. It's a treaty.
-------------------
Someone said nation-states could still exist as regions. "Nation-state" refers to a completely independent nation. There are no independent nations on Earth. I gave some reasons earlier, which I won't retype here. The relationship between planets has to be a bit looser than between regions on a planet (formerly "nations"), since there are internal ambassadors such as in Journey to Babel, but those ambassadors vote on policy for the whole Federation, so it's not a group of independent planets.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Lets not become hysterical.

It is a bad accent and Doohan was free to do whatever he wished. It isn't very good. It's the generic 'Scottish Hollywood' accent that nobody here actually uses. I've heard it was supposed to be Aberdeenshire base but...ehhh.

You can't get a Canadian, to do a phony Scottish accent, then declare "he is obviously Scottish!" without me mocking it I'm afraid. Everyone should understand this. Plenty of actors butcher accents they are asked to do. That's fine. Saying 'they are obviously from X' isn't. Obviously I understand he was supposed to be Scottish, but he isn't. He is a silly stereotype and no ammount of love for the character changes that. Once you add in a fondness for scotch and a tendancy for punch-ups and and it all becomes rather....

[Remember, we were discussing countries [and their peoples] in this thread, so take these comments in context]

All of which proves the point. It's a crap accent that everyone recognizes as Scots. So yeah, it's obvious Scott is a "Scot".

 

[Tenacity]

Either it's a federation, or an alliance.

Not quite, if a number of worlds unite into a alliance, this would be a act of federating. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

You can't get a Canadian, to do a phony Scottish accent, then declare "he is obviously Scottish!" without me mocking it I'm afraid.

That's no different than my listening to Uhura, a woman supposedly born and raised somewhere in Africa, and clearly hearing a American mid-west accent.

Regardless of the accent used, the actor is portraying a character from Scotland.

 

[Voth commando1]

Speaking of that sort of dislocation I am
Reminded of admiral Nechayev who has a clearly southern accent yet a Russian name.