What happens to other countries on Earth?

[Voth commando1]

What are the odds that the resulting world government would be built on a "western" model, employing western standards?

Pretty low.

In which case you have autocracy because democracy is a western concept.

 

[Tenacity]

A world government formed today would concentrate power with a relatively small number of unaccountable people, it would be authoritarian and corrupt. China and south-east Asia would each have fantastically powerful voting blocks.

If formed in the 22nd century, given which population groups are growing (and which aren't) the world government might be guided by sharia law.

 

[Voth commando1]

Which is exactly why right now in RL world government is a bad idea.

 

[Tenacity]

^ And in the future.

With hundreds of governments, if some are bad the entire Human population doesn't live under a bad governments, and the surrounding good governments can push for the bad governments to change.

If there is only one government and it (hypothedically) is a bad government, the whole species is screwed. There would be no rescue from other Human governments, because there won't be any.

 

[Tallguy]

^ And in the future.

With hundreds of governments, if some are bad the entire Human population doesn't live under a bad governments, and the surrounding good governments can push for the bad governments to change.

If there is only one government and it (hypothedically) is a bad government, the whole species is screwed. There would be no rescue from other Human governments, because there won't be any.

Well, in the case of Star Trek you can go off world.

I gather it always perplexed Mr. Roddenberry that anyone would want to leave the Federation. For any reason.

 

[Ithekro]

Some of the above is why it has been suggested that the majority of the damage and deaths on the Eugenics Wars and World War III were in Asia. Specifically China, India, and the Middle East. These are areas we really don't see much of in Star Trek and we see far fewer representatives of their nationalities in the far future, suggesting that either they don't like to travel in space (nor join Star Fleet) or large swaths of their populations were killed in the large nuclear war and the resulting aftermath that continued until the late 21st century or even the beginning of the 22nd century, depending on when a more United Earth regained some control over wherever it was Q depicted to Picard at their first encounter (just prior to reaching Farpoint Station).

 

[TheGoodStuff]

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.

Then they are not progressive. Many, many people have accents and skin-tones that do not betray their place of birth/nationality. Someone isn't any less French because they have an English accent. It's a big world, with many people, who have different parents and who move around. To even argue that a Frenchman with an English accent is somehow 'bad' is just ignorant.

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.

Endocannibalism is actually quite dangerous and can lead to disease, for example Kuru. Thus my assertion that cannibalism can be argued against. However, if it was practiced safely there would be no reason to ban or forbid it as long as all parties were compliant.

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.

That, and much of what you are posting, is not workable in the real world. In many countries, racism/sexism/bigotry etc are all illegal and punishable by law because they can demonstrably be shown to be harmful to others and thus to society itself. This is why children are taught tolerance etc. This is basic.

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."

They are both racist views. If you are deliberately excluding someone based on their skin colour, it is racist [and illogcial]. Violence isn't the difference maker as you portray it to be, people can be harmed in other ways. Such as being excluded from a community because of their skin tone. That is a racist mindset.

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.

Again you are betraying the basic problems with your own argument. This isn't a high-school philosophy class: most nations right now have clear laws for all of the scenarios which you have described, there isn't anything special about whay you are saying. There are also undertones of a theistic argument to this section which isn't relevant.

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.

Again, you miss the point. We know of quantum mechanics, black holes & 'the cosmos' [as you put it] through scientific endeavour, method and curiosity and not a feeble acceptance of 'god x did it'. Our scientific knowledge as a species implies we have fundamental aspects of knowledge upon which further enquiry is based. You can't get Socratic about science in this regard: physics as a science requires the acceptance of 'known' facts. You are also mixing theism with science here: religion is not conducive to scientific progress and never has been.

 

[Tenacity]

Well, in the case of Star Trek you can go off world.

You shouldn't have to leave your homeworld.

I gather it always perplexed Mr. Roddenberry that anyone would want to leave the Federation. For any reason.

Independence, to have your own unique culture.

Don't agree with the Prime Directive.
Don't agree with the Federation's "mission statement."
Opposed to all the wars the Federation keeps getting into.
Don't like the series of seemingly obvious mistakes by Starfleet the resulted in the Dominion War.
The no money thing.
The horrible fashions.
The Vulcans.

because democracy is a western concept.

The word "democracy" is a Greek invention. Democracy isn't a western concept.

 

[Voth commando1]

The very foundation of western civilization is Greece.

 

[Voth commando1]

Speaking of leaving the federation someone should write a myriad universe novel with the maquis colonies uniting under President Eddington.

 

[Nyotarules]

Speaking of leaving the federation someone should write a myriad universe novel with the maquis colonies uniting under President Eddington.

Sadly, the Dominion would still slaughter them

 

[Nyotarules]

Then they are not progressive. Many, many people have accents and skin-tones that do not betray their place of birth/nationality. Someone isn't any less French because they have an English accent. It's a big world, with many people, who have different parents and who move around. To even argue that a Frenchman with an English accent is somehow 'bad' is just ignorant.
However, if it was practiced safely there would be no reason to ban or forbid it as long as all parties were compliant.

There is a difference between 'in the 24th century the occasional French person may sound English' and 'due to X reason the French accent disappeared and was replaced with a Yorkshire accent' to explain the real life reason why an English actor plays a Frenchman in a tv show set in a fictional future.

 

[Tallguy]

The very foundation of western civilization is Greece.

This.

 

[Nyotarules]

Some of the above is why it has been suggested that the majority of the damage and deaths on the Eugenics Wars and World War III were in Asia. Specifically China, India, and the Middle East. These are areas we really don't see much of in Star Trek and we see far fewer representatives of their nationalities in the far future, suggesting that either they don't like to travel in space (nor join Star Fleet) or large swaths of their populations were killed in the large nuclear war and the resulting aftermath that continued until the late 21st century or even the beginning of the 22nd century, depending on when a more United Earth regained some control over wherever it was Q depicted to Picard at their first encounter (just prior to reaching Farpoint Station).

We hardly see much of what the other billions of humans look like or how they live on Earth. One starship with 1000 crew or 430 crew is not a representation of what is going on elsewhere. For all we know the other starships and colonies are full of humans with ancestry from China, India, Middle East and even Africa.
Consider it does not take many years for the human race to grow a billion people. In my own life time, its grown from over 3 billion to 7 billion.
The real life reason is Hollywood is American - Caucasiancentric, most TV shows cast is Caucasian, other ethnic groups hardly exist. Although things are getting better.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

There is a difference between 'in the 24th century the occasional French person may sound English' and 'due to X reason the French accent disappeared and was replaced with a Yorkshire accent' to explain the real life reason why an English actor plays a Frenchman in a tv show set in a fictional future.

Nonsense. We don't exactly see a tonne of Frenchmen in Trek do we? There is nothing to suggest that all Frenchmen sound like they are from Yorkshire or anywhere else. We see Picard, he has an English accent and he is French. It is simple and perfectly within reason. People [and TV show characters] dpn't have to fit a national stereotype/template to be able to originate from a country.

 

[Tenacity]

the majority of the damage and deaths on the Eugenics Wars and World War III were in Asia. Specifically China, India, and the Middle East

I endorse this interpretation. It would allow the war to kill six hundred million people in the most densely population part of the planet, while at the same time leave the majority of the Earth relatively undamaged and capable of helping rebuild the war ravaged portions of the Earth.

Sadly, the Dominion would still slaughter them

No, in the President Eddington universe, the Federation isn't governed by a group of idiots and the mouth of the wormhole is mined, or controlled by a large force field, or some other method of "border control."

The Dominion never once has free passage.

 

[Voth commando1]

Or heck maybe the Tal Shiar Obsidian Order Op succeeds however it results in the pyrrhic destruction of the obsidian order the Tal Shiar come back through the wormhole battered and bleeding, the maquis insurgency picks up steam, Eddington defects to the Maquis and quickly becomes a leader, unites the colonies, drives the Cardassians from the DMZ and crushes a federation strike force sent to bring him to heel. The Maquis declare independence and the federation starts banging its head against the wall. With humanity disunited for the first time in over 250 years other powers-romulans, Klingons, Tzenkethi, make overtures to the new Maquis state and the power balance in the alpha/beta quadrant is utterly changed.

Sound like a good summary idea?

 

[Nyotarules]

^ Sure, except you mean with the Federation disunited. Humans might be disunited, the rest of the Federation does not have to be.

 

[Voth commando1]

I imagine in the new Maquis state there will be more than just humans, you'll have Vulcans, Bajorans, Betazoids, Bolians, perhaps some Andorians.

Basically a secessionist state that emerges from bad federation policy.

The federation would be torn in how to respond do we let them go out of respect for self determination but like Eddington says no one leaves the federation that just doesn't happen, with Starfleet Command looking right into the eye of a secessionist state it might decide to either renvelop the territory, perhaps even by conquest.

I imagine the romulans, breen, Tzenkethi, and other powers will seek to develop relations with the new state as a counterweight to the federation.

Maybe the cardassians will have decide as well after getting a good thrashing do they align with the federation to smash Maquis State or seek to develop relations with the new state against the federation.

Certain Maquis intrigue as well-you have expansionist like Eddington who might like to conquer more Cardassian territory and give the Cardassians a good whupping and perhaps through force/persuasion/coercion get nearby federation world join as well, pit him against say Cal Hudson who wants to hunker down defend what they have and look inward.

Might even tie it into Voyager-once contact as been reestablished Janeway faces the choice of either informing her crew of the changed politics, or suppressing said news to you know prevent the Maquis from jumping ship or mutinying-either choice could lead to the same outcome.

It would I think be a good myriad universe novel or series of novels.

 

[Sci]

No. The monarch is the Commander in Chief of all military. If there is no monarch then there is no 'Royal Navy' it becomes the British Navy just as the real life, present day army is the British Army (I have no idea why it is not called the Royal Army).

I may be mistaken, but it is my understanding that it is called the British Army rather than the Royal Army because it can only be raised and maintained with Parliament's consent, whereas the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy may be raised and maintained on the Monarch's own authority.