No

by John_234

Created on: June 18, 2011

A friend of mine has said that, "World peace can only be obtained by world domination." Broadly, I think this is true, but the issue is a lot more complex than that. A global community would benefit from standardized currency, a vast elimination of human rights violations, increased income and quality of care, enhanced communication and mostly, an end to war. That is, if it was a benign community. History has proven to a large extent that one-party rules tend to corrupt themselves from the inside out, and even systems like the U.S. with multitudes of checks are prone to corruption on every level. That's human nature for you.

But assuming that this society was created in the best interest of people, what else would this all entail? What many people ignore is the process that is involved in making ends meet. What would happen when Japan, Korea and China no longer had cultural boundaries which make up so much of their national pride? Or if Mexico, which has caused the US many changes bad and good for jobs, suddenly became part of the US? Or even if Californians were subject to the same laws as Texans or New Yorkers?

Eskimos live in an entirely different way than surburbanite office workers. Their community, laws and structure heavily differ. It would never work if they were exactly the same... unless one culture ceased to exist. We saw the same tragic outcome when the United States settled North America. The diseases, lack of communication and understanding wiped out an entire people, leaving the only direct descendents those on reservations that were created out of pure necessity. Even with the best intents, assimilation and expansion can go terribly wrong.

We've even tried to make things as uniform as possible in many cases. Food crops are cross-bred for genetic stability then carefully monitored to prevent deviance. The same with dogs. The result? History-saavy readers might think of the Irish potato blight, where a simple mold attacked the genetically-identical staple food and caused mass immigration of many to other, varied countries like the US. And as for the dog example, we have learned that purebreeds are often succeptible to many diseases and disorders that random variation and breeding creates an immunity to. Another rather famous example of this is sickle-cell disease, which actually grants an immunity to malaria. Had everything been neat, tidy and unified, these little adaptations would have never happened.

I hate to be a cynic, but the world is divided because of necessity. I'd be inclined to believe that a truly unified community would be virtually impossible. The result of an attempt would be likely much like the US with lots of small states operating distinctly under a general umbrella government, or like the UN where various members would have their own representation. Again... this is necessity, as every locale is different and needs different laws accordingly.

Some may still believe that these differences are little things that are ultimately roadbumps in the way to perfecting how we treat our fellow people and nature. I suppose a "perfect" existence wouldn't need variation. But is that really life?

People are different. Their shapes, their beliefs, their upbringings and attitudes. Variety is what makes the Olympic Games so dazzling, or the international debates so tense to observe. And that isn't some chance deviation we've created for ourselves - nature itself is a brilliantly wide spectrum built to fly, swim, give birth, reproduce in various ways. There is a creature for every habitat and calling. Sometimes you have to take a step back from all the war and tragedy to realize that.

Learn more about this author, John_234.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.