Guys i want you to write down your reviews on this :
What is better , all countries transform in to one large nation making it so strong , or , peace between all countries flourishing trade and finance ?
@Shaurya16811
That is a VERY thoughtful and EXCELLENTLY put question!!! And, I agree with your dichotomy for the reasons you provided!
As a Christian, I would like the one large nation as it guarantees human rights and social justice.
As a Capitalist, I like different countries as I flourish in finance by investing in emerging markets at times and switching to different aspects. For example, right now I'm making tons of money in gold stocks....I expect to be shifting my focus to oil in March 2026....then Uranium mining in late 2026....I expect to pick up some real estate properties late 2026....all of this is made possible through the senseless nationalisms of opposing countries.
I guess the best case scenario is the ONE nation, but I'd like to make my multiple millions of dollars first....so, let's put that utopia off for a maybe 6 years!
Never heard of the Peace game engine, so I'll stick to Unity.
@Shaurya16811 said in #1:
> Guys i want you to write down your reviews on this :
> What is better , all countries transform in to one large nation making it so strong , or , peace between all countries flourishing trade and finance ?
under world unity - war would be replaced with crinimal organizations the size of countries. the world policeman is probably biting on more than it can chew, this model is probably pre-mature in the world today, even though ideally i believe in a united federation of planets. it does matter who you pay your taxes to, and if you trust your politicans representing you - not everywhere in the world would trust such a model from the higher ups and would prefer their independence too - predicting civil wars in this model, like the breakup of the former USSR - trying to restore a former glory that the satellite regions don't want.
under world peace - there would be winners and losers based on how the trade is gamed - eg. tariffs, which would be used in the aftermath scenario. it would likely be that the countries that are positioned to win prior to world peace would get more than their fair share of wealth - magnifying their power when the world goes to war again. the question is: how much do you trust world peace, and based on it not trusted, take the profits of such a model, funding the military efforts in the future?
the bottom line is, how you obtain each scenario matters, as well as how long it lasts too for the next phase. i'm in favor of world peace if it can be trusted. i'm in favor of world unity assuming less overall crime and civil wars to come, along with trusted leadership as some foreign leadership shouldn't run local areas. i think the united nations - a forum for peace in the world is a good idea and as disputes get settled, perhaps, there might be world unity in time as a result from it, but first there needs to be peace imo.
ofcourse peace. unity will just be a war on where the capital will be.
Unity but with a socialist system.Where every person is treated equally.Than there would be no crime organizations.All the people happy and peacefull.There would be no reason for stealing.Everthing belongs to all of us together.And we share it equally as possible.Whoever needs help,we help
#1
"one large nation" * would be best: no more wars between countries, no tariffs that would lead to flourishing trade and finance.
@Shaurya16811 said in #1:
> Guys i want you to write down your reviews on this :
> What is better , all countries transform in to one large nation making it so strong , or , peace between all countries flourishing trade and finance ?
I think if all the countries turn into one big nation, there would be less arguement and war, which leads to peace anyway. or does it....
All countries transforming into one large nation would only happen if we detected an external / extra-terrestrial threat, a bit like in Independence day. It would never happen on its own. That is why also peace between all countries is also very unlikely.
Are you practicing for Miss Universe pageant or something?
Having said that. I dont realistically see the world uniting under 1 government, not now and not in many generations for 2 main reasons.
The first one is economical. Energy, resources, food, water. They are somewhat expensive and not necessarily renewable, you really dont want to share too much or you risk shortage for yourself. You will need at least 1 nation who managed to get that for the cheap, make it as renewable as possible and willing to share the tech.
And the second one is cultural. If anything, the first one looks more likely, and it is unlikely already.
What it is more plausible is to form fewer countries, group them, say, by continent or few groups per continent, though a lot of development has to happen in many places prior to that. Some exceptions would apply, where a nation in 1 continent would rather be part in a different continent that it is.
Say for instance, if we split the American continent in 2, the ones in the central part, some might want to join the north, some might want to join the south. Who knows.
After a few centuries with that split, we may be closer to a central government.
But on the meantime, I would take world peace as a win, shame it isnt like this, though it has been worse.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.