The Revolutionary War

[fish2plus2]

In my highschool AP American History class, it seemed as though the American Revolution was more about the American Aristocracy attempting to gain more power, and follow some greek ideals. Which new freedoms were gained by seperating from King George? If I remember correctly, 1/3 of the population was against the war, 1/3 were for the war, and 1/3 were indifferent. If America still remained a British possession, how would it have changed the world today?

[1st and 15]

[ QUOTE ]
If America still remained a British possession, how would it have changed the world today?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting thinking point. IMO I have always thought that at some point human civilization will eventually consolidate into one single nation-state type entity for the whole world (think along the lines of the Federation in Heinlin's Starship Troopers). I think the benefits of this could potentially be boundless as the powers that be could base their decisions on what is good for humanity as a whole, rather than the often counter-productive and harmful way current governments make decisions to their own "benefit". I think that if we had never seceded from the British empire we would be a lot closer to reaching this end now in 2006 then we are currently.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the benefits of this could potentially be boundless as the powers that be could base their decisions on what is good for humanity as a whole, rather than the often counter-productive and harmful way current governments make decisions to their own "benefit"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you currently believe that poeple who go into politics end up doing what they think is best for their constituents or what is most likley to get them reelcted?

[fish2plus2]

i stronly disagree with there ever being "one ruler" unless it is in the form of a dicatorship. history has taught us that each group of people want to be the rulers over their own land. i agree that there would be advantages to this, but it is all idealism, and goes against human nature.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
i stronly disagree with there ever being "one ruler" unless it is in the form of a dicatorship. history has taught us that each group of people want to be the rulers over their own land. i agree that there would be advantages to this, but it is all idealism, and goes against human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this mean we shouldn't expect further consolidation in euroopean government or that even the current level will fall apart or .. ?

I think it depends more on conditioning what who we believe belong in 'our people'. Not Athenians but Greeks, not germans but europeans, not texans but americans

luckyme

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the benefits of this could potentially be boundless as the powers that be could base their decisions on what is good for humanity as a whole, rather than the often counter-productive and harmful way current governments make decisions to their own "benefit"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you currently believe that poeple who go into politics end up doing what they think is best for their constituents or what is most likley to get them reelcted?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT


Moreover, people don't *want* what is "best for the whole world" when it is at odds with what is best for them individually. This is why we form coalitions in the first place (to protect our interests). A scenario where the world is one force working in harmony is artificial, as it is contradictory to human nature.

[BigBuffet]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this mean we shouldn't expect further consolidation in euroopean government or that even the current level will fall apart or...?

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be more regional 'unions' coming. When this is complete, it will essentially be a one world government controlled by the people who control the BIS, IMF and various central banks.

[ QUOTE ]
I think it depends more on conditioning who we believe belong in 'our people'. Not Athenians but Greeks, not germans but europeans, not texans but americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence the diversity training and PC thought control over the past few decades...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the benefits of this could potentially be boundless as the powers that be could base their decisions on what is good for humanity as a whole, rather than the often counter-productive and harmful way current governments make decisions to their own "benefit"

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you currently believe that poeple who go into politics end up doing what they think is best for their constituents or what is most likley to get them reelcted?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT


Moreover, people don't *want* what is "best for the whole world" when it is at odds with what is best for them individually. This is why we form coalitions in the first place (to protect our interests). A scenario where the world is one force working in harmony is artificial, as it is contradictory to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]
And yet if there were suddenly 100 other planets with 100 other species of sentient beings, you would quickly be able to imagine a unified Earth nation-state or coalition, right?

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet if there were suddenly 100 other planets with 100 other species of sentient beings, you would quickly be able to imagine a unified Earth nation-state or coalition, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But there aren't. If there were, our individual interests would change to reflect that reality and "the whole word" would now encompass the interests of these other species. What's your point?

Regardless, the scenario you propose is artificial. In the instance where hundreds of different planets with hundreds of different species could interact with each other (or even where 2 planets could do so), one planet/species would be significantly more advanced than the next. To think we would discover life on another planet, and would compete with that planet on relatively even terms, is simplistic and naive. If you don't quite get what I'm saying, imagine the difference between the strength of the British empire from 300 years ago and the United States military today. If those two forces collided, there would not be much negotiating or struggling; the result would be clear, and one side would simply get what it wants without much struggle, internal or external. That's the same planet 300 years later. A negligible difference when your spectrum encompasses all of existence, but still such a clear change. If multiple instances of intelligent life exist, you have to figure we are all eons apart from each other. If there is other intelligent life out there, the reality of the situation is such that whichever side discovers the other first will almost certainly be the stronger species, and it is pretty clear to me that it wouldn't even be remotely close. The idea that two worlds would be close enough in mental capacity and technology that they could have somewhat of a legitimate struggle is certainly imaginable, but the odds are drastically against it. The idea that the nations on earth will one day rally up against invaders from another planet, and finally come together as one unit, is therefore fanciful. Not because it's not possible there is other life out there, but because even if we do ever encounter it, there is ~0 chance they would be our peers and encourage an internal collective effort.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And yet if there were suddenly 100 other planets with 100 other species of sentient beings, you would quickly be able to imagine a unified Earth nation-state or coalition, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But there aren't. If there were, our individual interests would change to reflect that reality and "the whole word" would now encompass the interests of these other species. What's your point?

Regardless, the scenario you propose is artificial. In the instance where hundreds of different planets with hundreds of different species could interact with each other (or even where 2 planets could do so), one planet/species would be significantly more advanced than the next. To think we would discover life on another planet, and would compete with that planet on relatively even terms, is simplistic and naive. If you don't quite get what I'm saying, imagine the difference between the strength of the British empire from 300 years ago and the United States military today. If those two forces collided, there would not be much negotiating or struggling; the result would be clear, and one side would simply get what it wants without much struggle, internal or external. That's the same planet 300 years later. A negligible difference when your spectrum encompasses all of existence, but still such a clear change. If multiple instances of intelligent life exist, you have to figure we are all eons apart from each other. If there is other intelligent life out there, the reality of the situation is such that whichever side discovers the other first will almost certainly be the stronger species, and it is pretty clear to me that it wouldn't even be remotely close. The idea that two worlds would be close enough in mental capacity and technology that they could have somewhat of a legitimate struggle is certainly imaginable, but the odds are drastically against it. The idea that the nations on earth will one day rally up against invaders from another planet, and finally come together as one unit, is therefore fanciful. Not because it's not possible there is other life out there, but because even if we do ever encounter it, there is ~0 chance they would be our peers and encourage an internal collective effort.

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is exactly what you conceded. There is nothing 'inherent to human nature' that would prevent this. A previous poster had it right, all that it would take would be a conditioning to begin to consider the entire human race as part of your in-group.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is exactly what you conceded. There is nothing 'inherent to human nature' that would prevent this. A previous poster had it right, all that it would take would be a conditioning to begin to consider the entire human race as part of your in-group.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to re-word. It is prevented by something "inherent to human nature, barring the existence of another, currently unknown, species which threatens human existence, and which human capacity has a reasonable though not effortless chance to withstand, and barring the existence of another stimulus that, one way or another, could condition the human instinct to behave similarly."

[/pointless semantical detour]


My point is that it is silly to assume humanity will ever magically enter a state of harmonal bliss without some sort of catalyst driving us to see it as necessary. With no threat to our survival, we don't need to work as one collective unit to maximize our happiness (at least, our instincts don't see it that way). If you enter into the equation a threat to our survival, guess what (!), that changes things. Whatever point you're trying to make really isn't contradictory to this in the least.

[ALawPoker]

To address the question at hand, my point is basically that all large empires will crumble. Human beings have the reasoning capacity to see that coalitions often protect their best interests as well as the emotional capacity to see inherent value in them. Humans also have an instinct of autonomy that will somewhat keep these coalitions in check.

If England had won the war and their empire continued to reign, it would be inevitable that various factions within the empire would, for one reason or another, see it to their best interests to separate themselves from it. Maybe the geographical area that is the United States would be a little different, it'd probably have a different name and certainly have a different history, but the world (on a grand scale) would be very much the same, IMO.

[vhawk01]

No, your 'detour' is completely wrong. That may be a sufficient cause of the world banding together in some sort of global community but it is definitely not a necessary one. There is no such thing inherent to human nature.

And your second point seems a little obvious. People won't band together until or unless they think its a good thing. Of course not. You think they'd do it on a dare?

I was only objecting to the flippant remark that you made that it would go against human nature for there to be one, global confederacy. I think thats an absurd assertion.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I was only objecting to the flippant remark that you made that it would go against human nature for there to be one, global confederacy. I think thats an absurd assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never meant to imply that there *couldn't* be such a thing. Just that there *wouldn't* be such a thing without a catalyst that explains it. Yes, a threat to humanity from another species would be an appropriate catalyst. The OP asked how the world would be different if America had not broken away from England. Last time I checked, no other species has threatened our existence in that timespan, thus I don't see how "one global confederacy" is a possible result. Sorry for keeping my response within the context of the question. Hopefully this can be the end of this pointless detour.