Bemused:

robbkvasnak: We must find a way to preserve our Earth - together.

Who here is up to the challenge?
Purchase only 100% recyclable goods in 100% recyclable packaging, which has been transported using only renewable energy, and actually recycle rather than throwing away.
Use only renewable sources of energy.
At the same time contribute towards education and employment for all people on the planet so that everyone has the desire and means to do likewise.

It would not be very difficult: we have the technology to get most of the way here. The "100% recyclable" is a bit of an advertising thing anyway, as everything could potentially be recycled. IMHO it will have more to do with a ban of disposable consumer "goods" that serve no function.

We could have everyone in the world today at a 1960s US level of wealth/standard of living and not break our planet, but if we tried to come close to US/western level of affluence for everyone we would need many Earths. I believe only a world government could force us selfish 1st-world people to share.

kaŝperanto:It would not be very difficult: we have the technology to get most of the way here. The "100% recyclable" is a bit of an advertising thing anyway, as everything could potentially be recycled. IMHO it will have more to do with a ban of disposable consumer "goods" that serve no function.

We could have everyone in the world today at a 1960s US level of wealth/standard of living and not break our planet, but if we tried to come close to US/western level of affluence for everyone we would need many Earths. I believe only a world government could force us selfish 1st-world people to share.

Of course! It's always easy to be generous with other people's wealth, just ask President Obama!

Oh, I forgot; I don't participate in political discussions. Heh, heh.

I voted YES. | Mi vocxdonis JES.

Nephihaha:such a government would lead to too much power concentrated in too few hands (and I think the situation is bad enough already). I also favour localism in politics.

Do you also favour the "localism" as presented at the south border of USA or west border of Russia? | Cxu vi ankaux favoras na la "lokalismo" kiu presentigxas cxe la suda landlimo de USA / Usono aux la okcidenta landlimo de Ruslando?

> Given human nature, it is better to have power dispersed and not too concentrated

Very true. But splitting the world into many fascistic states (AKA nacionalism & separatism) doesn't help at all. | Tre prave. Sed disfendado de la mondo en multajn fasxismajn sxtatojn (AKK naciismo & separatismo) entute ne helpas.

> > > Is global government a necessary part of supporting Esperanto?
> > really?
> Of course not! Who the hell would think that!

Me | Mi

> ?Dankon por viajn respondojn?

" Dankon por viaj respondoj. " aux " Dankon pro viaj respondoj. "

(ne metu akuzativon)

> Supporting a global government is not a part of Esperanto at all

Refusing to cooperate. This is the chief reason why both Esperanto and global government will remain failed ideas for very long time or forever. Unfortunately.

Rifuzado de kunlaboro. Tio estas la cxefa kauxzo kial ambaux Esperanto kaj mondregistaro restos fiaskintaj ideoj por tre longa tempo aux por cxiam. Bedauxrinde.

petropensilvanio:To quote Albert Einstein,"There is no solution for civilization or even the human race, other than the creation of world government." I'm not sure I agree with Albert Einstein.
...

Yeah, a lot of mathematicians of that time were in favor of a one-world government. John F. Nash (the movie "A Beautiful Mind" was about him) almost forfeited his US citizenship once while in Europe based on the idea of being a citizen of the world, but his wife talked him out of it. I can't remember if that was before or after his schizophrenia set in.

I like the idea of nations having some accountability to each other for their actions because at this point in history, everything is connected to everything else. It is going to be hard for us as a planet to figure out how to balance between respecting cultures and being considerate of other nations' living standards or environmental aspects. For example, I am thinking about the toxic fog that drifts from Beijing to South Korea every morning as well as the Japanese culture of eating dolphin (Documentary: "The Bay" I think is the English name).

It happened before on an individual basis (or maybe it's still happening) where we figured out where one's person's rights end and the other begins. My right to kill you and take your chickens is preceded by your right to live. So maybe we will figure it out on a cultural level, but only if we share our cultures with each other in mutual respect and openness. So, perhaps Esperantists are not necessarily for one world government, but if we end up with a one world government, it will be the esperantists (and other similar internationally-minded people) who will be able to help that government turn out in the selfless way that it ought.

One of my American colleagues believes the Rockefeller and Rothschild families have been controlling history since WWII. According to him, they already have all the global political power.

On a more humorous note, a hiking buddy of mine thinks that the best way to reform politicians to be selfless is to set up a government that has just one person in charge with strict term-limits. Then, after the term is served, all of the politician's assets go to the state. Additionally, the politician and his whole family will be terminated. Like, killed. My friend then said to me, "if you think no one would be willing to die for their country, what about all of the soldiers? If the soldiers are willing to die for their country, then the politicians who send them should be willing as well."

In my opinion, a world government will not extinguish national cultures and languages. What causes this is the mass culture imposed by one country and by one ethnic language. There is a dutch translation into Esperanto, by the finnish Tj. Postma (Internacia Esperanto-Institute), called "La Tutmonda Ĉefestraro - Vojo al Mondpaco" (there is not the original title in dutch), of the engineer MW Polak, - possibly written between 1939 and 1944, 1947 edition with commentaries from dutch newspapers. The author presents theories about the World Constitutuion and at the end he submits his project with 25 paragraphs.

patrik:I do not like the idea of it. I do not and will not support any step that will lead to it.

To this, there is an exception: I favor the establishment of an International Court of Human Rights.

ĉevino:

robbkvasnak:We have one planet to share. The people on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) did not grasp this and they destroyed their environment. We must find a way to preserve our Earth - together.

You said it: TOGETHER... (the American must realize and admit they're not alone on this planet, which is not theirs...)

Uff! Ĉevino, there is no one single "American" - this seems to be a pathological mental disorder that you have. There are over 315 million US-Americans and just under 1 billion "Americans" (i.e. residents in the Americas).
I live in an American country and probably the one that you (somewhat erroneously) refer to as "America", i.e. the United States of America. I, too, am discouraged by a majority of the people who are my neighbors and those who live within the borders of the country I live in - not all of them are citizens and so it is hard to classify them with one word - I have 35 students who fall into this category.
If we are to have a civilized conversation, one that really leads to solutions and answers, name-calling and sweeping generalizations lead nowhere - worse, they result in faulty conclusions, demagogy, hate and prejudice.
If we are to survive on our little blue planet, then we need clear-headed conversations - especially among Esperantists who by definition have a basic concept of the problem of human communication on a larger-than-national basis.
Yes, there are people in the world - like the Koch brothers but also the Mexican Mr. Slim - who think that because they have amassed monetary wealth that they speak for the world. Yes, the supreme court in the USA gave broad, unprecedented power to the rich in our country to influence politics with their ill-gained or inherited money - to the detriment of those living in this country AND ABROAD. But if we try to put everyone in the same category as these selfish, super rich egoists, we divide to our own disadvantage in the argument for sanity.
Please try to remain within civil discourse and stop ranting.

Very well said.

robbkvasnak:

ĉevino:

robbkvasnak:We have one planet to share. The people on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) did not grasp this and they destroyed their environment. We must find a way to preserve our Earth - together.

You said it: TOGETHER... (the American must realize and admit they're not alone on this planet, which is not theirs...)

...

Well said indeed. I, for one, do not appreciate being chastised for using the term "American" to mean "US citizen", while it is apparently perfectly acceptable for other North/Central/South Americans to use it in that way.

Also, we may get involved in many unnecessary affairs of the rest of the world, but it seems from the first two world wars that the policy of Isolationism doesn't exactly work well.

Christa627:

kaŝperanto:It would not be very difficult: we have the technology to get most of the way here. The "100% recyclable" is a bit of an advertising thing anyway, as everything could potentially be recycled. IMHO it will have more to do with a ban of disposable consumer "goods" that serve no function.

We could have everyone in the world today at a 1960s US level of wealth/standard of living and not break our planet, but if we tried to come close to US/western level of affluence for everyone we would need many Earths. I believe only a world government could force us selfish 1st-world people to share.

Of course! It's always easy to be generous with other people's wealth, just ask President Obama!

Oh, I forgot; I don't participate in political discussions. Heh, heh.

It's also quite easy to live well off of the hard work of others. It takes me such a small amount of effort to earn more in a week than most people make in a year; am I really worth that much more than another human being? Or am I just lucky?

What I was implying is a bit more involved than simple redistribution of wealth, which I am very much against (on a lot of ideas I'm actually quite conservative, but my alignments are admittedly all over the place). A lot of our wealth comes from the financial system and has little to do with how hard working we are, and our middle class (and even lower class) people are still very wealthy compared to the majority of human beings on this planet. There is a large difference between the wealth gap in the 1st world and that between the 1st world and everyone else.