Why should there be a global divide in everything?
338941
Because humans naturally divide themselves from other humans.
809293
I guess that because of the world becoming a global community, every country is concerned about it's image.\nIf the States had to launch a "Scorched Earth" policy as you mention, then this would make them extremely unpopular with the global community (and here I'm talking specifically about the overly liberal world leaders who would criticise the States).\n\nIn the Middle Ages, nations would unmercifully attack each other and the rest of the world would not even know about it. This is in complete opposite to today's world where news and views travel like lightning.\nIf the world had to take a negative view of any country, it could make things extremely difficult for them (even a country as great as the States would suffer from sanctions).\n\nWhat the world needs to understand though, is that sometimes it is necessary to completely obliterate the enemy - before they do the same to you. In actual fact, this would decrease the number of deaths in the long run.\n\nImagine if a US soldier was killed. Now imagine if the US, to avenge that soldier's death, they blow up an entire town. Then if a local person found out that there were more plans to kill US soldiers, then that person would be much more likely to inform the US authorities if they knew what the consequences would be if they did not.
1058169
World peace is such a beautiful idea, isn't it? I would really love for everyone to be able to get along. However, realistically speaking, that just isn't how things are. Wars have existed since the beginning of times, and I'm sure will continue throughout the end of times. The reason being is because there are more greedy, selfish, hateful SOBs out in the world than there are loving people. Everyone always wants to be right, and many will to go whatever lengths to try to prove it. \nIt's a sad and cruel world.
222423
Intolerance needs to go.  It's the source of almost every world problem.
663627
From space you cannot see arbitrary divisions into states, countries.  You cannot see buildings, roads or any of man's other so-called "accomplishments."  I have heard that the only thing on the planet visible from space is The Great Barrier Reef in Australia.  That seems perfectly fitting to me!!\n\nI think I would pay more attention to the qualities we share with other occupants of our Earth and ignore cultural and political divisions.  It would give me a sense of unity of all people, no matter what country we come from, no matter our culture, creed, or customs.  And I would feel that it would be worth any sacrifice to preserve such a beautiful thing as the Earth is!  And it is a magnificent sight from space according to the pictures!!
1063972
Many schools have already begun offering coursework that deals with global issues, as well as study abroad and foreign exchange programs centered on a particular field or major.  Additionally, most large universities have students from all over the world.  So, diversity is reasonably well covered.  What's missing is the global community aspect.  Cooperative projects between students at US and foreign schools would go far to help students see the value and difficulties of living in a "Global Community."
2551
If you are suggesting that the world simply be one giant nation, I think it's a nice idea--but one that would never work.\n\nThe world is an unbelievably complex place--and that's when no one on it is trying to destroy anyone.  Since that seems never to happen, it only complicates it further.  I think the best that we can hope for is that those nations who can have enough good sense to elect leaders who can truly think globally and fully appreciate the problems and needs of people far away.
1089062
I don't think there ought to be a global civil society. One of those things involves a similar philosophy--ie, everyone has to believe the same. I can't help but shudder when I think of the dictatorial regime a world order would undoubtedly lead to.
626512
High birth rates are a global problem.  It would be better if everyone limited themselves to one or two children.  That kind of global thinking won't happen, though, until education is valued by governments and all people are made aware of the world overpopulation crisis.
294128
With today's technology and demographic implosion,  the world has become a smaller place. We have a clash with other civilizations not understanding different cultures. Each culture differs in customs, traditions, behavior, religion and language. The idea that the Western culture wants to impose a Universal State in the world is impossible and not even war can make it happen. We are headed towards major destruction, not total, but something very drastic.
987906
Answering this question in short order is not easy. I suggest you do some research on what I'm about to say.  Debt is one aspect of GLOBAL ECONOMY.  The way our global economy is currently structured, it would not function without debt.  If it wasn't a key component, then why wouldn't every country demand that every country that owes them money pay up immediately or disolve their current government? You're not going to get a complete answer to your question on this forum. You are going to have to do some reading if you really want to understand the global economy.
276319
In an ideal world, there is a chance what you suggest might work. But humans being what they are, it will never work. Throughout history, there have been civil wars and revolutions. Humans like to distinguish themselves from others. The us versus them is a very strong sense. If there is no other country to call “them” we’ll pick other attributes such as where the others live or the color of their skin.\nLook at Africa, anyone with ½ brain can see that Africa can easily become a major world power if they got a modicum of unity. Not the entire continent needs to become 1 country. As long as they form a union similar to the EU, they will be able to go mush farther. What that would mean is that the small rulers in the many African countries would have to give up the power they have gained, in many cases by force, to a higher form of government. You will see far more cases like what happened in Ethiopia and Eritrea before you see East and West Germany type stories.\nI love your idea in the way that 1 global government would focus on global matters instead of local ones. But unfortunately, I can not see it happening.\nMuslims unite Government and religion into their government. The developed countries separate the 2. Will you force separation of church and state on Muslims or would you tell America they have been wrong by separating religion and government.\nI think a good step towards a united world is education. Starting from America, people should be encouraged to learn about and from other people in the world. Maybe in a few generations, people will come to see the world as what it is, the only planet that we are likely to live on for a long time.
545950
It has the potential to fix a lot of problems. Maybe we can stop worrying about fighting that battle and work on healing the continent/country(at that point). It would help to better the world as a whole and allow many new points of view and plans to better the world come to fruition.
1059763
I don't think it is advisable nor feasible that one leader over the entire world would be a good idea. While perhaps someone to regulate the sovereign countries may seem smart in all essence you have to remember the human factor. Once you give someone that much power it becomes harder and harder to regulate them and keep corruption out of the top ranking offices. Capitalism started out helping America, but has quickly turned fascist, because the human factor was left out of the equation. A single person in charge of the world I fear would be inviting trouble. While I wouldn't even recommend a committee to be in charge of the entire world it makes more sense than one person.
871605
I think that depending on the issue; the divisions can be relatively shallow, if the issue is rather mundane.(zoning debates, civil suits)  In a really serious issue,(like declaring war or even declaring peace, something that strikes people in the cores of their being), The division would probably be better described as polarized, with no middle ground. Now, if we were attacked from outside, there would be a joining of spirits and all of a sudden we would all be on the same side, willing to share a foxhole with someone from a radically different background, drink muddy water, and die by the thousands together, if necessary. Just my thoughts on this.
375677
Yes. In many ways it began with the advent of the euro. It is inevitable that the lines that divide nation states will blur as the centuries pass. Many, most, world economies today depend on other nations for economic support and trade, one of the first steps in global unification must be the integration and enforcement of a single world currency.\n\nThere will, and can, never be an end to currency. For as long as humans have existed there has been some kind of exchange for goods or services offered. Whether the bone necklaces and tools traded (used as currency) by our prehistoric ancestors or present day credit card transactions there is a need for some form of currency to obtain something in which one cannot make, whether through lack of skill or resources, for themselves. As long as humanity exists some form of currency must exist.
1065921
Because if you listen to the experts they are still arguing as to the cause.  Most do acknowledge the problems of today, but there are vast disagreements as to the extent it has on this planet VS cyclic weather patterns.  And why should only the rich nations be involved?  This goes across all borders......It doesn't always have to be monetary to fix a problem.