>But what is with epidemics? How many doctors do we have as much planes, tents, what scientists? If there were such a thing as a world government, we would be better prepared.
It sounds like Gates is advocating this for resource distribution reasons. How about making disease treatment cheap and accessible to everyone around the world WITHOUT relying on a "world government"?
As governments grow older and more powerful they become corrupt, at first it is with good intentions but slowly the positions human beings hold in those governments attract people who are corrupt. Then, those people leverage their position in that government for self-gain. This is the case all over the world with every single government ever. It is a natural human condition. A world government would multiply that opportunity for corrupt people to reign exponentially, especially as time goes on.
Actually, if you were really worried about epidemics, it would be better to fragment the world further. Make travel much harder and rarer. From an existential point of view, mass air travel is a really bad idea. If a pandemic ever breaks out, it could be far too difficult to contain it in one continent, thus posing a threat to all technological civilization, and humanity itself. If continents were separated, America might have time to develop a vaccine before a disease incubated in Europe could reach it.
Back when I was in middle school I was a fan of world government. The big problem is that exit is a much better way to enforce accountability and make governments serve the people than any form of voice is. "Voice" is an illusion since bureaucracies always maintain the real power and are resistant to change. Furthermore, world government is a massive single point of failure.
Bill Gates could quite possibly be a moron. World government would only concentrate corruption in one place, out of the reach of common people like us. Such a government would be by the corporations for the corporations-- even more than Washington DC is today.
5 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 22.7 ms ] threadIt sounds like Gates is advocating this for resource distribution reasons. How about making disease treatment cheap and accessible to everyone around the world WITHOUT relying on a "world government"?
As governments grow older and more powerful they become corrupt, at first it is with good intentions but slowly the positions human beings hold in those governments attract people who are corrupt. Then, those people leverage their position in that government for self-gain. This is the case all over the world with every single government ever. It is a natural human condition. A world government would multiply that opportunity for corrupt people to reign exponentially, especially as time goes on.
yikes.
Back when I was in middle school I was a fan of world government. The big problem is that exit is a much better way to enforce accountability and make governments serve the people than any form of voice is. "Voice" is an illusion since bureaucracies always maintain the real power and are resistant to change. Furthermore, world government is a massive single point of failure.