It's a good thing as it stands today, it is not a good thing for the future of humanity IMO because just one bad actor can ruin it for everyone. I'm not sure how we get from here to ideal situation - my guess would be it cannot happen until we start populating the stars, because there will continue to be resource contention until that point.
And/or the internal drive most humans have to want/need more disappears (which seems unlikely).
Leaving aside the sheer arrogance of thinking you can say with confidence what's going to "ruin the world for everyone," it's very clear to me that any world government that could make judgements like this for everyone would be by definition a tyranny.
Governments do bad things, sometimes backed by popular opinion. You assume a world government would be concerned with global warming or humanitarian issues and would not make bad choices. Why do you assume that? What would stop a world government from committing actual genocide? If it was truly a world government, nothing could stop it.
Hannah Arendt:
> The crimes against human rights, which have become a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole in distinction to its parts. A conception of law which identifies what is right with the notion of what is good for—for the individual, or the family, or the people, or the largest number—becomes inevitable once the absolute and transcendent measurements of religion or the law of nature have lost their authority. And this predicament is by no means solved if the unit to which the "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quite conceivable, and even within the realm of practical political possibilities, that one fine day a highly organized and mechanized humanity will conclude quite democratically—namely by majority decision—that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.
I'm not sure how easily observable facts fall into the category of "sheer arrogance", also not entirely sure why you're personally attacking me. It's uncalled for and adds nothing to the discussion. Global warming is an easily observable fact, it's happening, it will ruin the world for everyone.
>Governments do bad things, sometimes backed by popular opinion. You assume a world government be concerned with global warming or humanitarian issues and would not make bad choices. Why do you assume that? What would stop a world government from committing actual genocide? If it was truly a world government, nothing could stop it.
So you missed the point entirely because you had decided I personally think I know what's best for the planet. I literally stated "I'm not sure how we get from here to ideal situation"
Ideal situation would quite obviously be a state in which there is no genocide. People are not unjustly killed, imprisoned, etc. Maybe chill with the assumptions of bad intentions.
It is not an "easily observable fact" that climate change is going to "ruin the world for everyone".
I'm sorry if my comment came off as a personal attack. People, including me, are often completely wrong while convinced that we are completely right. Sheer arrogance seems like a fair way to describe that.
* Global warming is not easily observable. Hence the debate raging about its existence. To observe it requires a complex scientific community and even then, only those close to the ground "observe" anything at all.
* I agree global warming is happening
* I 100% doubt global warming would ruin the world for even the majority of humans. Damage, destruction, strife for sure. But it's not an apocalypse.