A World Changed For The Better

This paper contains my views on the state of the world. It includes my observations on key socio-economic problems and suggestions as to how to resolve them. My ideas for global improvement can be distilled into one fundamental theory:

The human world will improve exponentially if human effort is diverted away from destructive, meaningless and unproductive activities towards objectives that are globally beneficial.

I term this the Theory of Global Improvement.

As much as I would hope for it, I do not expect to see any of the changes I describe below implemented in my lifetime or the lifetime of my children. I am thinking a thousand years into the future, imagining a better world. I do not think such a forward-looking vision is impractical, however. I think these ideas are relevant today, even if they take centuries to actually implement. Whether these objectives will result in a better world for our children or whether that better world will not materialize until the time of our distant descendants, working towards them is still worthwhile. It is impractical to expect major changes in a short period of time, particularly peaceful change—which is the only kind of change I advocate. Setting our goals beyond our lifetimes is not totally selfless. It has our descendants in mind. Creating goals with completion dates in the distant future has one distinct advantage: it is not likely to offend the current powers that be.

Of all the objectives that I describe below, the most urgent is the necessity to curb global warming, stop destruction of our irreplaceable natural resources and eliminate widespread pollution of our environment.

The world needs a voice of reason to set a guideline for its future. I would like to be that voice. With that said, I am not looking for a job. No matter how sincerely I would like to help the world, I do not believe there is any current government or political position or entity that has the mandate to effect change on a level that would result in the type of extraordinary improvement I advocate, however ripe the world may be for change.

Here are the reasons my words count:
I am unbiased and only deducing the conclusions I come to because they appear to be logical and appropriate.
I am not politically or religiously aligned.
I am unprejudiced against any religion, race of people, walk of life or system of beliefs.
I am motivated by a sincere wish to foster human happiness and preserve Earth’s natural treasures.
Having traveled to every nation on earth, I can truly say that I speak as a citizen of the world.
The fundamental problem is organization, the solution is a One-World Government
I maintain that the answers to our fundamental problems can be deduced readily from the Theory of Global Improvement. This theory begs two questions:

1. How can we divert energy away from unproductive activities to productive ones?
2. How can we agree on what is “globally beneficial?”

It appears that the fundamental problem is one of organization. Currently, the world is disorganized and thus mismanaged. Politically, we are divided into two hundred some-odd nations, each with their own agenda. How can this situation be conducive to acting in concert with each other? What is to prevent individual nations from acting in their own best interests, even to the detriment of other nations? The political heads of state are obligated to act in the best interests of their own nation.

The logical conclusion is that if we are to divert energy from unproductive to productive activities on the scale I describe, we must function under one-world government. Whether I say so or not, a one-world government is rather inevitable. One needs only to look at history to see the trend from smaller to larger, more controlling, states. Unless there is a central governing body, we are doomed to our current status quo of many warring states.

There are potentially good and bad things to a central world government. It terms of organization, there are enormous potential benefits. The key problem to consider is the need to safeguard diversity.

In order to ensure that people from different walks of life are not forced into homogeneous behavior and are free to practice divergent beliefs, a central world government must have Protection of Diversity as an immutable precept. This is a tricky area because each culture so passionately believes its own tenets are correct. Even in my lifetime, I have seen what I consider a disturbing homogenization of global beliefs, promoted by nations that are commercially dominant.
The fundamental precept of a One-World Government is the protection of divergent beliefs
We have inherited a plethora of conventions regarding sex, marriage, upbringing of children, clothing, varying degrees of acceptable nudity, forms of exchange, ways to communicate, personal adornment/mutilation, punishment, conflict, compensation, etc., etc. The world over, all sorts of variations of these conventions have been experimented with, all meeting with greater or lesser degrees of ‘success.’ But one thing is sure. Diametrically opposite conventions have maintained societies in good stead. In other words, no single way of living is inherently ‘right.’

As a traveler, I believe that diversity is what makes the world interesting. As an illustration, I consider travelers who went to Bali thirty years ago luckier than those who went there twenty years ago. I consider those that went there twenty years ago luckier than those that went there ten years ago, and so on. The reason is that “in the old days,” Bali was more natural and the original customs were more prevalent. Thus, it was “more interesting.” With the advent of modern air travel, increased production of goods, television and other forms of electronic media, the “world is smaller.” As time goes on, the human world becomes more “homogenized.”

My concern is that if we have one world government, there will be a tendency for divergent belief systems to fall into disfavor or be criminalized. Therefore, I see it is necessary to limit the powers of a world government. I would propose that a one-world government (OWG) not have jurisdiction over the following areas:

Family Life
Upbringing of Children
Forms of Exchange

*There should be a world law that guarantees the right to cultural diversity. In other words, a world government should guarantee the existence of states where certain activities were allowable, notwithstanding the fact that these same activities might be outlawed elsewhere. An example of this is that in some states in the USA, gambling is legal and in others it is not. An OWG would not meet out punishment; however, it would guarantee sanctuaries for cultural diversity.

I want to allow for people who choose to practice divergent behavior to have a place on earth where they can live without fear of repression.
Steering away from destructive, meaningless and unproductive activities
Those activities that consume tremendous amounts of human resources and yet are destructive, meaningless or unproductive from a global perspective are:
Militarism and the Manufacture of Weapons—the maintenance of armed services to protect national boundaries and sovereignty
Prisons—the judicial system by which millions of people are kept in a captivity where they are not productive inside a system that has poor records of reform
Money—the handling and accounting of it
Activities leading to the:
a. Widespread pollution of:
i) Waterways
ii) Seas, and
iii) Skies
b. Destruction or excessive use of natural resources, namely
i) Logging of ancient rain forests
ii) Destruction of habitat for primary species of animals (e.g., lions, rhinoceros, gorillas)
iii) Over-fishing
No need for militarism or weapons
The immediate fallout of having one world government is that there will no longer be a need for militarism or the weapons that support it. The main need for militarism is to protect sovereign boundaries. If there are no nations, but instead “one unified world,” the need for protection of sovereign boundaries disappears. There are two immediate benefits to ending militarism:
Resources can be diverted to better purposes,
The world becomes a more secure place.

The amount of resources devoted to militarism is staggering, comprising an expenditure of a significant percentage of all human energy globally. Certainly, we can expect that the transition to a non-military world will be a slow one. After all, there are simply too many people who make their living in industries tied to militarism. In the past the war machine was a necessity! Now it is only an albatross around our global neck and threatens to be our doom. We must change our habits. A one-world government’s responsibility would be to redirect human energy away from the military and into activities that would be beneficial globally.

Elimination of prisons as we know them
Certainly, everyone would hope for a world in which it would be possible to eliminate crime and therefore the need to incarcerate people. Yet, it is difficult for any of us to imagine how we could practically eliminate prisons. We only have prisons because we do not know of a better way to:
Protect society against criminals, and,
Create a deterrent to crime (without the threat of incarceration).

In fact, prison is a terrible thing. It is:
Rarely results in complete reform
Cripples inmates emotionally and psychologically
Breaks up families
Is costly to the taxpayers

The fact that prison systems have poor records of reform is troubling. Furthermore, prison populations are soaring in some places, particularly in some of the most “advanced” countries. Why is this so?

I am suggesting that energies equal to those currently expended to maintain our prison systems be appropriated to understanding the deeper mechanisms of criminality and reform. The goals would be:
1. To align laws with human nature,
2. To eliminate laws that are unfair,
3. To modify our institutions so that they are in alignment with natural law.

Note: There is a fundamental difference between “victimless crimes,” violent crimes and “economic crimes.” What is criminal behavior in one place is legal behavior in another. In some sense, within the context of a one-world government, this dichotomy would have its appropriate place, in that people could choose to live in the place where laws were more compatible with their lifestyles.
Obsolescence of Money
Money serves certain functions:
1. It motivates people to work
2. It prevents consumption by non-contributors
3. Through appropriation, be it in a business or government, it directs the flow of resources to what is calculated to be the most efficient areas.

I envision a world where these three functions are satisfied without the necessity for money. To achieve this transformation, we need to conduct research into other systems of reward and motivation until we discover better ones. Literally billions of hours of human energy are consumed each year to account for “where we are.” This includes the physical handling of money (putting it into and taking it out of wallets, handing it over to vendors, counting it out, bringing it to banks, counting it again, waiting in line to pay at toll booths), printing, mailing and receiving bank and credit card statements, running stock markets, collecting taxes, appropriating government spending, and countless other activities. This is time wasted, as there is no intrinsic benefit derived from the movement of money. This time would be better spent propagating happiness.

If it is hard to comprehend a world without money, simply envision how goods and services are handled on a family level. Traditionally, family meals are prepared and distributed for “free.” People simply play their roles without the need to be paid. The three functions listed at the beginning of this section are determined within a family largely by tradition, without the need for money.

Note: Look at the trend of societies as they progress. There is a drifting away from actual money handling. For example, instead of cash, credit cards; instead of carrying a payroll check to the bank, an employer deposits it electronically. The concept of credit has replaced tangible cash. Credit is a “softer” form of money. Along these lines, I expect that newer and more efficient ways of accounting for human reward and consumption will evolve.

Eliminate activities leading to widespread pollution and destruction of natural resources
As I stated in the introduction, the world cannot wait a thousand years to curb environmental atrocities. Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is occurring as a direct result of our industrial activities, there nevertheless seems to be a debate on whether it is fact or fiction. Global warming may be the greatest single threat to our physical world. But even setting aside this issue for the moment, isn’t it clear that it simply does not make sense to pollute our world? Isn’t the prudent course of action to adopt good practices with respect to the environment?

Our widespread pollution can be attributed to overpopulation and the burgeoning demands of our survival. Widespread pollution and destruction continue unchecked because:
Change is happening more quickly than controls,
There is no single governing institution in our world.

Our natural world is our greatest asset. It is a treasure that is not quantifiable in terms of money, for the simple reason that it is irreplaceable. Let us preserve it.

We need a consensus to curb our environmental transgressions.
Programs for the Future

One world government
Government-appropriated research into the following areas:
a. Clean energy
b. Sociology
3. Establishing World Parks
One World Government
As stated earlier, I think a One-World Government will inevitably come into being. We have evolved from tribal constituencies to multinational global constituencies. In the past we simply did not have the luxury of a global government. We did not have the luxury of planning our lives to the extent that we do now.

At the heart of a properly functioning future world would be significant appropriation of resources by government to bolster education and to foster research that would focus on improving the quality of life of the citizenry. I maintain that such research would yield more appropriate ways of organizing and governing and offer the specific steps we seek for global improvement of the human condition.
Clean Energy
One of the keys to a prosperous future for our planet will be having clean energy. A promising idea is that of nuclear fusion. In brief, fusion is purported to supply energy without as many of the drawbacks as the current fission-based nuclear power reactors. Solar cells and windmills are other candidates for clean energy. But the point here is not which type of clean energy we will turn to. The point is that we need to find cleaner, more abundant energy, whatever it might be. If we divert the human resources currently used for military activities into research, there is a good chance we can improve the cleanliness and abundance of our energy supplies. Clean energy is the cornerstone of our future Global Village.
Social Research
Political leaders try to please their constituents by pointing to increases in economic indicators, such as the GNP, as proof that things are well. These indicators simply point out that more and more products are being produced. They do not address whether these products are intrinsically adding to human welfare or happiness. Government should allocate significant resources for research into human happiness. In order to have “responsible government” we must know not only what people want. We must also understand their dreams. If we harness the intellectual power available among our finest thinkers and devote ourselves to this question (i.e., happiness), I believe elegant solutions to societal problems will follow.

I recommend that the world rethink from scratch how it looks at basic economic, governmental, interpersonal and environmental conventions. It is desirable to then modify our institutions so that they are in keeping with the newly formed and more acceptable ideas. This could result in a revision of our laws to better align them with mankind’s original nature.
World Parks
I advocate designating a vast area on each continent as a World Park. These parks would be designated as soon as possible, but they would not begin to operate for a period of somewhere between fifty and two hundred years. The reason for this is so that human technological activity could be removed over a long period of time; in this way, descendants of current inhabitants would have the option of leaving. The areas listed below provide examples of locations and dimensions of the World Park system.

1. Africa—An area approximately 1000 miles in diameter centered approximately near the town of Bumba, Congo (Zaire) (including Bayanga, Central African Republic, the Ituri Forest, and the Ruwenzori mountain range in Uganda)
2. Asia—An area approximately 1000 miles in diameter centered approximately near Margai Caka Lake in Tibet (including Lhasa and Mount Everest)
3. Antarctica—The entire continent of Antarctica
4. Australia—An area approximately 800 miles in diameter centered approximately near Top Springs, Northern Territory, Australia (including Arnhem Land)
5. Europe—An area approximately 500 miles in diameter centered approximately near Cesky Krumlov, Czech Republic
6. North America—An area approximately 800 miles in diameter centered approximately near Yellowstone Lake, Wyoming, USA
7. South America—An area approximately 800 miles in diameter centered approximately near Marcelino, Amazonas, Brazil
8. Pacific Ocean/Asia—An area consisting of the island of New Guinea, southeast to the island of San Cristobal, Soloman Islands, northeast to the island of New Ireland, Papua New Guinea, northwest to the island of Ternate, Indonesia, west to the island of Buru, Indonesia, and southwest to the island of Wetar, Indonesia.

The following rules would apply in the World Parks:
No internal combustion engines would be allowed in the Parks.
No air traffic would be allowed overhead.
People could live in these Parks provided that they abided by the rules. This means in essence that they would have to live in a natural way off of the land.
No metal weapons would be allowed in the Parks.

Practices outside these areas that would affect these areas ecologically would be banned. The international community would support the Parks through the One-World Government.

These areas would remain pristine in order that future generations could always enjoy the heritage of the original natural world.
Our world is a direct product of what we make it. Whether it is clean or polluted, whether we are rich or poor, whether we are happy or sad, whether wild animals become extinct or thrive, whether there is an abundance of ancestral rain forests or none left at all, whether polar ice caps remain or whether they melt into rising seas, all of these things—it is apparent with the dawn of technology—is influenced by our global behavior.
Our main problem is one of organization. As we rise from primeval history into a truly progressive, unified, modern society, we can use new communication tools and redirection of negative socio-economic habits into positive behaviors to effect a better world.