Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: Well, I think that we'll always have to have local governments who are closer to the people be able to create laws to legislate the problems that local governments and peoples face together. There are global challenges that we have faced that caused the creation of the League of Nations and now the United Nations. The question becomes has a governmental, a worldwide governmental organization been effective in being able to address these global challenges and issues. We've had 60 years of the United Nations to be able to work through these global issues and the question becomes has it been effective? It's very difficult to have an international organization alone that is not fully supported, that is not properly funded be effective. So we need to look at that as well. We also have the creation of regional organizations like the African Union, and we also have the European Union, so these are regional organizations that seek to address issues within their regions but also have a view towards their role on the international stage. So I think there is a concurrence of action as well as views, the local, the regional, as well as the international, that all act together. But I think there is an understanding that no one international organization can handle all of the global issues and that regional as well as local governments are also important to all work together to be able to address these issues that are local, national, and international.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Avi Primor: At one point in the future we will probably have a global government, and I believe that a global government will be necessary and efficient. But we are far from ready for this. Mainly, because we are all very much different from each other. We are not compareable. If we consider ourselves to be thinking in a european way, or in an american way, then we believe that we all share the same values and criteria and thus might possibly have a common or global government in the future. But this is not possible yet, we are not ready for this as well. We have to consider how long it takes to build the European Union. And the EU consists of states sharing a common history, a common culture, common experiences and a common knowledge from the Second World War, just having a lot in common. And even so the EU does not have a uniform government yet. The tradition is still stronger, the cultures, the languages. And if you now try to compare Europe and the Middle East, or Southamerica, or Southeast Asia, or Africa, there are huge differences. Sometimes those differences are as deep as an abyss. Well, a global government, very far from it indeed. But even if it will be possible to build a global government some time in the future, there will be huge differences within this government. Because in the EU there is a principle that can be made even more efficient on the highest level, which needs to be built on a federal system. And what will be more effective on a national level should stay on a national level or even on a regional level. It is important that every region should be capable to look after its own problems. So, even if there will be a global government, there will be increasingly autonomous power as well. But should we try to force a global government into existence now against nature or prematurely, we will not succeed. Because there still is the phenomenon of civil war, and even in a common national setting there is still the possibility of war breaking out. Thus, if there was a global government, there might be so-called civil wars between ... ?

by Avi Primor

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: So what are the national and regional issues that now affect us all? And if we take in context of climate and take climate change, to come up with a global government to solve this problem or to come up with a global government to solve our health care, or solve our lack of food? It’s too general; a global government to come up with a solution that would fix everything is too general. Our world is still diverse and so organic that these regional -- what would be better is if we have regional local governments that were working with a global government. And these are already in place, and really, there's just not to communication, there's not the information, the cooperation. There’s a competition not a cooperation between these entities. But we need to have more of cooperation between the local and the regional, the national, and the global governments of the world. We can’t have the national government trump the global government. We can’t have national government trump the local. We have, everything needs to be in balance, and more balance. And that, these issues are so big, but yet they start locally, as there common term use a lot in our country which is, “Think globally, act locally,” and you can act locally and yet today, our global environment, because of technology and different ways of communication and transportation, we live more in the global stage. But still, is our local environment is the people we sit next to, but then we have affects upon. So, we need to act in that localized way, but then can ripple out into an affect globally. Small solutions to big problems, lots of them, lots and lots. We need a bio-diversity of small solutions to address these diverse problems at a global scale.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: Many years ago, it was in a meeting. And the former minister of Ecuador stand up and share with us a very interesting concept. He was saying at that time, that only the astronauts, the people that get to space, they have a different perspective of planet earth. They can see the earth as a ecosphere, where there is no geographic - no political boundaries. They see it as a unity. There is no limits. There is no boundaries. They see continents, and continents in the middle of oceans, they see it as a ecosphere. So that perspective really I think is what we need in terms of [for] national governments to have a broader perspective to see that they're not alone. That they're part of a system. The part of a system where they're linked to others. So, we need to develop a communal sense of responsibility for our planet, before it's too late. Will take years to really get to this concept of a global government, so we need to make concrete steps in the way that national governments or regional issues can really see - be seen or taken into account or analyze into a broader context.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: The scale of the human presence on this planet is now so large that we’re running up against limits. We having a substantial impact on the climate, in many regions we’re running out of water. It’s not to say we can’t innovate. I think we can innovate, we can solve some of these problems. If we could find the will we can ameliorate the species loss that’s so unprecedentedly large right now. We’re no longer in a situation where if a resource is being abused or overused such as the atmosphere any one country can make it better. We all are a part of the problem and we all have to be part of the solution. So we need international cooperation, planetary cooperation to solve these issues. Can we wait for a global government? We can’t. There’s not going to be a global government any time soon. But we need trans-national organizations, trans-national scientific organizations, trans-national peace organizations, all different kinds of organizations through which we can put pressure on the various governments their instruments of power to take action. And it can happen at all different levels. Recently the State of California passed a climate change initiative leading the United States in reducing CO2. It’s good that this happened in the U.S. It had to happen at a state level, obviously the economically largest state. But that’s a sub-national. We need action at all levels. Wherever we can take action to address these issues because they’re not going to be solved simply at the national level anymore.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: In Europe we already have global government in the Brussels. Is it solving our regional or national problems? I don’t believe so. Maybe it is not global enough, but important question is, is it possible to solve problematic in big forms? As long as small regions, areas even whole nations can’t deal with there own problem every solution coming from outside will look more or less like an intervention. Events in Iraq are example of such a maximal regulation of some self declared global government.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: So, let’s see. I think my short answer for this is yes, it will; probably whether we like it or not. Now, the key question is what form this government’s going to take? It could probably take some form and most likely will take some form of federalism, but we definitely need it in order to stop species’ extinction which I think is happening at an alarming rate. We also need global governments to really protect collective human rights and the common good. We’ve got to safeguard the climate. We’ve got to settle international disputes much better than we are. Armed intervention is always as the last resort. So, we don’t need anymore weapons of mass destruction by any nation. So, I think some form of global government is the answer. Like all things, we have to give up some of our sovereignty in order to be under a greater sovereignty, which is the human good and for all humans to live together. So, that’s my short answer on that.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Catherine David: The idea that a global government will one day orchestrate all of our local problems and miseries is a big fantasie, a phantasm. As you have a look at structures like the UN, which does not really work in the right way you are not really willing to accept a global government. And as you have a look at the circumstances of our all day life it will show you that a local view of things still predominates so that the citizens and their problems have to adminstrated by local governments. So the big phantasm of a global government is not really contemporary.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: I think it is important for every region and every country or district and so on, to solve their own things, their own problem, but with help from governments. Because these very regions knows their problems, knows the people, knows the mentality, knows why this happened and so on. But if you bring in a foreign force, everything might be a bit misunderstood and then new blood, new hatred and new killings. For example, like in Congo, where so many people are involved in one country and now instead of solving, they solve nothing, but they shed more blood. They confuse the people. They confuse the leaders of that country, and now no trust from anybody of this country. The individual peoples look, when they hear of America coming, they might think, “Oh, he's coming to kill us” because all these groups carries the same guns. All these groups are not sending diplomats or mediators, but they're only sending armies and armies and commanders. And the individual people will only look, not at the face or not maybe at why this man is here, but they will only look at the gun, and the gun, and the gun. And at the end they will probably give up. I think it's very important that German gives advice to Congo, but not try to say I solve all of the Congo problem or the Ugandan problem. Because these regions also need to learn to be responsible. These regions need to learn to solve their own problems, not always to depend on foreign force. Not always to depend on other presidents. I mean they are also leaders. It's like a child when you’re 18 your father and mother leaves, you go on and make your own decision. I think we should be the best on such little things to try and understand the whole concept.

by China Keitetsi

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Cornel West: It’s certainly the case that we need global institutions, we need multinational organizations, and, yes, we need something like the UN as a forum that brings national spokeswomen and men together. Now, these global institutions do not constitute a global government, but they certainly constitute a forum that goes beyond nation states. I am suspicious of any global government because of its concentration of power that would make it difficult to render it accountable. Yet, at the same time, there has to be some countervailing multinational voices and forces against multinational corporations often prone to profit and at their worst, greed. There must be some multinational forms to deal with violent conflict, not simply between nation states but between groups and civic society and so on, so that the need for some global coordination and global coagulation is indispensable; but I do not believe that it leads us to call for global government per se.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: In my point of view, in my perspective of indigenous peoples, we don't need to create a global government to solve local and regional issues. In fact, we already have the United Nations and we have cases where UN has effectively intervened in the solving of regional and national problems. So, we don't need to create another global government. The problem is, some world powers ignore the very existence of the United Nations saying, “We are not subscribed do it.” And that's the problem. Once some members of the UN, United Nations will say, “We are not subscribed to it,” then the functions of the United Nations will definitely be lessened and the bad thing that would happen is another world power could follow and say, “We aren't subscribed to it.” And therefore, there is no need to create the global government. But, rather to respect, recognize the legality of the existence of United Nations as an international body who can give intervention to any local or regional problems which they themselves cannot solve. And so, I am saying that it's really very important to have an international body that would intervene in cases regional and national leaders can’t solve their own problem and needs international intervention.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: Hello, Michelle. I’m very skeptical to global government concept, to any kind of executive body that represents such a wide community of regions and countries because the power of the individual to affect the policies of this executive body diminishes because they are so far away from the voter. For me, the contact between me as a voter and this global government, which has executive powers, will execute decisions. The distance increases in that case, but the problem of issues that once were considered national, regional, but affect a wider, have global effect now, and affect us all no matter where we live should be addressed by global movements, global agreements, and global contracts where citizens feel more participant. So, every kind of institutionalization of any global decision-making body makes the citizen less participant. That’s what I feel. And I think the participation of the citizen is crucial into these matters because finally, still, for these decisions to get implemented, it’s the individual that has to take action. And if I don’t feel participant in that decision, I don’t want to take action either. No matter how good or bad that is, I want to feel that I am affecting it.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: This global government, I think that this kind of government would act in an insensitive way towards local matters. It will be very difficult to arrive at that point. I put the things the other way round, I stated that micro-governments, local communitarian auto-governments should be supported since it is where their lifes are concentrated, their visions, their cosmovisions, it should be those small governments that need our support. But nonetheless, this big government, this global government will come one day. This person, Ronald Reagan, even if he has really good intentions about democracy, about liberty; sometimes I listen to his discourses and if I didn't know what he really does, I would think that he has the correct attitudes. The problem is how he shows his concepts of oppressed people. What he does concerning people, concerning people of the Third World, for example. So, what's good for him has not to be necessarily good for people, for other people, people of the so-called Third World, for indigenous people, for persons who live in the favelas, for example. For those who don't have land, it's a big movement these days in Brazil. So again, what's good for one is not good for others. It is not good for this total global government. It would be good to listen to every people, every community should know about its reality, about its self-administration.

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Yes. I mean, obviously, we are living in a global world, a global economy. Environmental issues, environmental things that issue from one country clearly affect what happens in other countries. I think a single global government is a Utopian ideal that’s tremendously difficult to achieve. I am not so sure that it should be achieved. But, clearly, we need some sort of federalism where the autonomies of individual nations or individual bioregions are respected with some sort of international consensus about issues that are of global importance. How this is about, how this would take place is very difficult to imagine at the present moment with so many divisive forces and with some of the most powerful nations, particularly, the United States saying -- where the current administration says quite openly, “Well, we don’t believe in international treaties”. As the American expression goes, my way or the highway. So, we need some sort of global federalism to deal with these kind of particularly international environmental issues and issues of disarmament, but hard to see that this is -- this will be achieved without some sort of major international disaster, propelling people into some kind of consensus.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: It’s certainly the case that there are now many issues that are global issues and that we have a great need for stronger international law and stronger ways of enforcing international law. And this should be very much on everyone’s mind. How do we do that? I don’t believe that we will ever have a centralized global government. When I was younger that was very much in the air and we tried to figure out how to do it and of course the United Nations was set up as a kind of a rudimentary global governments body that was dedicated to a peaceful world. It hasn’t accomplished that peaceful world. And what I see happening now because we have an internet is that there’s a great deal of peer to peer conversation going on around the world, teachers talking to teachers, judges talking to judges, politicians to politicians in other countries, weaving a kind of network. At the same time national governments are making fewer decision because a lot of decision making takes place in multinational corporations, in NGOs and other international organizations. So what I see as a biologist studying the evolution of living systems is the development of a kind of networked governance of the kind perhaps you see in the human body or in a rainforest. In a rainforest there is no one species in charge, being the government, nor is there in your body. Your nervous system is actually a highly effective information gathering system that works to allocate resources where they are needed. If you cut your toe there’s no complaint on the part of other parts of the body that aid is sent there to get it on it’s feet. Not the kind of aid that makes it dependent, but the kind of aid that makes it healthy. So my question is can we develop a kind of global governance, a way of organizing ourselves for economic equity that is done through a distributed network as in a healthy ecosystem? What it will look like is hard to say but I think the best models we could follow are those of highly evolved biological systems whether they are ecosystems or an individual human body made of 100 trillion cells working in harmony with each other, each one of them as complex as a large human city.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 1:40:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: Yes, we certainly should not and does not take a global government to solve our problems. This is not a question of creating a government; this is a question of creating a cooperative system of self governance, where we are governed ourselves not having ourselves being governed from above. If our ties are global, then we also need some way of regulating these ties on a global level. Certain levels of regulation called for the global, certain kinds of regulations, for example, vis-à-vis the environment. The environment is global. This doesn’t help to regulate our attitude toward it or impact on it locally or even nationally. Security is the same thing, it is a global issue. So, we need global governance, but not a hierarchical and enforcing a repressive government on the global level.

by Ervin Laszlo