On Thu, 25 Jul 1996 wwagar@binghamton.edu wrote:
> Just a quick response to Bruce R. McFarling's response.
> ...
Ditto [squared], since I have to head out today. But I would
like to comment on:
> ...
> Further, I do anticipate that beyond world integration will emerge
> a global community of communities, as discussed in the third book
> of my "A Short History of the Future." But I see no way to get
> there except through a transitional regime of socialist world
> government rooted in a shared world-view. If McFarling sees
> another way, excellent! Let him point it out!
If a socialist world government rooted in a shared world-view,
that is sufficiently effective at self-reproduction to establish and
maintain itself and sufficiently ineffective to be a "transitional regime"
is actually one way to get to a community of communities, that's one
situation. I am very skeptical that it is. There may be ways to build a
world government that is sufficiently effective at self-reproduction to
establish itself, but if one of the ways that it establishes itself is by
reducing the autonomy of communities -- which would seem necessary -- then
I don't see how it is leading in the direction of a community of
communities. And certainly I don't see what it is in the history of the
Enlightenment tradition that offers any hope of leading us in that
direction.
So I don't know that I see a way, full stop, and that is taking
the suggestion to head off in the opposite direction to get there into
consideration. And, on a pragmatic note, after the long history in the
Soviet Union of constantly moving toward communism but never making much
progress, the argument that we can get to a community of communities via
a single world state is going to be a bit of a hard sell.
Virtually,
Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au