THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

B.  OUR LEGAL SYSTEMS

Similar ro yesterday's paragraphs concerning government and law, improvements seem to be required concerning our various legal systems as well.  To begin with, I must repeat and stress that what I say here is not imagined as, nor an attempt to be, a prescription.  It is, rather, but a call to action, and an offer of suggestions.  Concerning the within subject, for example, although I am trained in the Law, I would leave it to scholars and jurists more knowledgeable and experienced in such matters to improve on said suggestions, and to perhaps one day create as well a logical and beneficial Constitution for the world.

I would further suggest that such an assembly examine all statutes currently in effect in all corners of the globe; and blend the best of them into a body of laws that would be likewise logical and beneficial for all of mankind--and therefore imposed equally upon everyone.

Of course, such determinations and enactments must never abridge the freedom or equality of any person or group.  All must be afforded equality under the law.  And all must enjoy freedom regarding speech, assembly, organization, religion, and travel--limited only by the necessity to prevent anyone from doing harm to the persons, property, or freedoms, of himself or others.

Freedom of speech should be extended as well to written publications, radio, television, the Internet, and all other such media as should now exist or come along in the future--subject, again, to the same limitations as regards harm to oneself or others.

Everyone should be immune from abridgments of liberty and freedom, such as any and all forms of slavery, governmental appropriation (without due need and proper compensation), unjust coercion, and objectively unreasonable censorship.  Moreover, there should be no compulsory membership in, or prohibition of participation in, any political or religious organization or ideology--unless such organization or ideology be clearly and objectively harmful to its practitioners or others.  Arbitrary searches or seizures of any sort ought never be carried on--except as necessary for the safety of persons or property (as has unfortunately become somewhat frequently necessary today, as a defense against terrorism).

And this freedom and equality must be afforded to everyone, regardless of gender, race, religious affiliation, or geographic locatoion.

                                                                   * * * * *

A universal criminal code would need to be enacted, so as to create a uniform global system of criminal justice, and worldwide maintenance of law and order.  Manpower and equipment should be available as needed on a worldwide basis in order to effectively accomplish this.

Today in many places there is a lack of those resources which are necessary to prevent criminal activity.  Drugs are often smuggled out of small, poor countries that are ill-equipped to control such traffic.  Some nation-states actually rely on said activities as a source of revenue.  The governmental entity anticipated herein would be sufficiently endowed, from a worldwide standpoint, to effectively prevent such activities at their sources.

Such a criminal code would need to be drawn up by an international panel of jurists having expertise in such branches of law as are related thereto.  Crime itself musty be viewed and dealt with as a worldwide problem, needing control and eradication on a worldwide basis.  The idea of something being forbidden and punished here, while freely practiced somewhere else, is illogical and foolish.

As described earlier, there would no longer be any need for armies or other military.  However, there would still need to be a strong quasi-military presence everywhere, having as its function the preventuion and suppression of criminal activity, the protection of all people, and the preservation of the general peace.

People arrested for crimes would always be entitled to just and proper treatment, representation by counsel, and an opportunity to prove their innocence.  Of course, the burden would always be upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.  One wonders whether the present jury system in place in many countries, including the United States, is truly the most dependable answer.  Moreover, the complex confusing system of evidentiary rules, coupled with the "chess game" scenarios that take place in the courtroom during criminal proceedings, have probably permitted many a guilty criminal to go free, and many an innocent person to go to jail--or worse, to his death.

It seems within the realm of possibility that these same or similar judicial experts as were referred to above can create a system whereby the innocence or guilt of criminal defendants can be more accurately ascertained.  And perhaps (venturing further into the future--and sounding today like science-fiction), computer programs might one day be devised which would reliably analyze all of the facts and details of a case; and constitute a safer way to determine guilt or innocence than the current, at times emotional, ritual of impressing a judge and/or jury.

In addition, upon conviction for a crime, a defendant should be sentenced appropriately.  I personally do not believe in the logic of capital punishment, mainly because it cannot be retracted following a determination that it was improperly carried out; and also because a life sentence with no possibility of parole probably constitutes a stronger deterrent than going to sleep upon receipt of a lethal injection--following ten or more years of appeals and other such wrangling.  I further believe that the present system of fines, imprisonment, house arrest, and parole, that are today used in the United States and many other parts of the world should be improved upon, so as to actually rehabilitate the criminal who desires to be rehabilitated--and to motivate the criminal to desire rehabilitation.

On the other hand, worldwide improvements in social conditions, as well as some of the other changes advocated herein, might serve to breed less contempt and hatred on the part of disadvantaged people toward law and order; and thus result in a reduction of criminal activity everywhere.

Having practiced law for quite a few years, I have furthermore come to conclude that the current system of adjudication, both civil as well as criminal, which is followed in a large portion of our world, wherein judges and juries, with their usually unintentional, inborn or acquired, moods and biases, is a throwback to medieval times is less than ideal.  I wholeheartedly believe that logic, maximum efficiency, and justice will lie in the adoption of a worldwide uniform system of mediation and arbitration.  This would accomplish, among other things:
a.  the end of an arrangement wherein matters are perceived, legislated, and dealt with in a variety of different fashions, depending upon the particular locale where it happens to occur;
b.  the end of a system wherein controversies are played out and resolved in the "chess game" atmosphere of a courtroom, ruled over by the monarch-like personage of one or more judges;
c.  the "black or white" results that frequently emanate from the pursuit of one's legal remedies;
d.  the frequent inability to air or have considered certain factors, circumstances, or evidence, that might have significant impact upon the outcome of the proceedings, due to the strictures of rules devised decades, and even centuries, ago; and
e.  the disabling requirement to strictly follow a rule of law based upon a decision reached in a case perhaps many years ago, and/or perhaps far away, whose application may no longer be timely or appropriate, but whose tenor can continue to rule over jurists who hesitate to disturb the "status quo" of "stare decisis."

                                                            * * * * * 

THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

GOVERNMENT AND LAW (cont.)

It is common knowledge that in our present day, many--perhaps most--of the most critical functions in our world are attempted to be instituted and carried out by popularly elected persons, and/or by people appointed to their posts by such popularly elected persons.  Being "popular" enough to get yourself nominated for a position, or to obtain more votes than your opponent, does not signify that you are endowed with the greatest quantity of ability to make decisions nor to undertake and direct actions of the utmost importance--decisions and actions whose consequences often go on to affect the lives and welfare of millions for many years thereafter.  Neither does making better speeches, showing up more favorably in debates, and/or being able to raise or expend greater sums of money for campaign advertisements, transform one into the most appropriate person to be entrusted with such important tasks.

Of course, we all know that manyof the highest of these offices are often filled by persons having had years of service and experience in similar, but lesser, positions.  However, this only means that, as time went by, they have had to cultivate more and more popularity among a wider portion of their fellows and the population who voted them into these higher and higher offices.  Thus, it seems, they do not necessarily thereby gain more expertise--but only more experience and success in doing what is required to survive another election, or to be nominated for, and voted or appointed into, more important positions.

If the reasder's response to this refers to the fact that, in a democracy or republic, these leaders are guided and regulated by the mandates and approvals of an executive, legislature, and/or judiciary, it should be pointed out that these executives, legislators, and many judges as well are similarly but individuals or groups of people who were "popular" enough to obtain more votes than their respective, almost-as-popular opponents did when they ran for that office.

It is also granted that in the United States, and in a number of other nations as well, some judgeships, as well as the occupancy of a number of other important posts, are filled via appointment--or nomination followed by confirmation by a body such as our Senate--rather than via election.  But again, it appears that being a friend of, or endorsed by, one or a number of popularly elected leaders, so as to be carried up the ladder of appointed office, once more does not constitute a guarantee that the nominee or appointee is among the most qualified persons to deal with the subject matter of his or her office--which subject matter, again, might affect the well-being and future of our people and our world.

                                                                        * * * * *

Naturally, it seems even more obvious that persons who rule by reason of having been born into their positions--or into families of wealth and/or political or other sorts of power--are even less likely to be so qualified.

In all due respect, it also seems unlikely that government by religious leaders, or solely pursuant to the tenets of some ancient or more recent faith, can constitute the most efficient and effective way to direct and handle the many secular affairs and concerns that are a part of our twenty first century world.

And of course, it is but common sense to know that a person or group tough or cunning enough to snatch power, via force, fear, or a gang of armed cronies, can never, and will never, govern properly, wisely, or beneficially.  Witness, for example, the numerous instances in places such as Latin America and Africa, where military coups have frequently resulted in governments at least as corrupt and inefficient as those they replaced.

                                                                       * * * * *

What is herein urged is the eventual establishment of a governing body for the world which shall be composed of the most knowledgeable and competent persons in the various fields of endeavor that constitute the functions and operations of said governing body.

There would ne3ed to be developed a logical process of determination, via objective evaluation and examination, by the objectively appropriate experts, of the tasks as well as the possible candidates for their accomplishment, in a completely reasonab le and unbiased effort to thus ascertain the most qualified for these roles.  It is likely that most, if not all, of the people thus selected for leadership--or better, guidance--would be currently quite successfully carrying out their present occupations or endeavors.  I woyuld consequently vfemnture that such persons might need to be earnestly requested to assume the particular role to which he or she seems to best (or one of the best) suited, for the sake of humanity and the world.  Of course, in addition to the prospect of becoming a hero for the sake of mankindhe or she would have to be offered an appropriate compensation for giving successful current activities and undertaking the services to be rendered--which compensation would probably need to be a good deal more than the present salaries paid to elected and appointed officials.  In a unified world, the absence of the costs of arms and armies, expended in numerous places by the numerous governments of our numerous present nations, shpould enable such more generous financial rewards to be feasible.

                                                                * * * * *

THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

GOVERNMENT AND LAW

Thomas Aquinas declared the object of government to be "the good of the people;" and he defined the law as "an ordinance of reason promulgated for the common good."  Thomas Paine tells us that all men are equal by birth; and that, consequently, the purpose of our laws and government should be to preserve our equality.  James Madison stated that the object of government was to enable all people to possess liberty, and the freedom to pursue his or her individual self-interests.

Mankind thus requires a governing entity that will focus its view and direct its efforts on a worldwide basis, solely toward the freedom, equality, security, benefit, and productivity of all people.  We require, moreover, worldwide governing principles that will be enforceable, and uniformly enforced everywhere.

The basic purposes and functions of any government--including the world government that is proposed herein--must be to provide for the security and welfare of the citizenry.  Thus, it is necessary for systems and procedures to be created and put into place that will so serve and assist all the world's people all of the time.  The wishes of all must be determined and considered--but not necessarily blindly followed.  For the world's governing body should and would be composed of experts--who would not be courting votes in a forthcoming election--but whose primary purpose must be the provision of the greatest amount of benefit that can be afforded to its constituency (i.e., mankind).

Such a governing body cannot be oppressive.  It must meed the needs of all, to the extent that is reasonably possible; and it must afford the opportunity and right for all to live in peace, and for all to pursue happy, productive, and healthy lives.

Self-interested aspirations of individuals have no place in the guidance of our world.  Neither does any form of consolidation of religious and secular power within any governing persons or entities.  Church and state are two separate sacred institutions--and they should always remain separate and sacred.  Neither should ever rival the other; nor should they ever be linked in any fashion.

As long ago as the 1830s, Henri Saint-Simon, a noted French author and political philosopher of his day, envisioned the role of government as the pursuit of a scientific approach to human affairs.  Today, this evaluation is even more appropriate and crucial.  Pursuant to this, a primary role and task of government is to conduct inventory on a worldwide basis, and to re-examine everything regularly, so as to determine the current needs and requirements of all; to determine what resources and personnel are on hand, and thus what needs to be acquired or produced in order to adequately meet all of these needs in a prompt and effective fashion.  Provision for such needs and requirements should always include adequate reserves and replacements, as well as readiness for various possible contingencies.  Such contingencies may not have yet occurred; may not be expected to take place soon, if at all; or may simply never happen.  But Mother Nature, as well as man-made conditions and circumstances, have an ironic manner of surprising everyone--sometimes cruelly, sometimes tragically.  We must therefore be as ready as we can for any reasonably possible eventuality.

The personnel and expense necessarily attached to such substantial levels of assistance and preparedness would likely be more than compensated for via the economies that would be afforded mankind by reason of the fact that there would no longer need to be numerous armies and armaments in numerous separate countries.

                                                      * * * * *

THE NEED FOR A LOGICALLY PLANNED WORLD

The world that we live in today is quite illogically composed and operated.  There are many aspects of our various governments, legal systems, and laws that require amendment and improvement.  Our currently sick and lame economies are likewise in a confused and confusing array of conditions, and are in need of worldwide rationale, coordination, and salvation.  Further, it is obvious to just about everyone that social conditions of every nature and description are a shambles in many parts of the world.  At the same time, our ecological conditions are going from bad to worse; resulting in a real danger of an eventual worldwide grave calamity of this nature in the not too distant future.  There are, moreover, many other serious needs and deficiencies, of numerous sorts, in numerous places.  All of these are usually acknowledged and sympathized with; but otherwise officially ignored, or extended mere lip service or token assistance, by the powers that currently be.

Furthermore, we see frequent emergencies and catastrophes of every nature and description occurring around the globe--sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes periodically.  They are, likewise, usually dealt with, if at all, in a slow, superficial, and often inefficient manner.

Another set of issues concern science and technology.  Many branches are galloping ahead at breakneck speed.  But they embody at the same time many instances of wasteful duplication, as well as tragic omission, due to disorganization and lack of effective control, within their various disciplines, and overall as well.

All of these matters, and many many more, must be dealt with in a more effective manner than presently, if mankind and civilization are to survive and flourish in accordance with our potential.  The alternative is a shameful waste, as well as probable eventual disaster.

                                                          * * * * *

RE THE ARTS

Art is another strictly personal matter, between the artist and his or her audience; and no one else should ever intrude.  Art is therefore another subject that should not be touched or tampered with in any way, by any governmental entity of any kind--whether to foster it, direct it, limit it, or forbid it.

An exception--whereby the governing entity might become involved in art or with artists, would be the impartial or random granting of monetary support or sponsorship to practitioners or performers in various fields of art--who would nevertheless be free to independently pursue their endeavors, without direction or restraint.  Another could be the engagement of artists by a governing entity to produce things for use by or on behalf of the public (such as a building, a painting, a statue, or a musical piece for a public ceremony).  Yet another form of permitted government involvement might be the prohibition of works or performances that were objectively revolting or obscene, or clearly harmful to any person, p;lace, or thing.

The primary rationale of the aforesaid is to stress that, other than in cases involving exceptions such as these, the arts, and the people who practice and pjursue them, should not be interfered with, nor sought to be influenced in any way. 

                                                                   * * * * *

As individual civilizations and cultures developed, often independently, so too did forms and styles of art spring up which were likewise frequently unique.  These should continue to so thrive and evolve independently as time goes on; taking influence and borrowing from one another to be sure (as they do today), but nevertheless yet retaining their own unique or distinctive characteristics.

Perhaps one day, one or more fields of art will likewise evolve into single universal forms or styles of their own.  Perhaps not.  The answer is irrelevant.  For it is not my purpose to recommend any sort of unity concerning artistic endeavors.  To paraphrase a statement I made a couple of times in the past, no one ever fought an armed battle over the colors in a painting, or the shape of a statue.  These kinds of differences in fact make life interesting--and actually promote regard and respect for one's fellow man.  For in noting the differences, the intelligent observer simultaneously grasps the many ways in which we bear resemblance to one another as well.  And this, in turn, breeds understanding and brotherhood, among cultures--and, hopefully, eventually among all of mankind, around the world.

                                                                     * * * * *


 

RE RELIGION

Religion appears to have followed the same path as has the history of mankind in general.  For example, in ancient Mesopotamia, during the third millennium before Christ, each city had its own separate deity.  Then, the process of amalgamation, similar to that which has taken place in many other aspects of man's existence, began to occur in the religious sphere.  By the second millennium B.C., an Egyptian pharaoh attempted to establish a cult to a god named Aton, a personifaction of the sun.  This has been described as an effort to found the world's first monotheistic religion.

Subsequently, Judaism arose and thrived in the Middle East.  Its offspring, Christianity, can be described as having developed into the first worldwide faith. 

Thus, in religion, we see the same phenomenon:  various elements evolving and joining together into larger, more unified, institutions.  It is, therefore, even a possibility (although not in any way espoused or encouraged by me) that one day the world will come to embrace but a single universal religion. 

Hence, it must be made perfectly clear that what I encourage and hope will one day come to pass, does not include any form of unity on a religious level.  As is the case with cultures, religious beliefs and practices are strictly personal matters, and must be treated as such.  Religious denominations or organizations should thus be in no way assisted, interfered with, or forbidden, by government actions or policy--unless, and only unless, they happen to endorse, encourage, or foster the rendering of harm to persons or property.  Thereby, although complete freedom of religion is thus advocated, there should be restrictions and prohibitions as regards--but only as regards--such ostensible religious practices as could constitute danger or harm to the practitioners or others.

Dying for one's religion may be commendable.  But most people consider dying for one's religion to consist only of circumstances that would be referred to as "martyrdom"--i.e., more or less reluctantly suffering injury and/or death, usually at the hands of others, by reason of one's religious beliefs or activities.  On the other hand, there seems to be no rational connection betwween the aforesaid, and the current practice whereby "terrorists" commit suicide, in a crowded place, so as to cause death and destruction to others, for the purpose of making a point related to their religious convictions.  Whether the practices within a religion, or that which it advocates, include the handling of poisonous snakes, or the destruction of buildings or groups of people with explosives, such practices need to be outlawed and extinguished, so that all can live in peace and security concerning their persons and possessions.  On the other hand, it is hoped and expected that the unification of the world into a single nation--wherein there will be no national boundaries or national interests, no alliances of nations, and no support by nation "A" for nation "B," to the displeasure of nation "C"--because there would thus be no nations--will resolve the causes for, and hopefully thus extinguish, the anger and frustration to which most terrorist organizations refer when justitying their actions and motives.

 For most of us, religion is based upon love--our love for God; God's love for us; and our love for each other--if for no other reason than because most faiths teach us that God commands it.  In our journeys through life, we will inevitably meet people who are seemingly wrong or mistaken when considered with regard to such personal religious concepts that we might possess.  This might motivate us to strive to correct such supposedly erroneous beliefs or conduct, via cordial and friendly means.  But it should never occasion hatred for the "mistaken" party.  For resort to anger and hatred against persons who are deemed to be in "error" concerning some religious matter seems to be something other than the exercise of one's religious belief; instread, it appears to comprise a resort to religion as an excuse or justification for this very underlying, pre-existing, anger or hatred.

In this connection, we are all awareof many cruel and destructive things that have been perpetrated in the past by man in the name of religion.  This would include the Inquisition, the Christian Crusades, and so on through the ages and across the globe, culminating in the current acts of terrorism that are being practiced in various places today.  But no one has the right to forcefully impose his religious beliefs upon others, or to take revenge against others on behalf of his God.  Furthermore, it seems that an all-wise, all-knowing, and all-powerful God (which most deities are presumed to be) would not--nay, could not--wish any man to do harm to his neighbor for His sake. 

Self-defense and the preservation of peace are the only possible exceptions that may be in God's thoughts as justification for violence against one's fellow human being.  But I am sure that He limits this "self-defense" concept to instances of grave danger from actual present or immediately likely behavior on the part of other persons that would render harm to oneself or others.  I am sure that it would not, and should not, include mere instances of suspicion of such intentions on the part of others.  Moreover, it would be even less applicable to cases wherein certain ideological beliefs held by others are merely disagreeable or intolerable with reference to one's own. 

In short, a unified world would have to offer universal religious freedom.  What would subsequently transpire or evolve, as years went on, should occur naturally, influenced solely by the freely arrived at decisions of individual persons themselves, with no interference by any governing entity.  For while logic and planning are urged for the operation and guidance of our world, religion has no place in government, and government should have no place in religion.  They are two separate spheres--two separate aspects of civilization--and only if they remain so will mankind be truly free.

                                                               * * * * *

In our contemporary world--and in the Middle East in particular--we encounter a number of governments that are comprised of, or strongly influenced by, religious leaders and concepts.  This is often accompanied by attitudes, policies, and actions that reflect displeasure and animosity--if not outright hatred--toward certain other national entities and/or factions who are thus viewed as enemies.  We are, further, told that what is ultimately sought by some of those in power in such places is a triumph over, and/or a conversion of, all of the world by or into the religious entity to which such governments or leaders are devoted.

It is, however, sad to note that the nations or factions who harbor the strongest of such feelings, as well as the most hostility toward the nations and factions that constitute the rest of our world, are those who are enduring relatively high degrees of economic difficulty and poverty, coupled with--and possibly thereby occasioning--the least quantity of personal freedom and opportunity within their respective borders.  Many of the most angry proponents of such hostility seem to view the West (and Israel) as a single separate and foreign faction, who possess too much, and grant too little to the members of the nations and factions who constitute the balance of the world--and particularly their own.

It is, on the other hand, hoped that in a single united world, opportunity would be made to exist for all--who could seek it everywhere.  It is thereby hoped and anticipated that social and economic conditions within these places--perhaps currently enclosed, isolated, and deficient within their respective borders--would quickly improve, as these places became a part of the entire broad world.  Evil and illogical as they are to begin with--"terrorist" acts would now come to be perceived as completely inappropriate as a childish and wasteful demonstration of anger, by members of a faction against those of another faction--because, now, all would belong to the same worldwide faction that is the human race.  Such evil deeds, if continued to be resorted to by a few of the most angry, and therefore least reasonable, would be dealt with by and on behalf of the entire united world, as but a crime against all of humanity.

It is consequently fervently hoped that the concepts espoused in these postings would eventually promote conditions wherein there can exist true brotherhood among all of mankind; with freedom for every individual person to pursue the religious faith, ideals, and practices of his or her personal choice and conviction--without impediment by any person, group, governmental entity, or force.

                                                           * * * * *

RE CULTURES

As we know, people in numerous parts of our world have developed, over the years, a variety of cultures; and, frequently, within many of these, a quantity of what might be called sub-cultures.  Much of this can be traced back to the isolation within which groups of humans lived, during years gone by.  They often arose out of geographic, topographic, climate-related, or other natural circumstances facing a people over centuries.  At the same time, they constituted a means of explaining and/or coping with such circumstances.  Sometimes the prevalent or exclusive religion in a place became the basis for traditional beliefs, practices, avoidances, prohibitions, and taboos.

Cultures are often unique and quaint.  They characterize the people who possess and exhibit them--sometimes to such an extent that the people and the cultural traits become synonymous with one another in the eyes of many beholders.  As modern civilization spreads farther and wider over the globe, it usually does so while adapting to the prevalent underlying cultures and traditions of the peoples and places it touches.  And, at the same time, these pre-existing cultures themselves adapt to the forces of modern civilization that continue to arrive at their doorsteps.

As groups of people naturally joined together over the many years of mankind's history, cultures and traditions have usually likewise combined, forming mixtures consisting of elements of all or most of the components thereof.  The results have usually been interesting blends, whose ingredients have frequently become individually indistinguishable over time.  There is also the probability that many of these elements from different cultures have actually combined together to produce end results that are somewhat different from, and perhaps superior to, the sums of their parts.

A fact that is coming to be more and more recognized is that people are fundamentally alike to a much greater extent than they are different.  In addition, this process of each of us becoming more and more like our fellow humans is increasing, probably geometrically, as the years go by.  This is why historian J. M. Roberts affirms, in his History of the World,  that "men in different countries are much more alike than their ancestors of, say, the tenth century, and show it in hundreds of ways...[and this is] still going on." 

Differences do continue to exist.  But they seem to be exhibited mainly in superficialities, such as costume, haircuts, and other such irrelevant externals.  In addition, some kinds of differences--regarding things such as music, cuisines, and celebrations of holidays--ought to be valued, cherished, and preserved; for they are interesting, often beautifrul, and usually do no harm whatsoever to anyone.  Moreover, to my knowledge, and as I've said in a previous post, no one ever went to war over a disagreement concerning the tempo of a waltz, the recipe for a sauce, or the decoration of a home.

True, there have been "holdouts"--groups who have stubbornly clung to their ancient original customs.  But these are usually regarded with curiosity, good-natured amusement, and occasional pity, by the rest of the world; who generally perceive such insistence upon adherence to ancient ways as a rejection by such groups of one or more of the advantages offered by the rest of the contemporary world.

Were the world to formally unify, and to become governed (or better, guided) by a single universal entity, it is likely that customs and traditions that had existed beforehand, within what had been certain countries (now locales), would continue to so exist.  The mixture and blending referred to above would probably eventually take place, in a voluntary and likely unintentional fashion, as the people in question should happen to themselves determine.

This sort of amalgamation is referred to by some as "healthy absorption."  A very insightful rabbinic scholar named Tzvi Marx is quoted by Thomas Friedman, in his The Lexus and the Olive Tree as having described "healthy absorption" to be what occurs when a society takes something in from the outside, adopts it as its own, refits it into its own frame of reference, and eventually forgets that it ever came from the outside.  This, says Friedman, "is how species and cultures advance."

On the other hand, there is a possibility that some of  our unique cultural characteristics will begin to blur and eventually be lost as years go by.  It seems, in fact, that this would likely happen (and has likely happened) with time, whether or not the universal world government spoken of by me should come to fruition.

It should not be the purpose or function of world unity to in any way interfere with, defile, or much less obliterate, any existing national, regional, or local customs or traditions.  Nor should any culture, or the elements of any culture, be extended to, or imposed upon, any persons or places.

In addition, the question remains as to whether the "blending" heretofore referred to could have a deleterious effect upon the individual persons who would be affected thereby.  Would the citizens of the unified world that is anticipated herein have been thus rendered into featureless bland ciphers, without personality and without passion?  I think not.

Such forebodings are found in science-fiction novels and fantasy movies.  I would wager, however, that such concerns are not well-founded.  For I have faith that man's inbuilt personality and unceasing desire for novelty, adventure, and improvement will always result in very interested and interesting human beings--who will perhaps be enabled to accomplish even more, once freed, via world unity, from the concerns, fears, and distractions with which they are burdened to0day.

                                                          * * * * *