One world, no borders?

More on immigration and culture - Part Two of a three part series:

I think it is inevitable that the human species will only improve its lot - and life on this planet - if it gives up some of its diversity, divisiveness, nationalism and religious/regional/tribal sentiments to get along, prosper and survive - to create a
longer-term, sustainable "globalism."

Otherwise, simply put, all hell will break loose, a la an environmental and political Armageddon - the "cliff" our churning horses of the apocalypse are galloping toward.

But being a rather hopeful yet cynical one worlder, I would want the most humane, altruistic and cooperative cultures to lead the way and assume leadership powers. Thus, I would rather put my stock in the EU model and multilateral cooperation, as opposed to imperial unilateralism and gated countries. So, with all of its growing pains, the United Nations is a beacon of hope for the future of quality living for BILLIONS on this planet. We owe it to the downtrodden and dispossessed to strengthen the UN and spread the political might and enforcement of its good will.

We need something pretty damned idealistic - to band together as one species and promote human rights and progressive, rational, secular education. It is (old saw for me) competing faiths and fears that make such a mess of things.



As for my position, yes, I think we are eventually headed toward more ("more" I say, not the ideal, nothing pollyanna here, I say) of the "One Worlder" situation/ideal. But in the meantime, we do need what we might call "sustainable" border controls. We can't openly admit a flood of immigrants, begotten legally or illegally. We can't comfortably or reliably afford or absorb even the flood we have now. Our jobs and land of opportunity are not infinite and are in many ways meeting some of their functional limits now. Sure, some of these immigrants are hard workers and valuable residents, and potentially valuable citizens, but we need to be careful with the various stressors on our culture, including cheap labor and a burgeoning population; there are many cultural and related economic/infrastructural impacts involved.

The Sierra Club has been arguing this for several years. How do we protect the environment if we in any way encourage or even ALLOW the population of the United States to climb precipitously beyond 300-350 million? More?? Yikes! (The US population was, I believe, about 160 million when I was born in 1957, no so long ago, really.)

And how does the planet protect the environment with SIX billion people? Apparently, it can't - not well enough. We struggle mightily, and still despair and destruction run rampant. So let's focus on fixing this thing.

So I am for controlling the rate, yes - and I would like to say that, I do agree with Governor Lamm and some of his contentious claims in "How to Destroy America" - too much diversity and division too fast harms a culture, any culture. The rate is key. So I am against making permanent or more widespread the insitution of billingual education. I am, indeed for more "One Worlder" policies such as making one language the official language of the world, just as Latin is the accepted universal language for scientific notations. And I am for the eventual introduction of a world currency as well. I think that is already happening with the trading of gold and US dollars, Yen and other rather stable and valuable currencies - and of course with the introduction of the Euro. When we agree to share the most basic tools of life - language and money/a monetary system/links - I think we will make some great strides in truly cooperative and truly planetary progress.

This is, to some extent, the sappy "Star Trek" model of the future - in which we deal with all sorts of diversity far and wide, but most everybody we meet can speak at least some of the same language and have at least a rough awareness of commonly held views of morals, mores and values - how to make things good, more equal, "and with justice for ALL."