Is a global social order and conscience possible?

[razz]

Over the centuries, different countries have tried to impose some order over society for a variety of reasons.
Even before Roman times, there were leaders in countries that took the world out of the chaos or war to some stability.
In the Western World, when Roman rule collapsed, the Catholic Church took over; when it suffered rebellion and loss of control, the Spanish, Portuguese took turns and then British Empire was leading after which came the US.

One can examine the South American history as it is now being understood or examine the history of the Orient and see the same scenario - order imposed, society benefits from the order, then collapse and chaos until a new order arises.

I have taken liberties with the exact transitions but with a good reason. Did any of the societies that collapsed understand what they were going through at the time or is it simply hindsight 20/20?
Can any country realistically be expected to maintain global order, provide the conscience or act as a policeman long-term?
Is it different this time?

[Lainey]

I think Jared Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" discusses this best. So many factors at play: geography, environment, cultural traits of the population, mineral and other resources, etc. determine who rises and who falls. Whether those who lived through the end of their own country's dominance really understood what was happening as it was going on is never sure, but my bet is that, like today, some certainly did but that most average citizens really didn't want to dwell on that and would rather kick back and relax and discuss other things.

Some now say that the likely global order scenario is that there will be geographical "spheres of influence." So that, for example, China will dominate the Asian sphere, U.S. will dominate our own and Western Europe's. This makes the most sense to me as it's increasingly clear the Americans do not want the responsibility of being world policeman - question is, will they accept the corresponding loss of power that goes with relinquishing that?

[catherine]

Jared Diamond's book is a great one on the subject: another one with a different twist is Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. If you're talking about the success and potential longevity of a nation, the thesis of that book is that it's the nature of the political structure. In very simplistic terms, the authors say that countries are inclusionary or extractive, and the inclusionary ones are the strongest and most sustainable. In other words, the degree to which its citizens ARE the government and not used or exploited by the government, the stronger the country is.

One of the book's examples as described on Amazon.com says:

Korea, to take just one of their fascinating examples, is a remarkably homogeneous nation, yet the people of North Korea are among the poorest on earth while their brothers and sisters in South Korea are among the richest. The south forged a society that created incentives, rewarded innovation, and allowed everyone to participate in economic opportunities. The economic success thus spurred was sustained because the government became accountable and responsive to citizens and the great mass of people. Sadly, the people of the north have endured decades of famine, political repression, and very different economic institutions—with no end in sight. The differences between the Koreas is due to the politics that created these completely different institutional trajectories.

I think, however, that every country is like every natural thing on this earth, with a natural lifespan. Everything sprouts, grows, buds, flowers, and dies. Why should countries be any different?

I like Lainey's point about future spheres of influence. I can see that evolving.

As far as where are we in the lifespan? I don't know.. depends upon the role you're talking about. I personally feel that our response to issues such as immigration and healthcare and justice and the gap between the rich and the poor will dictate that. In terms of who among the nations are going to be the next one to bring order out of chaos... interesting question.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Loved loved GG&S, that's the only book I've read of his, 'the world until yesterday' looks like it would be good.

I don't know, is the conditions of people on the ground level any better if you have so called "order" than not, it's all I really care about. I think at present the world will be better when we have a multipolar world than the U.S. trying to dominate everything.

[Rogar]

My impression is that the imposition of order can result in a social failure especially if it is from a ruling elite that is not connected to the common people. However, it's also my impression that the failure of dominant societies in general is due to a change in climate or the exhaustion of critical resources. Basically environmental factors.

[Gregg]

I generally believe alot of the conclusions Jared Diamond reached are logical. Civilizations have lifespans. The rise and fall of each is unique, but there are obviously parallels that can be drawn in many cases. After 237 years I don't think its unreasonable to feel that the world has aligned in a different way than it had in the past and that, just maybe, the US is in it's twilight years.

[creaker]

Ferengi Rules of Acquisition:

34. War is good for business.
35. Peace is good for business.