United Earth – How the World Ought To Be

I am the first to admit that my view of mankind and the world is cynical and apathetic due to personal experiences gained while travelling around the globe and from studying of history.  Still beneath all that shit is an idealist who would like to see the world change into a place dominated logic where people would have more equal opportunities to reach their fullest potential. The source of power, money and success is ability, some have better chances then others to develop their innate skills by training and education.

The change I am talking about does not need to be radical, we can take the best of existing systems and modify them into a new vision. One idea or thing can´t please all, thus, the main goal would be most good for the majority, in the long run. Change, if it occurs, is usually a long process perceived from the standpoint of a single human lifespan. Rapid social changes generally create more damage than prosperity, for example The Great Leap Forward which aimed to transform China hastily from agrarian society to modern communist society trough rapid industrialization and collectivization and resulted to estimated deaths of 18 to over 30 million people.

The commune is like a gigantic dragon, production is noticeable awe-inspiring

Change in democratic countries, like the one promised by Obama, tends to be only hollow words or Orwellian doublespeak and things stay as they were four years ago. The problem in a democratic society is the fact that politicians need to please the people who want to see big promises made during elections fulfilled in a short time, this is not possible and in the next elections people vote for the opposition which promises to change things which the current government was unable to do. The cycle of stupidity and stagnation continues.

What we need is combination of kingship and democracy. The power should flow from local to global with the help of modern technology. I think there should be Emperor of the World (EOW) who would be chosen by the global population and appropriate civil servant levels which would be chosen together by the people and recognized team of experts who could determinate if the candidates possess the necessary skills to do their jobs. The major issues would be assigned to EOW who would delegate the work and make sure things progress according to schedule. We are now first time in human history at the point where global communication is possible with just a few clicks. This opens a possibility for a new kind of world government where the global population is making decisions together.

People should agree to certain long term goals and civil servants should commit to fulfill them, if the annual deadlines were not met the people could vote new civil servants and the emperor out of their post. This is democracy working in two directions. The annual tasks would be realistic, concrete and related to the long term goals. This way people could stay in power even decades if they do their job right and this would be a truer form of democracy then the one where we have a chance to vote for a person who gives you false hope of change every fourth year and this person is not accountable in any way to actualize his/her promises. This is a system where the best manipulator gains power instead of the person who would be the most qualified for the post.

Local matters could be dealt locally with the help of internet, the civil servants could consult the people before making decisions on the matters that will directly impact the people living in a certain area. This is not science fiction, all this is possible in places were internet connection is accessible to the whole population which is the case in most Western countries. The task of EOW would be to raise all other countries to the same level and he/she would have to show evidence every year to prove that sufficient progress has been made globally. Here are some examples of long term goals which I think the EOW should focus on.

1. Settlement of other planes and space exploration. This is a primary goal since things we do on this planet will be for nothing if we are not able to explore and expand to space from our cradle of life. It was some smart guy who said that there are only two types of civilizations in the Universe, those who expand beyond their home planet and those who don´t.

2. United Earth (UE) funded medical research which should focus on developing medication and vaccination which would require minimal times of use and would be cost effective. Cheap medical care should be available to the majority of people by 2050 and free to poorest of one billion.

Flag of United Earth

3. All production should include an extra cost that is relative to resources used to make it. This would slow down over consumption and extra money gained this way would be used for conversation of nature. Development of renewable energy sources would logically take place in the long run and this would benefit generations to come.

“Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.”  -Ancient Indian Proverb-

4. When people are healthy and fed, the next logical step is education. Basic education and teaching of world language by 2100 which today would be English that is already spoken around the globe. People who have travelled to another country where people speak a different language then yours know the absurdity of not being able to communicate with another member of your species. World language should not be forces but made available in education system for the majority, this with basic education would increase understanding between people and is the key to a truly united global world.

5. There are too many people in the world, global daily net population growth being over 100 000 people. Important step in reducing suffering is population reduction, this will happen slowly when education level of the people (specially the women) increases but it should be hastened by free birth control and voluntary sterilization in places of high birth rate. Optimal world population would be around 5 billion.

6. Economy systems should be regulated to a point where abuses of people and nature would not be as easy as they are today. Monetary system shouls be connected to real, limited commodities such as gold to prevent creation of money from nothing. Abuses cannot be stopped completely in any system but economic and political abuses should be made on of the worst crimes, even today these crimes lead to more murders and rapes (literal or economic) than any person could commit in his whole life time. This leads us to law and punishment.

7. First of all laws and punishments should be made universal. Laws should be based on logic and severity of the crime, judges should be from all corners of Earth. Prisons have existed for thousands of years and we can all form our own opinions on how well that solution has worked. One option for punishment would be conditioning of the mind with help of neuroscience and psychology (behavior is the result of environment, genes and upbringing and question of Free will might just be the topic of my next text), this is however not possible yet. Another option would be re-educate people who have committed lesser crimes but for harder ones punishment would be forced labor camps that would benefit the global society on some level. This is better than keeping people in confined space, with tax payer’s money, for years. In the case where prisoner is no willing to work he/she would be placed in isolation for the time of ordered in the sentence.


8. When all the conditions mentioned above would be applied to sufficient degree borders of countries would be reduced to what they are, imaginary lines on one planet. Free movement of people would be possible since even the laws are same everywhere. Borders would remain only as tool for management of the masses.  Patriotism is sufficient –ism for people possessing lesser cognitive capabilities in other words for dumb rednecks who are not able to see the bigger picture. If there is a good type of patriotism it would be global patriotism for UE and all mankind.

OK. What can I do to implement these changes? Everything begins as a change in an individual mind and creates a new way of thinking. In the end I am a realist but I will still do an experiment. This blog has daily a few dozen views (last Sunday there was a new record 149 daily views, yeah!) thus I do not expect to reach my goal for this experiment which is 100 individual positive comment to support vision of United Earth. What you can do is comment and share this post, if the goal is reached I will be assured this is a good idea and not just a hazy vision of better tomorrow in my mind. At that point I will create a special section for this vision and improve it more, maybe it will even be implemented if enough minds are changed.

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses in 1517 to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg he created the catalyst for Protestant Reformation which affected the development of the world for hundreds of years. Just think what possibilities an idea, a post, can do today when it can be read not by few thousand people of a medieval city but potentially by over 2 billion of people who have access to internet today. My core believe is aism, thus, I think an idea which consist from least amount of bullshit will prevail in the natural selection of ideologies if people acknowledging it are educated.

Slogan of United Earth.







13 thoughts on “United Earth – How the World Ought To Be

  1. Here is a documentary about plausible near future catastrophes and these fellows had some good points. The main thing I can agree on is that when the future generations look back at behavior of this generation, our parents and grandparents they will be shocked, appalled and nauseated. Population boom enabled by cheap fossil energy combined with economy that is based on infinite growth in consumption of everything is doomed to fail if no changes are made, now. As we are amazed of the atrocities committed during the colonization done by our ancestors (not by Finnish but you know what I mean) or even closer the horrors of the World Wars, so will be next generations when they look at our wasteful lifestyle and use of natural resources. What will you tell kids when they ask, 20 or 30 years from now, what did you do to stop that behavior? One thing the experts missed in documentary was how individuals can change the world by limiting personal consumption. I for example rarely buy stuff other than food and occasional beer(s). Will Smith had at least one good thought: “Too many people spend money they haven’t earned, to buy things they don’t want, to impress people they don’t like.”


    Today’s world has troubles unique to its time in history, from the global financial crisis to technological meltdowns to full scale, computerized global war.

    Observing the convergence of such events, contemporary prophets have begun to emerge from obscurity to suggest that these conditions might be signs of the demise of the modern world.

    These men are historians as well, using all manner of information and patterns from the past to provide context for where we are going.

    Their predictions interpret the current state of affairs in our world as evidence that the America we know may come to an end.

    The men proposing these ideas are not crackpots living on the streets of New York; they are intelligent, learned men who come armed with the evidence to back up their claims.

    • Good evening Alternus! I watched that film and it was great. My personal favorite was Dr. Nathan Hagens and artificial intelligence was also an interesting topic. Of course the primary question concerning the future of his planet is the limitations of its resources. How long do we have time left? Some people say, like Mike Ruppert, that the real problem instead of human caused climate change is the peak oil so that the mankind is running out of oil which will cause gigantic humanitarian catastrophe. Then other people say that global warming is the threat we should focused on. Then there are people who say that actually we are on the road to the next ice age.

      I really don’t know what are the limits of earth resources that’s why i’m optimist. My personal choice has been that I refuse to think about my carbon footprint because it’s insignificant in the perspective what is happening in China and India. They want the same standard of living what we do have at the moment 🙂 The increase of the world population is a problem. We have enough people here even in Finland.

      Maybe the best thing what you can do now is not having any kids. That’s ecological and it’s also a convenient way to avoid having to answer to difficult questions.

      • Here we go again. I gave you a wrong answer so I must change my last statement. Discovering the sustainable form of economy is essential for the future of the human kind. In that process finding the alternative forms of energy is the matter of life and death. The cosmos is full of energy so the task is not impossible. The problem is the time. We have to solve the energy problem before we destroy the living conditions for human on Earth permanently. If the energy problem is solved then there is no water problem either because then we can have drinking water from seawater. At this moment we can’t do it because desalination of water requires a lot of energy.

        I oppose all the needles destruction of environment. I oppose the mines like Talvivaara ,and every other forms of exploitation of nature, where the disadvantages exceeds multiple times the benefits. That’s why Talvivaara is the criminal act number one in Finland at the moment. Uranium mine on the watershed of Vuoksen vesistö and Oulujärven vesistö is something where is no reasonable explanation. I also oppose the nuclear power because its too dangerous and the best thing is that it’s not even economically lucrative. If something happens the loses will be socialized to the people. Destruction of the rainforests should be prevented and in my opinion it’s the western countries fault entirely if we will lose those lungs of the globe. I oppose … etc.

        But one thing I tell you because I want to be honest. Probably you won’t like this but I believe that the human caused climate change is nonsense. The Earth climate history is actually a constant process of changing. 15 000 years ago here was a fucking ice age. That’s the reason why i don’t think about the carbon footprint, not because of trying to ignore the problem.


      • I also think we need a new source of energy but I am a realist so I don´t see it happening before we run out of oil or it becomes too expensive. Oil business is one of the biggest in the world and those companies have a huge influence on goverments and other companies. They will not allow anything to destroy their business. Unfortunately we humans are biologically determinated to think about the present or near future, it is hard for people to comprehend how their actions will influence things in the coming year not even talking about the next decade. This biolgical code results to dumb masses who are unable or unwilling to think about the future when they have what they need at the moment.

    • Hello Alternus. Now I’m stuck on this human caused climate change. The fact is of course that carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased about 30 % in the last hundred years and the main reason for that is the consumption of the fossil fuels by humankind. The hard question is that how big effect does it have to the climate? In my opinion there should not be a confusion about the carbon dioxide’s relative contribution to the greenhouse effect. But that is a fact that there is. For example according to Wikipedia, which is normally quite reliable source of information, carbon dioxide’s contribution to greenhouse effect is 9-26 % and water vapors contribution 36-70 %. That’s not a reasonable information, the results should be more accurate. According to my research from many sources carbon dioxides contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 5 % and water vapor’s portion is over 90 %. For example in the link below the numbers are 3,618 % and 95 %. But I really don’t know for certain what is correct information and what is not. There is so much disinformation in the internet now days. By the way, actually I have lived most of my life in the believe that greenhouse effect is enhancing due to the fossil fuels burning by the mankind until I saw that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth which was pure propaganda. Then I did my own investigation and found out that there are many reasonable person with hard arguments which contradicts the official consensus.

      I am really qurious to hear your opinion about this and how the problem should be solved. This is a really important subject. Can you help me out in my confusion?




      • Hello Alejandro Magno! There is doubt that our consumbtion of fossil fuels has an effect to climate change due to cause and effect but how big it is, is another question. There are many people for and against when it comes to human caused climate change and there is heap of information about it. Whatever we do Earth will go through its climate cycles and we might hasten or slow them down to a degree.

        My solution to this is something everyone can do on an individiual level, reduce your desires. Less you want, less suffering you will have. I only consume the minimal amount of food, stuff and I use public transporatation. If everyone would reflect their own behavior, rethink what they really need and buy only that there would be less pollution in the world thus our effect to this planet would be smaller. In the end global warming and natural crisis are the problems of man, the Earth and other animals would be just fine without us maybe even better.

  2. History has shown us what happens if you try to have a change by revolution or a coup. Revolutionary regimes tend to defend their positions and the result is usually worst kind of repressive state. It would be better for iraq’s people that there would still be Saddam Hussein on his throne instead of the anarchy they do have there now. Only a worst kind of criminal mind can support the bringing down the tyrant if its cost is the death of millions of people.

    So what we need is peaceful transformation into a world of justice, freedom and equality where is no boundaries. People of the world, unite in love not in the name of terror, tyranny and repression!

    The idea of the emperor of the world is a little bit scary because the people who gain the power likes to keep it that way. Threat is for example that they would start to manipulate global communication system so that they would be elected again and again even though they had been turned out to be incompetent for their job. If we could structure a global communication system into the form that it would be impossible to be manipulated by the emperor of the world, the emperor of the world might be a great idea. If there is no boundaries, there has to be someone on the top of the pyramid of power. Ideal solution might be that the emperor of the world would be some kind of avatar which is programmed constantly by the world population as collective. I wonder if that’s possible.

    I agree with you that what the people of the world need is a common goal instead of common threat. At this moment political consensus across the world is that the main goal is the economic growth. That’s nonsense because it doesn’t give anything and it doesn’t lead to anything. The goals you mentioned are important. Maybe 30 % of the potentiality of the world’s resources should be allocated to the space travelling if I could decide.

    I think the fair world’s monetary system is the key element in the search of better society. Our government should put all its effort on finding the optimal structure of the monetary system. Unfortunately scientific society doesn’t do the job at this moment what it should do. Not defending the current system but trying to find better solutions. But Zeitgeit’s movement’s ideas about resource-based economy without money is bullshit because money has been started to use by natural development thousands of years ago. Money can be anything, it can be a cow, a sheep, squirrel fur, a bullion of gold or silver, paper, electronic bits on the screen, it can be anything. What is used as a money is depended on only a convention between the people. So if you would try to do something what Zeitgeist is suggesting it would only lead to the situation where people would start to use new kind of money they have issued by them self. I believe in the very beginning sex would be one form of money.

    “True strategic preservation can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient technical applications of the resource in industry itself, not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.” (Zeitgeist)

    What it comes to the gold standard or other kinds of commodity money, I don’t think it’s the solution. There are economist who promotes the gold standard because in that system inflation is better manageable. But history has proved that gold standard is not a stable system either. Governments used to constantly retreat from the gold or silver standard in our monetary history because it leads always to the situation when there is not enough gold in the central bank. It is also good to remember that gold in its self is basically a fiat money. I believe that gold standard might be worst kind of monetarism and lead to a greater economic inequality because it prevents executing Keynesian monetary policy. If central banks capability of printing new money in the economic repression is limited that leads to even worse kind of situation. That was exactly what happened after the Wall Street crash of 1929.

    So basic problem is that private banks creates money out of thin air due the fractional reserve system and in that process their drive the economy to the collapse from time to time. Collapses are inevitable because of the interest of loans. There has to be always injected more money, liquidity, into a system so that the old loans can be paid. If you would like to stop money creation by private banks completely, the fractional reserve requirement should be 100 %. At this moment fractional reserve requirements are in western countries something like 5-10 %. But for example in London city fractional reserve requirement is 0 % 🙂 I believe people needs banks but they should be released from the bloodlust of the banksters. The reason for that is that giving loans if also a one form of power. If bank loans would be given only by authorities it would easily lead to despotism. Other person would get the loans and others not. That’s why it’s important that there is also many private banks but at this moment they are in too dominant positions which prevents the reasonable development of the human kind. How that is possible is the hard question in what should be paid attention.

    If you think about the taxation it doesn’t make no sense. Governments get they revenues from taxation even though they could print that money by them self. My solution is a complete separation of governments funding from private markets so that governments would print they own money. It should be only regulated how large a portion from the money supply created by privates banks could printed by the government of the emperor of the world so that money would remain its value in the market. The governments money should be the same than private banks money so that governments money could be also used in a private market. So if the portion would be 30 % that would mean in practice 30 % taxation. This system would made 100 % employment possible and teasing people with taxes would be history.

    In a functional society there is always work for everybody. For example in my motherland there is a lack of nurses in the hospital and in the same time we have enormous amount of unemployed people. It doesn’t make any sense. Monetary system must not be an obstacle for an reasonable policy but it has to be an tool in the form what was its original purpose. Not the tool of power but the tool of exchange of goods, services and labor like the nurses in the hospitals.

    If the local waterworks refuses to give you a water it’s not the reason try to get rid of water instead of changing the waterworks. That is the mistake what Zeitgeist movement is doing.





    • Again thank you for your thoughtful comment Alejandro. I also make mistakes when I write but the main function of a language is to transmit a message thus minor typos are quite irrelevant. This was my overview of how the world ought to be, version 1.0 if you will. It is imperative to receive imput from other minds to improve these ideas together. I am not sure if the world is ready to unite into United Earth but we need a change or we have to face the consequences. I recommend to check out the video I posted to this post, it presented some of challenges USA and the world is facing in near future.

      No system is perfect and as you said global communication system needs to be in order before this is possible. I like the idea of EOW who would be a benevolent leader guiding the world to a better tomorrow. I also recommend you to play Deus Ex games if you have not yet done it. They revolve around the same ideas we have talked about such as Illminati, goverment of the world and there is also the idea of world where people are connected to an AI and people share a global consciousness.

      I have seen a few zeitgeist movies and they have some good ideas and some ideas that work only in the mind, my idea of UE could be a combination of both. Money is something that is not going to vanish but how would the banks and monetary system be controlled to prevent outlandish misuse of power. I am not an economist but the gold standard was the first idea that came to my mind when I thought of monetary system, main point was that it should be based on something real instead of believe that the bank able to pay you the money what you have on your account. Your system of two types of money sounds quite complicated. What is the point of goverment money and could the private banks then print their own money? How would this work in practice? In any case it was an interesting idea but I would like to hear more about it.

      • If the government creates the money it needs then it must not rely on private bank loans or taxation. When government get money from taxation there will be a problem when the financial markets collapse because of the decrease of the tax revenue. And then we are again in the situation when IMF, world bank and the conservatives start talking about responsible economy which means every time more privatization and budget cuts. That’s nonsense because economy is at moment only structured the way which leads to the increasing of the national debt – it could be other way.

        My thinking is a lot based on Stephen Zarlenga’s thoughts but he suggests that the money creation should moved completely to the government so that banks role would be only a intermediary of money not the producer of money.

        “There is a pretense that
        government must either borrow or tax to get the money for such projects. But it is well enough known that the
        government can directly create the money needed and spend it into circulation for such projects, without
        inflationary results. A reformed monetary/banking system can make this happen NOW!”

        “Your system of two types of money sounds quite complicated. What is the point of goverment money and could the private banks then print their own money? How would this work in practice?”

        This is only an idea and I haven’t thought it thoroughly. Idea is of course that the system must be as simple as possible. We have at this moment already two types of money: central bank money and the money issued by private banks. And at this moment about 95 % of the money in circulation is created by private banks. My Idea was that you should change that portion so that maybe 30 % of the money supply would be created by government. You don’t need for that even central banks. That would mean that for example if there is not enough nurses in the hospitals, government just print the money they need and that’s it. There are people who think that 100 % of the money supply should be created by governments and there should be no private banks at all. The result is that the power of money would have been transferred completely from private banks to authorities. And that would be a catastrophe 🙂 In the free financial market one is able to try to lend money from thousands of different sources and that is an important factor in the war on despotism.

        I think it’s possible that this kind of system could work so that money would also keep it’s value. There is so many dimensions in this issue and I can’t explain everything and I’m not probably even aware of every factor which should be considered in the context of monetary reform.


      • I am not an expert on the monetary system thus it is quite hard to say what would work globally. Maybe the invisible hand of the market suggested by Adam Smith back in the 18th century will guide the markets so that they will in the end benefit all the people on some level. “…his important claim that by trying to maximize their own gains in a free market, individual ambition benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions.” I doubt that this is no longer valid in a system where markets bet on a success of a group of debts. Maybe some type of goverment regulations would be necessary for a working system? I think this system has to crash and burn before there can be a new monetary system.

        System suggested by you sounds interesting but as I said I have no idea how that would apply to the real world. All I know this system is fucked up and soon we will see what happens to euro and that will be a sign of things to come.


  3. I have tried to find from more reliable sources what is the precise carbon dioxides relative contribution to the greenhouse effect. It is interesting that it is very hard to find such an information from the IPCC site, at least I couldn’t find it. All they say is that climate system is very complex and it is very difficult to determine the exact consequences of the increase in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere. If you find that kind of information, please tell me. Any way, the fact is that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased from 1750 until now from 0,028 % to 0,039 % which means increase by 40 percent and the main reason for that is human activity. That is an unbelievable result.

    The Globes temperature has gotten warmer in the last hundred years about 0,75 Celsius. If there wouldn’t be greenhouse effect at all, the globe’s temperature would be about 18 Celsius colder. If the carbon dioxides relative contribution to the greenhouse effect would be 5 %, the human portion of the greenhouse effect would be about 2%. Let’s have a calculation. 18 C*0.02 = 0,36 C. That would mean that globe’s temperature would have gotten warmer 0,36 C due the human activity. That’s quite a reasonable result.

    What it comes to the environment the precautionary principle must be applied. So basically consumption of the fossil fuels should be restrained. My personal carbon footprint is very low, but the reason for that is not my high ecological sense of responsibility, but the simple fact that I am running out of money all the time. That’s the truth. I don’t like the persons who are so fucking ecological but when they really have the chance to show they true care for the mother nature, they very often turn out to be the worst kind of greedy consumers. I am a good example of the responsible consumer. For example in the grocery I newer check out the prices which means less consuming and that is responsible.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s