Google Answers Logo
View Question
Q: Global Government ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars,   12 Comments )
Subject: Global Government
Category: Relationships and Society > Government
Asked by: humangoodorevil-ga
List Price: $30.00
Posted: 03 Feb 2006 17:35 PST
Expires: 05 Mar 2006 17:35 PST
Question ID: 441149
What is the probability that a global government (a real government,
democratic or otherwise, not some impotent international organization)
will be established on earth in the future?  I know, I know, that's a
difficult question, but I ask it in all seriousness.  Give me your
best guess.  Oh, and just for the hell of it, please give me an exact
probability percentage.  As far as my own research goes, it indicates
that there is a likelihood that researchers at M.I.T. in collaboration
with Intel and other organizations will develop an autonomous
superintelligent computer or computers that will take over governance
of the world in 2.5 milliseconds.  It seems unlikely to me that
humanity will ever establish a global government, but it is possible
that any sentient successors to humanity might.  What say you?

Request for Question Clarification by easterangel-ga on 03 Feb 2006 18:17 PST

I was able to find some online publications discussing the concept of
world governments.

Would links to these articles be ok with you?


Clarification of Question by humangoodorevil-ga on 03 Feb 2006 19:14 PST
Well, to be perfectly honest, no.  Links to articles do not constitute
an actual answer.  I would like an actual answer or a refund.
Sorry to be such a pain.

Request for Question Clarification by easterangel-ga on 03 Feb 2006 21:35 PST

What I posted was just a clarification and not an official answer yet
so you won't be charged yet except for the listing fee of $0.50 which
is non-refundable.


Clarification of Question by humangoodorevil-ga on 04 Feb 2006 08:33 PST
OK!  Please proceed.

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 06 Feb 2006 01:59 PST
Hello human...
   I find your question interesting and in some sense timely.

   I (think that I) understand you do not want links to 
   (lot of fluff etc) what was written about this topic, but 
   actual analysis and estimates. Also that you understand 
   that this question would be a good topic for a PhD thesis or few,
   so that $30 answer would have to cut corners and do some guesstimates. 
 I am tempted to answer, but I would like to limit the extent of the 
 "on earth in the future?"
 Would that be acceptable, to limit future to, let's say from now to year 3000?

 This is the reason for such a limit:

I agree with comment
From: frde-ga on 04 Feb 2006 06:53 PST 	  	
"I would put the probability at: 1 - X"

 where x is probability of some catastrophy. X is a product of probabilities
 that evolution will take the 'worse' branch at the decision points
(forks in the road of evolution), such as
 will there be attack in Iran's nuclear facilities? ( probability X1 for yes)
 if so, will Iran retaliate (e.g. attack Israel)?    ( probability X2 for yes)
etc will Rusia join?, full scale nuclear WWIII?, will most people perish,
as in scenarion of Galapagos
or will all people perish, but planet remains alive (so another civilisation 
can rise - as in Planet of the apes) or will planet die?
 Ind that case we would have to involve Drake's equation
and get bogged doen in questions of 'ultimate fate of the universe' etc.

X is a product of the probabilities of 'worst case scenarios' X= X1 * X2 * X3 ..

If we are willing to wait arbitrary time, for recoveries, X would converge
to zero: Your probability Pgg(t)  tends to 1 as t goes to infinity.

For this reason, I would like to limit the question to either Pg(3000) or
to cast it as question for the general bounds on function Pgg(t).

Should I proceed to an answer? 

Please look ar my other answers before deciding, e.g.


Clarification of Question by humangoodorevil-ga on 07 Feb 2006 00:47 PST
Hello hedgie.

Your understanding of my understanding is correct.

Let's not forget good old probability zero (will never occur)!  Any
number of events (the sun going nova, rogue nano-bots turning
everything to goo, runaway global warming, a massive comet strike
followed by the non-recurrence of government minded beings, etc.,
etc.) could occur, constituting non-recoverable errors and forever
decreasing the probability of global government to zero.

Some people already believe that global government is a zero
probability event.  And of course, if the value of x in your 1-x
equation is one, then the probability of global government is zero.

I will certainly accept your "by the year 3000" parameter.  After all,
asking for an accurate prediction of the course of 5 billions years of
planetary history for $30 would be unreasonable.

So let's dust off that answer and put it on display!

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 07 Feb 2006 20:25 PST
OK. I will need couple days to finish this.

Clarification of Question by humangoodorevil-ga on 08 Feb 2006 19:38 PST
OK, please do.  Thank you.

Request for Question Clarification by hedgie-ga on 10 Feb 2006 05:49 PST
Please be patient. To be answering your own question is 
 well, not good :-)
 After it is posted, you will have chance to argue with it :-)

Clarification of Question by humangoodorevil-ga on 10 Feb 2006 14:45 PST
I'm sorry, I didn't know that.  I will be patient.  It wasn't a
serious answer, just a good-old fashioned tirade.  They're very
popular these days, and they're somewhat enjoyable, although they're
hardly as fun as firing your gun in the air and chanting religious
slogans while burning someone in effigy.
Subject: Re: Global Government
Answered By: hedgie-ga on 11 Feb 2006 12:40 PST
Rated:5 out of 5 stars
Introductory quote (Motto)

 "Can the trends rightly noted by Bergson and Teilhard ? basic tendencies in
	biological evolution and in the technological and social evolution of the
	human species ? be explained in scientific, physical terms? I think so.."
          		 Robert Wright, author of Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny 

   Condensing all the possibilities into one Google Answer was definitely a
"challenge"! As this is not a doctoral thesis, I have used two shortcuts.
 The answer would be even longer if I had pasted in passages explaining every
link. So, for many thoughts, you will find the amplification  in the link.
It may make it a bit harder to read, but it deals with the complexity and
limits the length.

  Also, I use some abbreviations, and even a smattering of simple math:
  Your question:

      What is the probability (P) of a Global Government (gg) before time T ?

   can be restated, with the abbreviations and symbols, as : 
        What is the  Pgg(T) ?     (for T=3000 or T<3000).

  (gg will always stand for 'Global Government')
    We agreed that in simplest terms Pgg = 1 -x  = 1 - P1 * P2 * P3, where
    P1, P2, P3 .. are probabilities of that  a chain of events 
    which would  prevent this (having a gg) from happening. 

    We agreed on limiting the time so that T< 3000, to exclude the cosmic
issues and  'Planet of the Apes' scenarios and just deal with current
mankind, as it may change in the relatively near future.

We have not actually clarified the question completely: 
       Interpretation ONE is :
               What is Pgg(3000) ?  meaning "Will there be a gg (Global
		Government) at the year 3000 AD? "  
       Interpretation TWO two is : 
             " Will there be gg at any time before T=3000, which will last 
	      at least 10, 100, ... years?" 
	   (The scenario of  Woody Allen's "Sleeper" film, with possible victory 
         for rebels , desintegration of gg or extinction in the fight)
	I am using Interpretation TWO here.

 Without further ado:

      Bayesian Graphs 

  The method we are using to deal with the inherent uncertainty of the future
of this complex system is called Bayes Nets or Bayesian Networks.

	Using this approach we represent all possible futures as
a graph in which the nodes are the decision points. Between such
branching points, events follow their expected path, which DeChardin called
'complexification'. We call these segments between the Decision Points
"Evolution", knowing that Darwin's Evolution is just one special case, as
elaborated in the links quoted in this old GA:

   What is a "Decision Point" ? 
   Here is an example based on the US presidential elections.
       US presidential voting has been running close to 50% / %50 lately; 
their outcomes have been hard to predict. There is a polarization of
the political opinions,  and while both main parties care for the welfare of
US inhabitants, their perspectives differ.
        Three Butterflies

 Here is story as an example of a Decision Point:
  Butterflies Ballot's "Butterfly Effect"
"Sometime back in 2000, Theresa LePore, had the idea to enlarge the typeface
on the ballot paper she was designing for Palm Beach voters in the US
Presidential election, thinking it would make it easier to read. Whether she
had not had a good night's sleep, or had had one too many cups of coffee that
morning, we may never know, but for one reason or another she did not notice
that the new design, which now became two pages instead of one (and as a
result was most aptly named "the butterfly ballot") could confuse voters about
which button to press to register their vote..:"

Physicist Peter Russell, author of the 'Global Brain' book which extended
some ideas of the 'Gaia Hypothesis,' proposed  a mathematical model of the US
presidential politics. 

This butterly ballot definitely had a "butterfly effect" (the poetic term
used in chaos theory) on the election

 The third 'butterfly' is the visual shape of the Lorentz Attractor:
This Java applet  draws a graphical illustration of the Lorentz Attractor.
The point moving in the plane shows  evolution of the system. (One has to
click START few times and use a browser which supports Java applets)

How is this moving point like US politics?

 The point sways to the left, and then to the right, unpredictably and
irregularly. When the point comes to the center, (The decision point = the
presidential elections) small things, things like Theresa's coffee, decide the
course  of events for the next four years. Sometimes a small, routine
decision may influence politics for decades. (Perhaps Al Gore would not have
invaded Iraq unilateraly) Sometimes  decades of brinkmanship, such as during
the Cold War, may lead to larger Decision Points (such as the Cuban Missile
Crisis) where  evolution branches again. The middle point of the butterfly
represents the presidential elections: Every four years voters, and chance,
decide the future course of the country, and to a large degree of the world. 
Small fluctuations here can have larger consequences at this point
of instability, when the system is chaotic.

 Optional reading material

1) Butterfly effect and Chaos

2) Bayes Nets and graphs 
   Tutorial in a set of slides
and in more detail here

Doomsday argument 

 To estimate Pgg - Probability of Global Government gg,  we need to know x -
 the probability of a disaster.
  Nuclear war, WWIII would be just one of many possible disasters..
  We discuss disasters, because we assert:

  Unless some chain of events  leads us into  disaster, it is (almost)
certain that gg will evolve by the process of complexification.
This is the evolutionary  process which already produced cells, multicellular
organisms, tribes, clans, nations, and .. the United States.

 So, when  we estimate total probability of all scenarios which end in 
 disaster, leading either to extinction or to regression to the stone age, we
will have x which will give us the Pgg we are seeking.

  Pgg is 1 -x , and x is really sum of all those products P1 * P2 * P3 ,,
  of probabilities that scenario which leads to a disaster. Pi are the
probabilities that 'bad' branch gets selected at the Decision Points.
 There is a whole catalog of the Doomsday Scenarios,
 which have been classified as  Doom Soon or Doom Late.

Here's a nice list of such possible futures:
 "This will be based on our ordinary empirical estimates of potential
threats to human survival, such as nuclear or biological warfare, a
meteorite destroying the plant, runaway greenhouse effect,
self-replicating nanomachines running amok, a breakdown of a
metastable vacuum state due to high-energy particle experiments and so
on (presumably there are dangers that we haven?t yet thought of).
Let?s say that based on such considerations, you think that there is a
5% probability of Doom Soon. The exact number doesn?t matter for the
structure of the argument..."

 This following argument and related  anthropic-principle contains subtle
mathematical reasoning and complex logic. You should skip the links on 
first reading, unless you are alert, well rested, have a fresh cup of
coffee, -- and appetite for studying grim futures. 

 If you don't,  just accept the conclusion which says:

"A Bayesian doomsday argument, originated by Brandon Carter, presents a
sophisticated argument the human race will end fairly soon.."

You can now skip to the sunny scenarios below.

"Rarely does philosophy produce empirical predictions. The Doomsday argument
is an important exception. From seemingly trivial premises it seeks to show
that the risk that humankind will go extinct soon has been systematically
underestimated. Nearly everybody's first reaction is that there must be
something wrong with such an argument. Yet despite being subjected to intense
scrutiny by a growing number of philosophers, no simple flaw in the argument
has been identified"

" Let?s formulate the following two rival hypotheses. Doom Early:
humankind goes extinct in the next century and the total number of
humans that will have existed is, say, 200 billion. Doom Late:
humankind survives the next century and goes on to colonize the
galaxy; the total number of humans is, say, 200 trillion. To simplify
the exposition we will consider only these hypotheses. (Using a more
fine-grained partition of the hypothesis space doesn?t change the
principle although it would give more exact numerical values.",7,12;journal,43,124;linkingpublicationresults,1:102906,1

 Major branches
 Sunny scenarios

We will now construct a tree of different scenarios and will guesstimate
the probability of the branches. This is basically a tree with hooks, on
which different people may hang different probabilities and come to different
conclusions. While we are (trying to be) politically neutral, it is likely
that different groups would produce different estimates.  Estimates by
Democrats vs Republicans, Russians vs Americans, women vs men, and even
different personality types (extroverts vs introverts) ...would differ.

  The re-election of president Bush in year 2004 was apparently seen by some
  as an affirmation of the neo-con plan for the world. 
  Here are two conflicting  views of this plan.

  The Project 'New American Century'  believes that the plan may be
successful . It posits that other countries, such as those in the "third
world" and EU will accept US leadership.  That will prevent nuclear
proliferation by force, if necessary by unilateral force disregarding 
international treaties. International  organizations, such as the UN, are
perceived by adherents of this view as weak and bureaucratic,  as toothless
and impotent.

 This plan is important for our topic here: 
If successful, it will create a de-facto world government. 
 The SSS (Sole Surviving Superpower) will lead the Coalition of The Willing
and will jointly  enforce Pax Americana.

Pnacs = Probability of the New American Century plan  being successful.

    If the plan succeeds, insurgencies stop. Russia is further isolated from
both its  'near abroad' neighbors in the former Soviet Union and from the
natural resources it once controlled. The nuclear nations of EU follow the US
lead and other, less developed nation realize that they have no chance of
developing nuclear weapons to threaten the first world and not enough power to
hurt America.

  This  sunny  scenario leads to a system is that is stable. The system is
not democratic, since only US citizens vote on the 'leader  of free world'
(and all the nations are now free) but due to the American tradition of
democracy and respect for human rights, over the course of 1000 years, other
nations can learn and evolve in direction of democracy ...

We could add other branches to the scenario here: the probability of
revolution, of terrorists or anarchists getting nukes, and all those nano-goo
and cosmic catastrophes. . .but we will neglect them. There is probability .01
of any such catastrophe. 
Probability is  .8 that it would evolve to stable democracy, about .2
 that it will become an oligarchy or even monarchy, though still a gg, 

    Sometimes there are clouds. 
   The plan above will fail with probability (1 -Pnacs)

If the neocon plan is unsuccessful,
 the attempt to implement it will trigger a Second Cold War, (CWII).

 In this scenario  Bush's 'Axis of Evil' will consolidate into one alliance 
 (which, taking  cues from history, may call itself the Camp of Peace,
 and  will include Russia, China, Latin America, and Muslim countries). 

 The "Coalition of the Willing, including Japan", perhaps also 
 called 'the Axis of Righteousness'  will form the second alliance.

 Two such aliances will engage in a new Cold War - the CWII.
Probability that such a CWII will melt and follow the path of CWI  is
small - about .1 (=Pnw3)
Two such  global opposing alliances, with their politics of brinkmanship
(such as Cuban missile crises) are a  necessary prerequisite for a world war,
WWIII, a war which would be nuclear, the first nuclear war for this planet.
 Probability of that happening, probability of nuclear war, is then 
(1-Pnacs) * (1-Pnw3) =  about .9 * .9 

  There then follow sub-branches, marked by the decision points of 
"civilization" surviving OR many people surviving OR few people surviving OR
none. The year 3000 allows no time for recovery, for a new species to evolve
in only a thousand years.

 Silver Lining of a Sort

  If there is a WWIII and civilization survives in an 'as we know it' state,
then there is near certainly that an effective Global Government  will be
formed by consensus, right after the war. This is similar to creation of UN,
but more so.  This New UN (let's call it NUN) will (by definition) have teeth
and will not give any power the right of veto.  Invading  a foreign land,
without a NUN mandate will result in instant law enforcement by all other

  Why  we assert this:
  Wars present a big learning experience for individuals as well as
mankind at large.
  Because the probability that civilization can survive a full scale nuclear
 is low, this whole branch leading to a democratic gg, formed by consensus is
 also low, about .05  

 Minor Branches:
   Minor scenarios are unlikely because they contain at least one branch
where at a decision point a low probability outcome was chosen. We can
call such a decision 'a miracle' (That definition, more or less,  is from
one of G.B. Shaw's plays where the bishop says that a miracle is a ( low
probability) event, which evokes faith.
In abstract terms: 
  If we consider scenarios with N decisions each, each
  scenario represented as  path with N nodes through a graph
  which represents the Bayes net, we end up with 2^N branches. 
  Probabilities of all of them add up to one.
   But 2 to the power of N is just too much to consider in this $30 answer. 

   So we skip most of those branches which contain  one or more
   unlikely events, choices  with Pi near zero, which makes the
   products of probabilities of the path, x=P1 * P2 .. *Pi* .. *Pn  small.

    For our purpose, we classify all branches into just three bundles,
    those which lead to:
  1) Democratic Global Government   -      with sum of the products to be Pdgg
  2) Non-democratic global government  -  with sum of the products to be Pngg 
  3) All other branches, branches  leading to disaster 
  extinction or return to the Stone Age. The total of these products to be  Pn

   The probability we seek, Pgg, is then   Pdgg + Pngg  which is  equals 1-Pn

  You  "brought this one on yourself," goodorevil one, by your comment.
Some pretty wild scenarios have been considered by (at least half serious)
   such as "does this giant computer of a universe exist?" 
  (also called Lem's hypothesis), see e.g.

   I find your  argument based on a quote from Matthew 16:28: unconvincing:
    Every major monograph - a scientific tome, contains some errors, mistakes
     of the author, or errors 'created in translation', ..
    that does not invalidate the main arguments and insights.
    For example, Darwin's "Origin of Species" has a major mistake of
    rejecting the 'catastrophes' theories.    Because of the mistakes and
    misuse of some concepts, we should not close our minds to other concepts,
    and insights which are used properly.

    The set of prophecies, some thousands years old, shows that ancient
     Greeks noticed the 'complexification'. They realized that human
    evolution has 'an arrow', and were able to extrapolate a
    trend toward the  formation larger and larger structures. One day, they
    realized,  the size of these structures, kingdoms and empires, would have 
    to intersect the size of (flat, but finite) Earth. They already wondered
    about the problem we are analysing about today, about the Global
    Government or gg. 
  The Jesus factor
     One scenario from the Pngg bundle (non-democratic gg) could be
called 'Kingdom of God'
     (I did not understand your reference to ' a movie called  "The Return of
     Jesus Christ"'  Is that a real movie  'coming to a theatre near me  near
     me' or a parable?)

I also think that commenter  pugwashjw65-ga is mistaken when he says
             "the individual who they have completely forgotten" ...
 We did not forget about Jesus, Mohammed, and a new guy which may
come to save us all  (oops, not all, just the righteous ones). However, we
do have a problem figuring out which one is which, which one (and his Earthly
embodiment) is the false prophet, which the Lord supreme, and which the beast.

 All major Western religions, Judeo-Christian, Muslim,.. have remarkably
similar stories about the Last Days. They differ in who will be the king, who
will be his assistant, and who will be the Beast.

 The terrorist Bin laden has been called 'the Koresh of the Muslim world'. 
Like Koresh (a name which I am told means Death) he believes
we live in the Last Days. Each major religion has moderates, believers, and
fundamentalists who think with their hearts. The Iranian leader Khomeini was
probably sincere when it dawned on him (perhaps in mediation) that
 US is a Great Satan. And the current leader of the US, is I think, sincere
and listens to 'his God' and tell us what he believes.

  And they agree on many things: 
              There is only one God, ours. The other gods are devils.

  This is old hat and which already lead to many wars. 
(See Bob Dylan's view in "With God on Our Side.")
 That war, Armageddon, will be nuclear, of course. Wormwood, which in
the Apocalypse makes waters bitter in the Last Days, actually does
translate into the Russian as Chernobyl. Some coincidences are remarkable:

       This scenario is included (above) in our branches: Nuclear war, very
few people survive,  a nondemocratic GG will be formed, which will last at least
1000 years. We give it a probability .001 because of the necessity of the
miracle that "most people perish in the war but some will be saved,"
some survive and
will live happily for thousands of years. 

Such a pattern of survival may happen with global epidemics, like Bird flu
or AIDS, which are organic, propagated by living agents. Such  a disaster
 our DNA and immune system have learned how to deal with, this is  a type
of disaster it knows. There is, however, no immunity to radiation, to gamma rays.
They are not organic, and there is no immunity to hard photons, which kill
like bullets do.

Still 'the Last Days scenario would be "interesting" to watch since it will
give us a clue who the 'real Beast' is:   Gog, Magog .... ?

That would be a scenario where strife between Israel and Iran leads to
nuclear war. We know that Beast will followed by many and will ultimately be
the cause of the destruction of Israel and the Temple of the Dome and all
people will finally see the truth. 
It will be too late, of course: Armageddon will have just started! 
 Of course, that attack will probably be a secret operation,
and anybody left will argue whose fault it was, who gave the orders, etc.

 Jesus of anger and Jesus of love "

There is no conflict between Jesus and Caesar in our thoughts. 
In Hawaii, they have this saying about missionaries: 
       They came to do good, and did well.

 It applies to most missionaries, including the 'very religious and
non-violent' Moravian Brethren who when expelled from Moravia in the
counter-reformation developed a missionary zeal while in Germany
to carry Christianity to the American Indians 

As with the Congregational missionaries in Hawaii, most of them ended up with
more land those they converted. That has happened many times  throughout 
history. Depending on your perspective, was it the meek who inherited the
land, or the meek who gave it up?

Either way, Jesus and Mohamed are not forgotten:

 Other scenarios

 ..a comet will strike and this time the mammals, rather than dinosaurs will
became extinct, 

 .. humans will suddenly start using their brains instead of hearts 
  to make fight-vs-flight  and dominate-submit-tolerate decisions
  thus relying more on those 2% of genes in which they differ from chimpanzees
  These scenarios are so unlikely, that  we may disregard them, to keep it
simple and short. 
 Genes, Decision-Making,  and Survival
Consider the problem from the scientific perspective  of genes. Darwin's 
concept of evolution is just a theory, but a theory which explains many

For many generations, people have encountered the necessary decision 'to fight
or to flee or submit'. Both the meek and the very  aggressive ones were  killed,
de-selected from thegene pool. That's how our current gene distribution on the
planet evolved and how it surreptitiously influences our 'moral imperative' of
good and right.

 The probability of mankind surviving, of forming a gg as a tool for securing
that survival depends in part on the balance of those genes which tells us
'to forgive' and those genes telling us 'to fight, to avoid 'fate worse than
death' - like Washington in your example. 
  US neo-con Kagan in his 'Power and Paradise' describes with certain contempt
the Kantian  approach, which he says the Europeans favor and
contrasts it with the more efficient and agressive Hobessian approach.
 European may have some problems with having 'too many philosophers' but
they are neither nicer nor more naive than Americans. The gene pool is almost
identical; they have just had different experiences, and so the two cultures

While the U.S. was formed by a successful revolution and a series of
successful acquisitions and wars, Europe was experiencing a series of
deadly and exhausting wars fought in their homelands. They learned the
hard way that fast methods, which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Trotsky attempted,
do not work. If they are now locked in what seem like endless, toothless
debates, making glacial progress toward unity, it is because of this
experience. Experience has selected the philosophy. Philosophy itself does not
determine their actions. Kagan knows his philosphers, but is a poor

  At this point, while it is true that other global powers are beginning to
move toward alliances, it is primarily the US and EU  who are making
decisions which will affect the future of mankind for a long time,
decisions which may bring Apocalypse now, or gg in 300 hundred years. 

Looking for Sun
Except for the neo-con's own sunny scenario for global government, all of
these scenarios are pretty pessimistic.  Is there an alternate sunny
scenario? No single think tank or author has actually written one as
well-known as the neo-con plan.

Popular legend  has it that an old Chinese curse is 

  "May you live in interesting times."

 Chinese or not,  we do, in fact, live in interestinf times. 
The curse has been cast. Here are the details:

Analysis of the Chinese Curse Decision Point
  Almost every planet which develops inteligent life, will develop
technology capable of destroying all life on the planet. 
For Earth that has just ahppened. At the same time ratio of population to
resources is increasibg and  threatens livelihood of large segments of the
global population. We are at that "butterfly" point, that unstable
decision point, like the one illustrated by the Lorentz Attractor and the US

On a global scale, the chances are about 50/50 that we either form some
real gg, or nuke ourself to extinction - that's what makes it an unstable
decision point, like the one illustrated by the Lorentz Attractor and
US elections. The Butterfly in this case is the  EU, or even just its
small new members:

If EU  creates a new and strong EU constitution, with common border
controls, labor market and currency, it will become a major power,
comparable to US. It will likely still be an ally of the US, but will no
longer support the neo-con plan. EU neocons, Berlusoni, Blair, .. will lose
power. England may leave or be asked to leave the EU. This shift will
likely swing the probablity of gg without a nuclear war toward a more positive
In such a case,  at the next  US election,  being again a decision point.
 neo-cons may lose. Their plan is discredited, there is new, more urgent,
more widespread,  and more enlightened effort to form strong UN, a NUN.
Thingswill  move slowly in that direction, few hundres year
s we may have a democratic gg - Probability, about  .7

What is the probability that this will happen 'in time', looking at the
local or EU scale. Despite hope springing eternally, it's small - about .2 . 

The Answer

In conclusion, I would distribute the chances as follows

Pdgg ~  .1   EU with strong integration and US abandoning the neo-con plan
Pngg ~  .05  Neocon plan succeeding without a major war, or 'Kingdom of God'
	(script of one of the major religions but without nuclear
The rest ~ the extinction or stone age -- is the remaining : 1-.1 -.05

Note:The value of the probability of different branches taken it 'the Chinese
Curse Decision Point" do not completely determine the values of the major
branch bundles, described at the beginning. For this reason, values do not
match excatly. Rather then calculating the probabilities formally, I am making an
intuitive estimate. We would need a computer program to handle the numerical
chores if we would want to be more acurate.

Thank you for your patience. I am interested in your thoughts,
  or at least a rating.


Request for Answer Clarification by humangoodorevil-ga on 11 Feb 2006 23:47 PST
Thank you!  My customer-satisfaction/money-spent ratio is quite high!

I don't know the rules for answer clarification, but I will try to
make this an "answer clarification."

Are you completely discounting the possibility of a more or less
effective anti-nuclear-missile defense system that would more or less
make nuclear war obsolete, or at least allow its first developer to
launch nuclear first-strikes with impunity, should it choose to do so?

Why is CWII so much more serious than CWI, given that Mutual Assured
makes even the hardest-hardliner think twice?  And why would Muslims
ever risk losing the holy cities to a nuclear strike?  That last
question is a purely rhetorical one, and to be perfectly clear I
absolutely do not advocate attacking Medina and Mecca with nuclear
The European Union evolved from a customs union.  To their credit, the
Europeans have learned to think at the continental level, and so have
the Africans as they created the African Union in 2002.  And of course
in 1994 the North Americans created NAFTA.  I wouldn't ridiculously
suggest that the Asians create the Asian Union and the Americans
(North and South) create the American Union before everybody concludes
that the Union of Earth is a good idea.  But might not the forces of
economic globalization and international communication drive us
together politically?  Isn't it capital and not the governments whose
power increasingly diminishes vis a vis it now the most important
factor in global affairs, and consequently the most important
consideration when it comes to the Pgg?

How does culture factor into your equation?  Human beings are of
course 99.8% genetically identical, and so ultimately disunity between
human beings comes down to Freud's "Narcissim of Small Differences." 
Imagine that the Europeans in their endless wars had said to
themselves, "Hey, we're all Europeans!  Let's stop fighting and
peaceably unify the continent!"  But of course, instead of saying that
they said "Rule Britannia!" and "Deutschland ueber alles!" and all
sorts of other narcissistic things.  The question is, is human culture
irreparably fractured, making global war (and consequently, according
to you, a global government) a psychological necessity, or is a global
culture evolving that will increase the Pdgg?

Is US hegemony really a de facto global government?  And finally,
given that the EU has a higher population than the US and that the GDP
of both Europe and the United States was an estimated $12 trillion in
2005 as measured by purchasing power parity, isn't it already too late
for the neocon plan?

In resonse to your question, my mention of the movie, "The Return of
Jesus Christ" was a cryptic reference to the movie "The Matrix,"
released in 1999, in which Neo, who of course is Jesus, returns to
earth, and just in time too.  It is also a prediction that someone is
going to make an actual movie in which the events of Revelation are
accurately portrayed, with a little help from Industrial Light and
Magic, a Lucasfilm Company.

Thank you again.

Request for Answer Clarification by humangoodorevil-ga on 12 Feb 2006 00:16 PST
Correction: that was not an "answer clarification" but a "request for
answer clarification."  Sorry, Freudian slip.

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 13 Feb 2006 10:41 PST
Freudian typo is no problem:  It is the RFC dialog which (hopefuly)
  will clarify the issue:

>>>hardest-hardliner thinking twice

   It is impossible to think twice, before thinking at least once.
   There is no evidence that one really thinks without using one's brain.
 The possibility that they will think at least once is covered under 
   "Other scenarios"
 ..humans will suddenly start using their brains instead of hearts 
  to make fight-vs-flight  and dominate-submit-tolerate decisions

>>> And why would Muslims
>>>ever risk losing the holy cities to a nuclear strike?

 And why would Americans 
ever risk losing their cities to a nuclear strike?
 (Washington D.C. I can understand, but San Francisco?)
 It is the same reason: They are both human.

 Historical example:
 Germans were devastated by destruction of their cultural treasure
 but thoughts of a retaliation did not stop prevent  them from bombing
Coventry first.
Read also
Churchill bombed Dresden as payback for Coventry. Firebombing Dresden

Of course, the people who make the decisions to bomb and those who are
devastated are often totally different groups.

 During war, the desire to hurt one's tormentor exceeds fear of of being
hurt. For Vonnegut's generation, the learning experience of war is captured
in books
and movies like Saving Private Ryan (1998)
 While the initial scenes of the movie are dramatic, the rage people reach
during the real war, just cannot be induced but stories and movies, no matter
how well done. It is the experience of war itself which induces rage. Vietnam
was not a "real" war for the US. There was no attack on the homeland - and
yet it marked that generation quite deeply. The Axis of Evil actually has
nuclear and other means to attack the US homeland. Of course, it will be
"Putin's fault" when he restarts CW-II - but who cares 'whose fault it was'
before, during, or after the war?

See also how Castro was willing to risk destruction of the whole of Cuba.
According to McNamara in "The Fog of War," he (Castro) told McNamara he had
urged Khrushchev to go ahead and use the nuclear weapons in Cuba on the U.S.
during the Cuban Missile Crisis,and further, he said to McNamara, "You would
make the same decision."

>>European Union -- here you are losing me

        Actually, the people of Europe did say "Let's stop fighting and
peaceably unify the continent!" There was leadership in this vision, of

  Please
(search terms)  "The origins and development of the EU", Schuman, ..
 There was a real lesson of two  horrible wars and determination to prevent
that again
  It began with economic union as the first phase, but it was not a matter of
convenience like NAFTA, where one country dominates.  The U.S. Constitutional
Convention would be a better analogy then NAFTA.

 There was vision there, and commitment to non-violent unification. In this
 mapping,  EU is some 200 years behind US, but that is partly due to the fact
 that US had a continent inhabited by tribes with low tech, and EU nations
are more uniformly able to defend themselves. US abandoned the non-violent
method of unification with the Civil War. EU already had violent attempts
(which also failed) and is very likely going to stick with this slow but
lasting method. 

Looking at the split today between the Bible Belt of US and
the North, blue and red state, makes one wonder whether all would be happier
today if Lincon had let Confederate states secede. The South would work out
its own destiny..

 1)  The   European may have some problems
     with having 'too many philosophers'
      but they are neither nicer nor more naive than Americans.
      The gene pool is almost identical; they have just had different
      experiences, and so the two cultures differ. 

   2)   While the U.S. was formed by a successful revolution and a series of
       successful acquisitions and wars, Europe was experiencing a series of
       deadly and exhausting wars fought in their homelands. They learned the
      hard way that fast methods, which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Trotsky
      attempted do not work.

  Perhaps these two paragraphs should have been interchanged?

>>Isn't it capital and not the governments whose power
  That is part of the 'neo-con plan succeeds' scenario. 
  US would impose universal rules for the movement of capital,
  nationalization, etc on the world as it has done on 
  American continent. Political control is a pre-requisite for business.

>>> Is US hegemony really a de facto global government?
    isn't it already too late for the neocon plan?

 The necon plan going ahead is most likely branch right now.
 It is not US against the world. US is working through overt
 and covert means to marshal the other countries, using both
 methods, the charming Ms Rice and the frightening 'renditions' 
 (plus a tremendous amount of money given to New Europe's
emerging democracies for their "support") to
 induce such compliance and "willingnes".
 As I said, EU is not that different an ally from Pakistan and Turkey.
 Governments and popular sentiment in the EU are not in sync. It is not well
covered in the 'fair and balanced' reporting in US
  What is unlikely is not the neocon plan going ahead. It is only unlikely
  that it would NOT lead to CW-II and that CW II will NOT lead to WWWIII. 
  That chain of "not" and "not" has a product of .1

>>>Are you completely discounting the possibility of a more or less
>>>effective anti-nuclear-missile defense system that would more

This is very good question which, to give justice to it,
 would  require a separate GA.

>>Why is CWII so much more serious than CWI, given that Mutual Assured
 Just about everyone realizes by now that a nuclear first strike intended to
wipe out all of another nuclear power's response capability will pollute
the entire earth with high levels of radiation. On the other hand, the
ability to launch such a strike from space now takes seconds, not minutes.
Definitely a worse scenario that before.

During the CWI, we had '30 minutes' from start firing the intercontinental
missiles to impact. It is not much time, but it came handy few times.

During the CWII, the systems must co-exist in space, reaction times are more
like 30 seconds going to milliseconds and to automatic decisions.

System will be getting more and more unstable. There is a certain avalanche
effect, as the likeliness of wars is increasing.

 If you had space fully controlled by one country, if it could prevent
other powers from developing news systems .. (that is the neocon pipe-dream,

In the real world, the EU -our ally -- is already building space defenses
and so is Russia.

Please read about Countess Kinsky. In her book Soar, she argued that an air
war would be so horrible, that it just could not be used. That was WWI.


Request for Answer Clarification by humangoodorevil-ga on 14 Feb 2006 11:17 PST
Very well.

My most serious request for answer clarification was the question of culture.  
I cannot take seriously any argument that denies the existence of
culture.  Define "culture" as a "meme" or even an "electric meme" or a
"program" running on the brain if you wish.  But talk of "Europeans"
or "Americans" is empty without the supporting notion of "European"
and "American" culture, unless you are willing to define "Americans"
and "Europeans" in purely biological terms, in which case you will be
forced to define the European and American genome, proteome, etc.
exactly as they exist on their respective land masses.

Defining culture has always been a problem for anthropology, but I
would define culture as a "phenomenon that can be perceived by
individuals with sufficient discernment."  If you've seen any funny
hats, used or perceived any language, visited any Satanist or other
web sites, worked for an Internet startup company, watched any
television, gone to a Nirvana concert, attended a public or private
university, done any reading, participated in sports, heard your
tribal chief discipline his chief aide, used a national currency to
purchase "goods and services", attained familiarity with various
architectural styles, been immersed in a particular religion or
philosophy or scientific paradigm, been exposed to art, tried to be
fashionable, done any travelling and thereby attained familiarity with
people that are "different" from you, participated in interactive
entertainment, pledged allegiance to the flag, etc., etc., you may
have an intuitive understanding of the sort of culture that I'm
referring to.  Of course, I'm not willing to reduce such phenomena to
brain activity because metaphysically everything is exactly what it is
and not something else, but I digress, and 99.9% of the secrets of
metaphysics elude me.

In any case, could deal more comprehensively with the issue of
culture, keeping in mind your sound insight that everything, no matter
how intangible, can be quantified?

I can see that I have a lot of "homework" to do!  I hate homework! 
But of course as you said, I brought this on myself.

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 14 Feb 2006 21:56 PST
Hello again, goodandevil-ga

Thank you for the rating and the tip.

I am afraid that a task 'develop mathematical theory of culture'
would be another, at least $30 question :-)

Fortunately, here we mostly point to the work which was already done by others.
Please do look at book at the end of last comment here.
Wilson made an excellent job here on gene/meme co-evolution.

In terms of quantifying culture, I added (thanks to your question) the
following  to my list of 'favorite=bookmarked'  indexes:
just next to the 'doomsday clock' which they will have to start updating
again pretty soon, I think. It is 158 this week and going up. 
If you are writing a term paper or thesis on the topic, you should (must)
include a correlation between these two time series.

By the Way, there already are about six
Motion pictures about the Last Days 
(listed in wikipedia link I gave to Ansel in the last comment).
I agree with you that Matrix should be added. I did watch the DVD of the
first one yesterday, and give it low probability marks just in two areas:

1) that human beings can be used to generate or store electricity and 
2) for the discharge effects when people are unplugged and avatars go away.

  It looks like they had a special effects device left over from the Star Wars
  and they just 'had to reuse it' for the tax purposes.
   From the little I know about the computer  graphics and virtual reality,
   that is virtually impossible.

You ask:
How does culture factor into your equation? 

and why Europeans did not say:
"Hey, we're all Europeans!  Let's stop fighting and
peaceably unify the continent!"  But of course, instead of saying that
they said "Rule Britannia!" and "Deutschland ueber alles!"

But thats' exactly what I have described:
 They said
"I  wished to found a European system, a European Code of Laws, a European
judiciary: there would be but one people in Europe,
and "Rule Britannia!" and "Deutschland ueber alles!"
and it did not work, which why we now do that differently in Europe,
and differently from 'Americans' who developed different culture,
due to different experience in the last 200 years.

 Gene stats do not change in that short time, but culture is quite different:
 That is the  crux of my argument with Kagan and his 'Power and Paradise'
where he is arguing from an American prejudice (that Europeans are inefficient)
while my analysis may be tainted by European prejudice (that Americans have no
 They may be some cultural differences here, and so, I am afraid, you may
have to connect the dots, hang the probabilities on the hooks of the Xmass tree
we constructed here, your own way, as a homework. Sorry about that.


Request for Answer Clarification by humangoodorevil-ga on 15 Feb 2006 10:12 PST
And hello to you!

This be my final request for answer clarification.

Are you implying that Google or (Berners-Lee protect us!) some other
company will develop a physical search engine that will allow me to
find my copy of "Consilience?"  I have a strong suspicion that's agents stole it because they want me to buy it again. 
Although I suppose that it's possible that I'm living in a purely
virtual environment and that the evil computers altered some
parameters because they don't want me to know the truth.  Or perhaps
Moses took it as "tithes."  I don't know. . . .

But you're certainly welcome!

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 15 Feb 2006 22:35 PST
The search for lost and misplaced  articles: a global problem, certainly.
 It would require having BlueTooh installed and having a tiny camera
implanted above the right eye. This could also be used to authenticate
transactions. Brilliant idea. I will pass it on.

 Now that you have a lot references, and after you find and read your copy
of "Consilience," you might want to write up that important meme
"global_government" as an article for wikipedia. This is just a suggestion.
Nothing will happen to your credit rating if you don't. :-)

Clarification of Answer by hedgie-ga on 20 Feb 2006 01:12 PST
I have just noticed that Wikipedia has an article on gg

World Government is perhaps better keyword then Global Government.
humangoodorevil-ga rated this answer:5 out of 5 stars and gave an additional tip of: $40.00
I am very pleased that I used this service.

Subject: Re: Global Government
From: ansel001-ga on 03 Feb 2006 22:39 PST
The probability of a global government in the future is 100%.  In the
future, Jesus Christ will set up His kingdom on the earth and reign
for 1,000 years.

Revelation 20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment
was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been
beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had
not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on
their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with
Christ for a thousand years.
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: pugwashjw65-ga on 04 Feb 2006 01:11 PST
There WILL eventually be a global government, headed by the United
Nations. They will look at what is going on in the world and realize
that organised religion is the base cause of all our troubles. They
will BAN religion and demand that all people have an Identification
number. In this, Big Business will continue to function. Those not
prepared to comply will be prevented from functioning in this society.
They will succeed with EVERY religion except one. And when they act to
eliminate that one, the individual who they have completely forgotten,
Almighty God, will step in and eliminate them. That last one, the one
doing all the right things, is approved of God and it will be as
though they have touched God's eyeball. Seems preposterous? Just read
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: frde-ga on 04 Feb 2006 06:53 PST
I would put the probability at: 1 - x

Where x is the probability that we (or something else) slings us back
into the dark ages or perfuses us.

The reasoning is that, there is a long term historical tendencies for
adjacent states (countries) to unite, which is only partially offset
by fragmentation.

I reckon that this is down to improved communication, migration and
the benefits from being part of a geographically more widely
distributed 'entity'.

On the other hand, I do not buy your 'super computer' theory, that
would involve 100% perfect communications links - any breakdown would
result in chaos.

To be successful a largish organism needs to be slightly decentralized, 
- think about yourself, a blow on the head would (probably) not stop
you breathing, or your heart functioning, your liver and pancreas and
lungs would continue the fuel supplies.

Yet 'brainless' or rather 'non-sentient' you could survive for some time.

Without a fully functioning central brain your body would be a lot
less efficient than with one, but if one had a de-centralized setup
(as we do) one can survive shocks to the system.

Another way of looking at it is how the www is designed to run,
although there is a central set of protocols, it is (in the short
term) decentralized.

A form of Federation, formed and run in the long run by a Central committee.
Subject: Re: Global Government (Jesus, Caesar, Galileo, and Pieces of Dirt)
From: humangoodorevil-ga on 08 Feb 2006 23:54 PST
Hello, and thank you for your comments!  I apologize for the following
in advance, I really do.

I will address the Jesus issue at this time: for the love of God, stop
confusing Jesus and Caesar.  Jesus Christ made painfully clear that he
was not and never will be Caesar.  Caesar is just a dirt-master.  No
Caesar of any kind whatsoever would voluntarilly allow himself to be
tortured to death to help other people.  George Washington, aka
American Caesar, knew he would have been tortured to death for high
treason if he failed, which is why George Washington had no intention
of letting the British defeat him by force of arms.  So he was smarter
than them and made them feel pain, and beat them, but they didn't give
up exactly, because Caesar never does.  And now the United States and
Great Britain are the best of friends!  Right, love?

We're not talking about Jesus here, we're talking about Caesar. 

Matthew 16:28: Jesus says: "Assuredly, I say unto you, there are some
standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man
coming in his Kingdom."

Unless Jesus Christ, son of God, is a liar, which he isn't, then he
quietly established his Kingdom on Earth without fanfare sometime
before the 3rd Century AD.  And indeed those that kept the faith saw
him come and it was so.  He controls the calendar, regulates the sex
lives of countless millions, etc., etc.  Unless of course, those
people are still around, probably kept safely in the Andromeda Galaxay
while Jesus gets his invasion plans together.

Look, Jesus Christ is not going to come flying back to earth in a
divine attack vehicle built by Halliburton to defeat the European
Union or China or the Anti-Christ's physical army, and start
regulating global affairs from Jurusalem.  It's a Spiritual Kingdom,
and you will find Jesus Christ in Virtual Reality and through random
acts of kindness, and decency to the poor, the weak, the fatherless,
and the widow.  And that whole calendar thing.  But I can assure you
that Jesus Christ is never, ever, ever going to launch a cruise
missile at anybody.  Although his alleged followers certainly have.

The events depicted in Revelation will occur precisely as described in
a movie called "The Return of Jesus Christ," which will be pretty
popluar, but much maligned.  And true believers can't add to the
Bible, but if they are divinely inspired they can always write "The
Second Bible."

Of course, in the 17th Century Galileo postulated a real unobservable
mathematical physical world of primary qualities like mass, shape, and
size, which inhere in real physical objects, and declared the "world
of appearance" to be an unreal consequence of the action of the real
physical world.  The unobservable primary qualities of physical
objects are real even if no one ever observes them, which of course
they can't.  Secondary qualities exist only in our minds as a
consequence of the existence of primary qualities.  As real physical
objects exist independently of observation, even observed primary
quality objects merely represent real physical objects which have only
primary qualities and obey the laws of the most up-to-date physics. 
Newton and Einstein and countless others followed Galileo, and it's
gotten very complex, but the idea of the real, independently existing
physical world has been by no means abandoned, quantum mechanics

Galilean metaphysics edited the spiritual, and indeed reality out of
reality, which is why now you're really a brain and not a person or a
soul, and why people no longer have genuinely spiritual experiences. 
Although they do have mental illnesses, which are really brain
diseases, and if such people take their mind-altering medications
which aren't really good for them, then they can control their
defective brains, and live more productive lives.

If you follow Galileo, you will of course be speculating about the
divine perfection of Jesus's brain, and how he actually had a trillion
neurons, and so forth.

What does all of this have to do with Global Government?  Why,
everything, and nothing, of course.

Locke followed Galileo, declaring the world of appearance to be a
consequence of the action of the physical world upon the mental
substance of the soul.  Locke was very popular among the founders, and
American government was based to a greater or lesser extent upon his
theories, although of course pragmatism had the last word.  I am told
that the term "men" in the Declaration actually refers to Lockean
mental substances.

But fortunately, or unfortunately, Caesar does not take orders from
Jesus or Galileo.  He crucifies or controls Jesus whenever he can find
him, and he doesn't give a fig about Galileo's theories.  He simply
uses Galileo to build weapons of mass destruction.  And as for our
Paper Caesar, the United States Constitution, it is followed to a
great extent by most Americans, but a lot of them violate it if they
can get away with it or even if they can't.  Do any speeding recently?
 And hordes of centurions - lawyers, police, various agencies, are
very serious (and sometimes not so serious) about enforcing the
Constitution, and I deeply respect them for that, but I really wish
that they would let me do crack, purchase sex for money, kill people
that I don't like, and own as many slaves as I can afford.  Well, I
don't actually wish that, but there sure are a lot of other people
that do.  Although I'm sure they would change their ways if they read
more Enlightenment philosophy.

George W. Bush swore to protect, preserve, and defend the Constitution
of the United States of America, which of course is the United States
of America, but George Bush protects it by violating it, and he takes
orders from Jesus.

Why is the United States of America so important when it comes to the
topic of global government?  Because it confirms that global
government is entirely possible!  We've already got people of every
ethnicity here, with the sole exception of the remote Brazilian tribe
of Kukamongo, living together in freedom, and occasionally going to
prison.  Ah yes, the European Union!  A club for Europeans!  Sorry you
didn't get in Turkey!  You just aren't European enough yet!  Try again
soon!  China!  I really like Chinese culture and Chinese people,
especially their European Marxist political philosophy!  You'll get
Taiwan back eventually.  Just keep trying!

What is it about pieces of dirt that so motivates the human animal? 
All you have to do is change that United States of America thing to
the United States of Earth or just leave off that "of America" part
and you've got a global government.  Oh sure, there might have to be a
new constitutional convention, but it's about time for one.  Why don't
we just offer Iraq statehood?  Oh, they probably won't want to join,
but I'm sure that Mexico would!  All the Mexicans are already coming
here anyway!  Sure Mexico is poor, but then so is Arkansas!  You don't
hate poor people do you?  Well, if you're not a billionaire, then
you're poor so you must really hate yourself!

You know, I just quickly read the Constitution and it doesn't make any
mention of territory at all.  That's why the U.S. just kept adding
states.  Why don't we add some more!  Oh they might have to be
territories first, before they get their act together.  Come on Puerto
Rico, try harder!  Oh sure, there's no more territory to colonize, but
once the Canadians realize the superior logic of our health-system,
I'm sure they'll want to join.

I hope that clarifies the issue.  Have a nice day!

Subject: Re: Global Government
From: myoarin-ga on 11 Feb 2006 10:21 PST
I am very sceptical of the prospects for a global government, thinking
that George Orwell got it right in "1984", recognizing that his
Oceania needed a counterforce to keep itself together, first Eurasia
and then later Eastasia.  If you will, rather as the Communist Bloc
kept NATO cohesive.   Peoples and cultures are too diverse to expect
that they will freely join under a global government.  The minute the
threat of a counterforce disappears, fragmentation will begin, as it
has to some extent among the NATO partners.
Any Global Government will have a "homeland", as did the Roman and
Ottoman Empires and Chinese regimes in various dynasties.  Let that
homeland be USA, Russia, China (I don't give the European Union a
chance), no super power will be able to keep the whole world in line;
it won't be able to afford to, and will discover that dealing with
internal opposition in its homeland will force it to forego control of
fringe areas.  That is the way it has always happened.
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: myoarin-ga on 11 Feb 2006 18:22 PST
That was a fantastic all encompassing answer of a very sweeping question!
Obviously a great deal of work went into it.  I have been very
curious, waiting for it.
Regards, Myoarin
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: hedgie-ga on 13 Feb 2006 02:57 PST
  thank your for your comment.

Miracles, per definition, are low probability events.

 However, not all scenarios of the Last Days are dismissed with .001

I also consider a non-nuclear Armageddon scenario
    Knowing people, it has a low probability, and conflicts with 
    interpretation of 'Wormwood' in the prophecy as 'Chernobyl'
    The more 'coincidences' you have in a scenario, the less likely it is.

    The other branch, nuclear Armageddon, is more likely (Pna=.9) but the
    unlikely miracle is 'most perish from radiation, but few will survive'.
    We have quite a bit about the long terms effects od radiation (from 
    Hiroshima and some communistic Gulag data) and so we know it does not
    work that way - according to today's science.  

I include scenarios where the laws of physics, as we know them, may 
suddenly change or can be disregarded in this section:
Some pretty wild scenarios have been considered by (at least half serious)
scientists, such as "does this giant computer of a universe exist?" 
  (also called Lem's hypothesis), see e.g.

Those include ID theories, I suggest you read the referenced book.

If we stay with current science, with scenarios which accept:
  "evolution is just a theory, but a theory which explains many facts"

"most people perish [from radiation] but some ..will live happily for
thousands of years" is not compatible with what we know about long term
exposure to radiation.

We have only  anecdotal evidence about resurrection.
In these branches it is reported as an event, not a fact.

Still 'the Last Days scenario would be "interesting" to watch since it will
give us a clue who the 'real Beast' is:   Gog, Magog .... ?

Remember: Many will be mislead by false prophets. 
Do not just think about this. Pray, and you may be enlightened.
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: ansel001-ga on 13 Feb 2006 12:31 PST

I am confident that I have not been mislead by false prophets.  I know
the Savior and His word.

One thing you mention is true.  Once the carnage in prophesied in the
Book of Revelation is unleased, it would be unlikely anyone would
survive...absent God's intervention.  But Jesus said this:

Matthew 24:21  For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has
not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever
will.  Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been
saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

When I read about wars and crimes that are committed, I can't help but
notice how often the number of casualties is lower than you would
expect given the lethality of the attack.  I do not mean to diminish
the evil of the actions taken, but only to make the observation about
it.  I believe that very often God limits the full extent of the
natural consequences of evil actions from what they otherwise would
have been.  He does not eliminate them entirely.  He allows our
actions to have real consequences.  The good actions He allows to have
their full beneficial consequences, but He often limits the full
natural consequences of evil actions.  And we see this in the passage
above.  The days of the tribulation will be cut short so that some
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: hedgie-ga on 14 Feb 2006 20:57 PST

Mercy of God may  mitigate consequences of man's decisions, but
that does not relieve us of moral responsibility for our actions.

We should not act and vote recklessly, and expect that a
supreme being will come and fixes mess we do. 

" James G. Watt, Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, [who] once
remarked that 
"my responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy
the land until Jesus returns;" 
                                this was interpreted by political foes as
meaning that we did not need to take care of the environment because Jesus
was returning soon.

Many people believed that they understand the prophecy,and  many were wrong.

Here is a whole list of predictions. Next End will be July 6th, this year

That does not mean that you are wrong. However, it is important to know that
many people, many  other religions know about the Lats Days and have some
understanding thereof. We should be be tolerant and respectfully of their
beliefs, at least until the Armageddon starts.

" The state is a secular construct. 
                                   The Brotherhood of Islam, the Church of
Rome, All the World Under One Japanese Roof, world communism, all in their
different ways have had religious or millenarian goals. Such goals are not
unknown in the supposedly secular states of the West either. Especially in
the US, right-wing Christian organizations and other religious pressure
groups have sought to inject their religious values and agendas into national
politics in ways that would have shocked the Founding Fathers..."
Subject: Re: Global Government (The Orwell Factor and "2006")
From: humangoodorevil-ga on 16 Feb 2006 05:54 PST
The Orwell Factor

I am very glad that myoarin-ga mentioned George Orwell and "1984."  In
the novel, Mr. Winston Smith works as an agent for the Ministry of
Truth in Oceania (one of the three governments existing on Earth in
1984).  In his secret diary Winston writes "Freedom is the freedom to
say that two plus two make four.  If that is granted, all else
follows."  He apparently falls in love with a younger woman, Julia. 
O'Brien, is ostensibly a member of the Inner Party that works for Big
Brother, the apparent ruler of Oceania.  He inducts them into the
apparent conspiracy, "the Brotherhood," which is said to work against
the Party.  The Thought Police then imprison Mr. Smith, torture him,
and in essence get him to believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Winston begs O'Brien
not to inflict Winston's worst fear upon him (having his head eaten by
rats), but to instead inflict Julia's worst fear upon her.  In the
end, Winston does not have his head eaten by rats, learns to love Big
Brother, and apparently lives happily ever after.

Now "O'Brien" makes some ingenious arguments, but I take his central
contention to be that "truth" and "reality" are purely a function of

I am perfectly free to say 2 + 2 = 4.  I am interested in whether 2
plus 2 actually does equal four.  If 2 + 2 = 4, then I will accept
your answer, give or take a few particulars.  If not, then the correct
answer is: "In the year 2008 Luke Skywalker will addition for
'American Idol,' become the world's most popular singer, and unite the
Earth as a Jedi Republic.  In 2010, a Superhuman reality hacker named
Neo will break into the Universal Mainframe, and find out where Alien
Hitler is holding Jesus, who as the 'Urantia Book' tells us, is really
a good alien.  The Forces of Good will rush all its vessels at
trans-infinite warp speed to Galaxy ESO269 to set up a 52-dimensional
blockcade.  Evil God and Good God, the existence of whom has been
confirmed by scientists who have empirically tested the "God
hypothesis," and who are both technically omnipotent, but hold
different political views, will then begin the ultimate struggle which
they have carefully avoided all this time.  Neutral God will withdraw
all His forces to metaphysical Switzerland, and adopt an absolutely
defensive strategy.  If either Good God or Evil God knows that they
will be defeated by the other, then the one that will be defeated will
attempt to implement the Reality Destruction Protocol, in the ultimate
"Scorched Earth Policy."  The other two Gods will then form an
alliance of convenience to stop this from happening.  If the
"Convenience Alliance" fails, then Reality will be destroyed.  If the
Convenience Alliance succeeds, then the remaining two Gods will then
have to fight it out.  So it all comes down to which is intrinsically
more powerful, Good, Evil, or Neutral.  The answer to this is
constantly debated, but the answer can be determined only by The Final
Conflict.  In any case, the creation of a global government on Earth
is certain.  If Evil God wins, then He will torture everyone but
himself forever and ever, and his evil son Satan, or Hosea, will rule
the Earth.  If Neutral God wins, then He will implement a global
government ruled by Adam Smith, and we'll have the choice of either
working for Him in exchange for "money" or starving to death.  If Good
God wins, then His Son Jesus Christ will rule the Earth forever and
every person without exception will enjoy immortality and happiness at
no cost to him, her, or it.  Or the correct answer is a two-terabyte
digitally-altered picture of Paris Hilton and Sean Connery holding
hands.  Or the correct answer is "I have no idea whatsoever!  Would
you like a piece of toast?"  Or in abstract terms, the correct answer
is "w," where "w" stands for "anything whatsoever."

Now 2 + 2 = 4 is true by definition if you say "I define 'four' as
that which two plus two is equal to."  But then the statement "Jesus
Christ will return to Earth" is true by definition if you say "I
define Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God who will return to
earth."  So I wonder if "2 + 2 = 4" is true in a trans-definitional

Instead of trying to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in a trans-definitional
sense, I'll tell a story!  The name of the story is "2006" by
humangoodorevil-ga, and a ?story? is of course a ?comment.?  And if
the following isn?t fiction, I don?t know what fiction would be!

2006 by humangoodorevil

Some years back I was tired of living in the United States, so I moved
to Iraq to work for Saddam Hussein.  He employed me in his secret
"City-Killing Supergun" Program.  I knew that such a weapon was
theoretically possible, but also that Saddam probably did not have the
resources to build one, even assuming that my colleagues and I could
solve the various technical problems related to its construction.  But
the pay was good and I minded my manners and life was good.  Until of
course, I verbally made a foolish meta-mathematical statement to a
co-worker.  Once I saw him smile I realized what I had done.  Without
saying another word, I left my "office" and went for a walk in
peaceful downtown Baghdad.  It was peaceful then.

Of course, knowing that my time was short, I spent all the money that
I could, and soon darkness fell.  At exactly midnight, Baghdad time, I
was surrounded by several vehicles, and then some hired goons poured
out of them.  They shot me, called me lots of names in several
different languages, and beat me into unconsciousness.

I awoke in a tastefully decorated, windowless room, and there stood
before me a large, youngish man of apparently Caucasian descent,
wearing what I would characterize as a garish but fashionable Western
business suit.

He said: "Hello, I am O'Brien Jr.  Right now we're both inside virtual
reality!  I am accussing you of believing that 2 + 2 = 4 in a
non-trivial sense.  In reality, 2 + 2 = 5, and I am going to cure you
of your mental malfunction by torturing you, making your worst
nightmare and/or your greatest wish come true, informing you of the
latest research, and subjecting you to the world's most advanced
medical treatments!  I assure you, I'm acting purely selflessly and am
doing this all for your own good.  Of course, I may or may not be
telling the truth, and of course, I don't exist, but then I am
thinking perfectly rationally, and you are not, because I have
superior power."

Well, I found all of this terribly boring.  I thought, "Oh boy, here
we go again."  For a while I had actually been O'Brien Jr., and so I
knew what he was talking about.  I had been tortured by the Americans
for my various criminal activities, and then released, as is their
way, and so my resistance to torture was good.  And I actually did
believe that 2 + 2 = 4 at the time.

So I responded: "Torture is not an argument.  I am unwilling to change
my intellectual judgments because of pain or pleasure alone.  I
actually do believe that 2 + 2 = 4 - unless I'm lying about my belief.
 You can of course reduce me to a mindless, limbless, impotent idiot,
but then you will not cure my alleged disease.  You will simply
destroy me, and I will be incapable of believing that 2 + 2 = 5.  My
worst nightmare has already come true, and I don't believe that you
have the power to make my greatest wish come true. So if your true
intention is to get me to believe that 2 + 2 = 5, then you will have
to restrict your efforts to argumentation alone."

O'Brien Jr. - or his avatar - looked displeased for an instant and
said: "Our brain scans have confirmed that you actually do believe
that 2 + 2 = 4.  The latest research has determined that 2 + 2 = 5! 
You must believe this for your own good!"

I sighed and said: "If you don't exist then you certainly can't have
any power.  And you certainly can't be reading any brain scans.  And
assuming that you do exist, how do you know that your brain scans
exist?  And if your brain scans exist, how do you know that you're
interpreting them correctly?  You've been reading too much Orwell!  2
+ 2 = 4 follows logically from 1 + 1 = 2, assuming that 1 + 1 does
equal 2 and that you're using the right logic.  Of course, you must
first establish that one exists in order to begin the equation."

O'Brien Jr. said nothing and continued to smile.

I continued: "You claim that 2 + 2 = 5.  If the first '2' refers to
one heterosexual couple, and the second '2' refers to another
heterosexual couple, and '5' refers to the number of children that
they have collectively, and they actually do have 5 children
collectively, then 2 + 2 = 5, in a particular sense.  You claim to be
rational.  If by rational you mean you mean the dictionary definition
of "right thinking," and you define 'right thinking' as 'power,' or
'powerful thinking,' then I find your definition of 'rationality' or
'right thinking' as circular and as arbitrary as any definition of
'right thinking' that has ever been given."

O'Brien Jr. became absolutely enraged and yelled at me: "That is not
what I meant!  I can tell that we have severely underestimated your
level of mental dysfunction!"

I guess I must have been in virtual reality because O'Brien Jr.
disappeared and then the pain, the terrible pain began.  Many unhappy
memories appeared in my mind, I became very confused, completely
unhappy, and terribly afraid.  Many horrible thoughts occurred to me,
I felt horrible emotions flooding through me, and I forgot all about
arithmetic for awhile.  My behavior became statistically abnormal, and
then I began to perceive a great many phenomena that I had never
perceived before.  Terrible, horrible things.  I had a virtual watch,
and I did keep looking at it at first.  As time went on, one horrible
thing after another happened to me.  My capacity to think was greatly
reduced, and much of the time, I was unable to think at all.  But I
could "think" every once and awhile, and given that this lasted for
quite awhile, a great many things occurred to me.  Interestingly
enough, the virtual watch seemed to keep linear time, and after 20
years of virtual watch time, I began to "stabilize."  In a moment of
clarity, I concluded that it was all very funny, and I started to
laugh hysterically.  Then I lost the capacity to laugh, but I still
had the capacity to speak, and so I said: "Man behind the curtain,
this is really boring.  Could we try something else?"

Instantly I was returned to the tastefully decorated room, and I felt
perfectly fine, and in front of me again was "O'Brien Jr."

He said: "I can see that didn't work.  We will have to try something
else.  You are the most difficult case I have ever encountered.  So
we'll try it your way.  First of all, the burden of proof is upon
those that assert.  I challenge you to prove that anything exists, and
for extra credit, prove that you yourself exist.  Let's discuss it
over coffee."

A tasteful table appeared, complete with what appeared to be gourmet
coffee, which it certainly tasted like.

I knew that Descartes had tried to prove his existence with the
"cogito," "I think, therefore I am."  But I believed that "I think" is
semantically equivalent to "I am" and I interpreted Descartes's
statement as equivalent to "I think, therefore I think."  That seemed
inadequate to me.  I was going to say something about this, and I
managed to say "I" but O?Brien Jr. cut me off, and I intended to get
into a shouting match, but I found myself quite incapable of speaking
or indeed moving off of my chair!

O'Brien Jr. then gave me a lecture.  He went on and on about every
imaginable topic, in a way that I found completely comprehensible, and
I learned quite a lot, and it gave me some time to think.  I was able
to look at my watch.  After 20 years of virtual time, the lecture
ended and I was able to speak again!

O'Brien Jr. looked at me placidly and asked me: "So have you now come
to the proper conclusion?"

I replied: "I've concluded that you're a very interesting lecturer!"

O'Brien Jr. smiled, apparently sincerely, and said "Thank You."

Again the tastefully decorated room disappeared, and I feared the
worst, but I ended up in a room consisting of mirrors for walls and a
mirrored revolving door.  I looked at my image and I noticed that my
appearance had improved significantly!  And I soon learned that I had
many capabilities that I had not had before!  Deciding to forget about
arithmetic for awhile, I flew out the door and had many pleasurable
experiences, and effortlessly succeeded at everything I tried! 
Everybody agreed with me, loved me, and did everything that I said. 
It was great!  I had a fantastic time!  But I kept looking at my
watch.  I wanted to see what would happen after 20 virtual years. 
Twenty virtual years elapsed, and I was still in Disneyland!  So I
waited an additional virtual year and said, "This is a lot of fun, but
it still won't answer your question!"

Instantly I was back with O'Brien Jr., myself again, only this time I
was in a room that appeared to be a dwelling on ancient Miletus.  I
felt a great sense of loss as I wasn't having any fun, but I had made
my choice.  O'Brien Jr. looked himself, only about 60 years older,
extremely fat, his face worn with care.

He sighed and said, "Very well, do I exist?"

I didn't know, and I said so, so we discussed and researched the
matter for several google virtual years.  But I didn't have a single
quantum of fun.  Of course, O'Brien Jr. treated every argument I
seriously made seriously, but it was clear that he was simply using me
to help him find his answer.  He offered me various "intelligence
enhancements," most of which I rejected after he explained what they
each entailed.  And I "spoke" with many "people" with many different

Finally, I had a realization.

I was counting "atoms" in a "non-entropic universe" when I had my realization.

Instantly, O'Brien Jr. appeared, the way he appeared originally.  He
screamed at me in utter terror, "What in Power's name are you talking

I replied, "I didn't say anything, but I will, unless I become unable to speak."

My new realization and "enhanced intelligence" allowed me to as they
say, "Increase My Power Exponentially."  I realized that O'Brien Jr.
actually had many enemies and I of course contacted them and it got
extremely game theoretical very fast, and there was a lot of fighting,
and in the end I ended up in the "Reichstag" as "Hitler" addressing a
bunch of "stark raving Nazis," who were all pointing their "guns" at

After mocking me in every language they knew, which took a long time,
in unison they all screamed "Antworten Sie! Fuenf Minuten!" which I'll
translate as "You Will Answer in five minutes or you will die."  I
knew that I had to answer the question in five minutes, or they would
terminate my existence.

I thought "This is great!  I get to be 'Hitler' for five minutes!" 
Suddenly two giant digital clocks appeared at the front and back of
the "Reichstag" both of which I could see due to my multi-dimensional
vision, and the countdown had begun!  Finally, I "had the floor."  I
knew that I was on "TV" and other "nations" were watching with
interest.  Of course, I was also watching "TV" too.  And chewing gum
at the same time!

I could have done a lot of things, but instead I simply repeated a lot
of things that some of them had said.  And then, just in time, I said
in English with a perfect Cockney accent:

"There is something that is here now.  I refuse to answer any more
questions.  Kill me if you like."

There was complete silence for a literal eternity.  They were trying
to comprehend what I had said.  It didn?t make sense to them.  It was
too ?mystical.?  And then somebody finally managed to assert:
?Incorrect answer!?  Then a huge debate broke out, and they were
discussing this issue ?at every level? as they say, and then some of
them started shooting at each other, and some shot themselves.  And
they kept asking me what I  meant, and if I could clarify my
statement, and if I could demonstrate this empirically, and whether I
could demonstrate this a priori, and all sorts of other things.  But
then some of them started shooting at me, but the bullets bounced off,
leaving me unharmed.  I thought, oh right, I?m ?Hitler.?  I can?t be
killed.  I can only kill myself.  Or be replaced with someone more
?powerful.?  While the politicians were fighting amongst themselves, I
teleported to the "war room" and ordered my military staff to report,
which of course they did.  They advised me of our strategic situation,
and requested an order.  I thought about it and ordered them to ?Use
your own discretion indefinitely.?  At first they were stunned, but
then they all laughed hysterically, agreed that only I could have said
something so funny, and followed my order.

Initially, the "Wehrmacht," my personal military, suffered devastating
losses, but this was only temporary.  Soon, the ?Axis? was advancing
all across the ?globe.?

I was very powerful, but I was trying to think of a way to acquire
?absolute power.?  I could think of only one way.  I would have to
eliminate everything but myself and remain alone forever.  Only when I
alone existed would I have truly absolute power.  Logically, the only
way to do this was to assimilate everything into myself.  In essence,
I would have to ?eat everything.?  My ?ultimate weight gain program?
would give me and me alone absolute power.  My mind would then be able
to create any object that it wanted to for itself, and I would have
absolute power, at the cost of eternal solitude.  I knew that I was
capable of doing this, but would I actually choose to do so?

I wondered what that would be like.  I became very frustrated.  I
could run simulations, but I wouldn?t actually know what it would be
like unless I actually did it.

I had never myself eliminated my capacity for depression, because I
deemed that unwise, and I became more depressed than I have ever been
before.  I realized that there were many people that I actually wanted
to exist.  However, I did a lot of meditation, and was finally cured
of my attachment to other people.

I decided to go ahead with my plan, but I didn?t get very far before I
remembered something very important.  All of this had occurred because
I had been forcibly abducted against my will.  I never wanted any of
this to happen in the first place.  I concluded with certainty that
the first thing that I would see with my absolute power would be
O?Brien Jr., smiling sadistically, saying ?At long last, I have proved
my point and you are cured.?

I was greatly relieved!  I couldn?t take back what had happened, or
undo what O?Brien did to me, so I decided to do the next best thing. 
I would return myself to Baghdad at midnight!  Of course it wouldn?t
be the same Baghdad and so forth, but it would be the next best thing!
 And then of course I did a lot of ?magic tricks? and so on, restored
my capacity for sleep, put on Beethoven?s 9th Symphony, listened to it
in its entirely, and fell asleep after precisely five minutes.

Suddenly I found myself back in Baghdad at midnight!  And this time
the hired goons did not show up!  I remembered what had happened to me
in a general way, but of course once again I was only human.  I was
tired, so I got some sleep and then did not show up for work.

But a lot has happened since then.  Now it?s 2006, and . . .

Oh no.

I'm back in that tastefully decorated room.  In front of me is a
woman.  I'll know if she's beautiful or not from what what she's going
to say, and I do know what she's going to say. . . .

"Hello, I'm O'Brien III and I'm your guardian angel!"

Well, here we go again.

Truthfully, all of this couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

The End
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: myoarin-ga on 16 Feb 2006 09:53 PST
Maybe there is somewhere you can publish your story and recover your
expenses for your (also) interesting question.
Cheers, Myoarin
Subject: Re: Global Government
From: humangoodorevil-ga on 16 Feb 2006 23:07 PST
Thank You, myoarin-ga!

Well, that was just a first draft, but perhaps with a lot of
re-writing, additional research, and a George Orwell dedication, maybe
I can recoup my expenditure.

Writing fiction was my first love, but then I went to college and
became interested in intellectual questions like whether saturated fat
really is evil.  They say that it's "bad," but is it really "evil?" 
If it's evil, then it has to be stopped. . . .

Best Wishes,

Human: good, or evil?

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at with the question ID listed above. Thank you.
Search Google Answers for
Google Answers  

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy