Re: The Human Homeworld

In article <f6lo3k$mj2$1@xxxxxxxx>, tkmailers@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

DJensen wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:58 pm, b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael McKenny) wrote:
Hi.

One of the phrases science-fiction has provided, as far as I can tell, is
homeworld. I find it fascinating that notwithstanding such a generations
old idea of the human species existing as one polity on its own planet and
even having Terran colonists offworld, reality has been rather sluggish to
match the vision of SF writers on this point.

My two favourite takes on the idea have to be Asimov's (despite
everything else), and in the War Hammer 40,000 games.

In the Robot's series Earth is an arcology world, most of the surface
left to its own devices or used in automated farming, with man living
in eponymous caves of steel. In Foundation it's a legend, an obscure
legend. The idea of a species so widespread in the galaxy originating
on a single planet isn't even something most people would consider
possible. Almost all records of it are lost, and it's only
rediscovered by connecting some really faded dots.

In War Hammer (disclaimer: I've never read or played any permutation
of it, so put some salt on a spoon and get ready), Earth is known as
Holy Terra. Terra is a Hive World of trillions of people at the heart
of the Imperium. The Imperial Palace occupies all of Asia, and the
planet's dayside glows as seen from space. People make pilgrimages to
Earth (it's the final resting place of the God-Emperor of Man), which
is an idea I'm "inspired" (stealing) to use in my own work in
progress. The Imperium is a brutal and terrible place, but I like the
idea of Earth itself as a religious site.

I notice Boutros Boutros-Ghali is supporting a 2007 UN Parliamentary
Assembly campaign:

http://www.unpacampaign.org

I can see how this concept begins to address criticism by some against the
low level of democracy in the current UN structure.

There's a rather low level of democracy in a considerable number of UN
members, including those given the cushiest seats at the top of the
heap. And looking at how Big Business has tried (and succeeded in)
interfering with the European Parliament, I have little hope that a
world parliament would fare any better in putting people ahead of
money.

If anyone else here has any thoughts on this issue, it would be
interesting to read them.

It's interesting that the site doesn't provide an Arabic, Hindi or
Chinese translation, excluding over a third of the Homeworld's
population from being informed in their native (or regionally-
dominate) language.

--
DJensen


What a can of worms! World Government & democracy. And I am not even
touching totalitarian regimes here.

I find the idea of Indian government bad - you want to make it 6 times
bigger! A few hundred wise men in Delhi taking decisions about the lives
of a billion people. And usually clueless decisions that actually add to
misery of living! And I am talking about what is said to be the world's
biggest democracy - with regular elections, overseen by an independent &
assertive Election Commission, that regularly topple unpopular governments!

A practical world government would probably operate as an additional
layer over existing governments, and provide an extremely limited (but
important) set of services, such as stopping genocide and securing
presently anarchistic territory of weak states.

Basically, think of a UN, but with an army, so it could actually enforce
its resolutions rather than waiting around for someone else to do it.
(For preference, this body should also probably have its representatives
selected in a more democratic way.)

[snip]

--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
.

Loading