Last words on this website

Q1 Much of this website is unrealistically idealistic. You call for a world government, for the richer countries to help the poor ones to rapidly industrialise, for poorer countries to join a hyperstate when they meet the convergence conditions, for western and developed governments to use the income from credit creation to provide a minimum income for everyone, and so on. There’s no realistic chance of all these things happening, is there?

A1 There is! The wealth and power of the elites of the west now depends upon the avoidance of war, which needs a world government; for the removal of the external poverty that leads to violent dissent, which requires rapid economic development; and for the improvement of the position of the disaffected internal poor minority, which needs a standard minimum income for everyone.

Q2 Ideally, that might need to happen, but it is not going to, is it?

A2 It will because the rich elite of the West and in fact the ruling classes of all countries are now facing three main kinds of dissent. First, there could be and is political dissent by foreign leaders, and some of these leaders will eventually acquire atom bombs. Second, the most violent locations in the world are the poorest. If human life is cheap anywhere, it will be cheapened everywhere. The poor legions of the world are a large recruiting ground for volunteers to overthrow the existing order, and rapidly rising living standards would undercut the grounds for dissent. And third, if a world government forms, it is essential not just to internalize the third world. Selfishness and humanitarianism go hand in hand here – if we want peaceful, prosperous societies we need to eliminate poverty. It won’t be difficult because we are about to become much richer than we realise, and there’s much more money to be made out of a more affluent society with a basic minimum income for all adults and families. And such a society is more likely to be stable, because everyone will be a stakeholder, they will all have a stake in maintaining the system.

Q3 Nobody would use the atomic bomb in the pursuit of a political grievance, surely?

A3 Atomic bombs exist, Organski and Kugler have argued, in order to prevent the world order from being changed. But if we do not develop different states under the aegis of a world government within which disputes can be settled with some amicability because of a common political framework, then sooner or late there will be a leader with a mission with an atomic weapon. Atomic weapons are weapons of last resort, and they exist (in the popular political mythology) to deter. But they don’t seem to do that, and atomic bombs could be used in future by minor leaders who are losing out on the world stage.

Q4 Minor leaders would not use atomic bombs! They would not dare!

A4 I ask you, if Hitler had the bomb, would he have used it? If the Ayatollah Khomenei had possessed the bomb, would he have used it? If some existing third world leaders had the bomb, would they use it? Suppose it was 99% probable that they would not. Are you prepared to take that chance?

Q5 Do we really need a world government to avoid atomic war?

A5 Yes, we do. But it is not only about the avoidance of war but also about the continuance of prosperity for those who now have it. World government in some form is going to happen because it is needed to ensure the continued power and wealth of the existing ruling elites everywhere. You can depend upon it happening, the only question is when. The richest states – the USA, Japan, The European Union – and the rapidly developing states, such as China and the East Asian tigers, have most to lose. They could lose the whole system through one major miscalculation. Once the ruling elites realize that (and they’d have to be daft not to realize it, and they are many things but they are not daft) and that they need a world government to avoid personal, family, and national disaster, they will act.

Q6 But I can’t see that happening quickly enough.

A6 Neither can I. The balance of probability is that a more unified world will occur after a minor atomic war. But there really is no such thing. And once the atomic jack is out of the box, restraint might go. It would be much, much better if a world government was voluntarily formed during the economic upswing of the first quarter of the 21st century.

Q7 Even if world government happened, why should the rich countries help the poorer ones to industrialise?

A7 Because it is now in their own best interests to do that. And it is in everybody's best interests to do that. Once many countries are using investment credit economics to grow rapidly, it will become obvious that the only legitimate market for most of a nation’s goods and services is their domestic market. Capital goods and raw materials are both exceptions to that rule, as is the costs of technology transfer. Foreign capital and foreign goods may be kept out, capital by legal restrictions, goods through a deliberately set-low exchange rate. Given the way hedge funds have behaved, that result is inevitable. The only way foreign firms can have a piece of these rapidly developing markets is by getting inside that economy and assisting the process. There is a lot of money to be made out of much more rapid economic growth over most of the world.

Q8 Why should minimum incomes be a social priority? Social dissent could be controlled by cheap means, like electronic eavesdropping and cameras.

A8 I think it is better to deal with the causes of social dissent rather than introduce new and repressive forms of incursion into privacy. Some incursion into privacy is inevitable, given the technology we now have, and to avoid intrusion homes will increasingly be built with rooms that are Faraday cages – places where no electronic signal can enter or get out – in much the same way that the research facilities of major corporations have been built for years. Information is like security, by its very nature it will never be complete, never consistent, often misinterpreted. It is inherently better to create a situation where there is a small manageable problem, such as dissenters without a cause, than a large underclass that could destroy the system.

Q9 But individual people are powerless in the face of big government, surely?

A9 No, they are not. An unorganized popular uprising against government decisions can occur, as the petrol crisis in the UK illustrates. The worst answer to the conspiracy theorist question of “Who’s behind this?” is “Almost everybody!” Governments can and do fall if they generate immense popular support against themselves, as they are obviously able to do.

Q10 Finally, you have argued that intelligence in this universe nearly always kills itself. That’s a very depressing conclusion. Do you really believe that? And if you do, what is the point of life in these circumstances?

A10 Yes, I believe nearly all previous intelligent life in this galaxy must have destroyed itself or the aliens would be here by now. I don’t think I am alone in that view. Of course, there is a slim chance that alien intelligence might have developed at the same time and the same rate as we have. A one time friend of mine – a man called Michel de Tedesco – was once discussing this topic with me in Edinburgh during the early sixties. His flip reply “The aliens are not here because the atomic bomb is easier to build than the starship” is probably completely valid.

Everything dies, but the point is not death but life. The self-replicating bundle of DNA of which we are made is truly immortal if we don’t kill it on this planet. There must be a small chance, if we leapt up to the next level of consciousness, that we will not kill ourselves, especially if we are aware of the danger. Admiral Rickenbacker of the USA was asked, near the end of his military career, if he was proud of having created the Polaris atomic submarine programme for the US Navy, and he replied:

“We are all going to kill ourselves anyway, so what difference does it make?”

But it makes a huge difference. The death of humanity should not be an assisted suicide, particularly when the patient has no wish to die. The world can be a very pleasant and happy place for all of mankind. Just because every other intelligent race appears to have killed itself does not mean we should willingly go to the grave quickly.

We could and should last longer if we plan and act intelligently. The position is best summed up in the old Scottish Hogmanay toast:

“Here’s to us, whae’s like us? Damned few and they’re all deed!”

Home Contents Consultancy Services News

World Economic Development Publications

Book 5 Chapter headings FAQs Feedback Last words

Date last modified: 03/03/06