The time has come for a world democracy. With global Internet access it should be possible to efficiently collect votes from most of the world population. Biometric identification can be used to ensure a unique identity of each vote, and help to prevent voting fraud. Votes can be stored in blockchains, which removes the need for centralized counting of votes. There are several reasons why we should strive to get a world democracy:
Humanity is believed to have caused a mass extinction that is comparable to the mass extinction that occurred when the the dinosaurs went extinct, and according to the World Wide Fund for Nature global biodiversity has declined by approximately 30% since 1970. Conversely, it can take many million years to increase the global biodiversity by 30% with the slow evolutionary processes that generate new species. Loss of biodiversity has been shown to negatively influence humanity in numerous of ways. We believe that policies to reverse the decline in global biodiversity and prevent an ecological disaster must be implemented globally. A new world government therefore seems to be required to deal with the ecological issues that threaten this planet.
Global wealth inequality is currently enormous, with 0.7% of the richest people in the world owning 45.6% of the world's wealth, while 73.2% of the poorest people in the world own only 2.4% of the world's wealth. In the current multinational world, there is competition among countries to have the lowest taxes for the rich, since lower taxes for the rich tend to attract businesses[5,6]. Billionaires also often place their money in "tax havens" to avoid paying taxes. Because of these loopholes, global wealth inequality continues to grow. With a new world government, we can implement the same progressive tax system everywhere. Then there will not be any opportunities for rich people to put their money in "tax havens", and countries will not be allowed to reduce their taxes for the rich to attract businesses. We might then progress towards a more egalitarian world economy.
Today superpowers are competing against each other to get the most destructive weapons. The nuclear weapons we have today can destroy civilization as we know it. With a new world government we can order all the superpowers to get rid of their nuclear weapons, and make our civilization much safer. We can also set a limit for how large national armies can be, so that nations do not pose a threat to each other, and nations do not need to waste so much money on military expenditures.
A new world government gives us the opportunity to implement the same civil rights for all people in the world, and put an end to state-sponsored discrimination against women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities.
With a new world government we can overthrow authoritarian regimes and make the entire world democratic.
Many of the biggest cities in the world are getting unbreathable air, due to smog and particulate matter. In many Chinese cities people are using surgical masks to protect themselves from air pollution.
Many of the world's rivers that have served as drinking water sources for many thousand years, are now becoming so polluted that they can no longer be used for drinking water.
Everyone should find this unacceptable. To have breathable air, and drinkable water should be our greatest priority.
The world population seems to have increased from approximately 2 million people 12 000 years ago to about 6 billion people in year 2000. There are approximately 126 billion acres of surface area on this planet, so we had about 5 orders of magnitude more surface area per individual 12 000 years ago than today. Or, if we divided the surface area of this planet equally 12 000 years ago, each individual would have about 63 000 acres of surface area, while if we divided it equally in year 2000, each individual would own only about 20 acres. You might think that 20 acres still is a lot for an individual, but only about 6 of these 20 acres are landmass, and only about 2 of these 20 acres are well suited for agriculture. If the world population continues to grow as expected there will be about 9 billion people in year 2050. Then each person will own only about 14 acres of surface area if we divide it equally, and only 1.4 of these acres are well suited for agriculture.
In order to create agricultural land we often chop down forests and replace them with monocultures of crops. This leads to a decrease in biological diversity since forests have a much higher biodiversity than monocultures of crops. From 1970 until today, we have destroyed about 20% of the Brazilian rainforest. Tropical rainforests and coral reef's have the highest biodiveristy on Earth, and should therefore be protected at all costs.
Most of our land use is related to agriculture, but different types of consumables require different amounts of land. It might be a good idea for us to cut down a bit on the consumables that require most land. Or if it is possible, we could try make the consumables use less land, for example by hydroponic farming.
Roughly 70% of earth's surface area is ocean, but obviously we do not have enough ocean to feed the world population either, as the amount of fish is dropping rapidly due to overfishing. Today, there are no undeveloped fish stocks left, and more than 70% of the global fish stocks are either overexploited or have collapsed.
Pollution is also affecting global fish stocks. Plastic waste can take many hundreds of years to decompose. Fish tends to mistake plastic microdebris for food, and it is increasingly found in the gastrointestinal tract of fishes and several other animals that obtain their food from the sea. Ingestion of plastic pieces can scratch and annoy the intestines, cause internal bleeding and lead to premature death. Some types of plastic contain diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) or bisphenol-A (BPA), which are thought to be endocrine disruptors that interfere with human hormonal function. Other toxic chemicals found in the sea can also adhere to pieces of plastic.
Plastic microdebris has also been found in agricultural soil, and perhaps even more disturbingly in our drinking water. We don't necessarily know the full scope of how this might be affecting our health. In any case, it seems like a good idea to use more biodegradable types of plastic in our consumer goods.
The world's biocapacity is equal to the amount of renewable resources our planet can generate. According to the global footprint network we are currently consuming about 50 percent more resources than our planet can regenerate. We are only able to do this because of non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels. Phosphorus is a fertilizer used in agriculture, and the extraction of phosphorus is likely to peak around 2030. In many areas of the world we are also using too much fresh water. Many ground water reservoirs are in the process of being depletedand once these reservoirs are depleted it can take thousands of years to completely replenish them.
Billions of people are in danger of dying from hunger when we do not have enough fresh water, fossil fuel and phosphorus to produce food for everyone. The consequences of resource depletion is going to be most severe for people living in overpopulated third world countries. These countries might start to fight against each other for resources, and mass emigrate to other places because of desperation. Complete chaos might then emerge in the third world, and a horrible situation for the people living there. The demand for rare earth elements is also expected to surpass production soon. They are used in lasers, magnets, batteries, computers, cellphones and other cutting edge technologies.
More than 70% of our fresh water is used in agriculture, while less than 10% is used in our homes. So even if everybody takes shorter showers, it is not going to have a huge impact on the amount of fresh water we use. Changing the food we are eating might however have a large impact upon our fresh water footprint. Eating less beef and more vegetables, seems like the most efficient way to reduce our fresh water footprint.
Grain production underlies most of our caloric intake, since also livestock is fed by grain. The energy conversion from grain to edible meat is however not particularly efficient, since large amounts of energy is lost to the metabolism of farm animals. Even without an increased birth rate, the world population is expected to increase as the people living today get older. In order to feed this aging world population, it might be advisable for us to eat less meat. In particular, we should perhaps consume less beef, since the production of beef is remarkably inefficient.
Fossil fuels are non-renewable energies, which means that the reservoirs of fossil fuels eventually will be depleted. They also increase the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2is involved in the greenhouse effect, and is implicated in global warming. The largest CO2emission comes from coal, the second largest from oil, the third largest from natural gas, and fourth largest from cement production. About 80% of the energy consumed today is derived from fossil fuels. The larger this percentage is, the more we depend upon fossil fuels and the more vulnerable we are when the reservoirs eventually get depleted. Increasing the extraction of fossil fuels helps to increase our dependence upon fossil fuels and thereby makes us more vulnerable. Increasing the use of renewable energy on the other hand, helps to decrease our dependence upon fossil fuels and helps to prepare us for oil depletion.
If all houses get solar roof panels, we need much less electricity from other sources, such as coal power plants. With electric cars we can charge our cars directly from our houses, and then the impact of oil depletion is not going to be nearly as devastating as if we continue to use gasoline cars.
Electric cars are also much more energy efficient than gasoline cars. Batteries in electric cars can for example be charged by regenerative brakes, so that every time the brakes are used the batteries are charged a little. Since the electric engines are so efficient, they generate little heat however. This might pose a problem for places with a cold climate. Electric engines are also not necessarily suited for large vehicles, such as ships and airplanes. These vehicles can however use combustion engines with cellulosic biofuel from perennial grassesor biofuel from algae. Biofuels are also a renewable energy source, and they do not increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere like fossil fuels.
Increasing the efficiency of solar panels, batteries, and the production of biofuels should be our main objective. This should be done by subsidizing these renewable industries with tax money from the oil industry.
According to The Global Wealth Report 2016 by Credit Suisse Research Institute, the 0.7% richest of the world population owns 45.6% of the world's wealth, while the 73.2% poorest of the world population own only about 2.4% of the worlds wealth.
When athletes compete in running, biking, swimming and/or cross-country skiing, they all need to start from the same line at the same time. It would be rather unfair if some people had to start far behind the others, or much later than the rest. This is however how the world is for people today. Poor people are born with much less access to good education than rich people, so of course they need to work much harder to get equally educated. This is not very fair.
How well a democracy functions depends primarily on how well educated people are. If the population in a country isn't very well educated, it is more difficult for them to know if a politician is honest or deceitful, and the truth doesn't necessarily sound as appealing as a fabrication. Deceitful politicians that use common prejudices and
xenophobia to their advantage often gain the upper hand. Democracies implemented in third world countries, where the local population hasn't been properly educated first, are likely to turn into corrupted autocracies. This is why we need to focus on education before democracy. If we focus upon educating people, functional democracies might emerge almost by themselves.
One way of increasing the educational level in third world countries is by building educational facilities. However, people in third world countries are often skeptical to the idea of getting educated by foreigners. To increase the local popularity of the educational facilities, they should also offer free food and medical aid. Much of the food can be grown at the facility, which will also serve to teach the local population about more efficient ways of farming. Many third world countries are unfortunately dangerous, so there should be armed guard towers to protect the people working in the educational facilities.
There are many benefits with having a standardized system for educating people in third world countries. The components to the different buildings can be mass-produced in factories. It is also much easier to oversee that the educational facilities work like they should, and that they aren't getting corrupted when they are standardized. Study programs can be made available in universities, which give graduated students the opportunity to work in any of these standardized educational facilities all around the world. Employees can then also easily change to work in different facilities in different countries if they desire to broaden their experiences.
Even though most of the scientific publications are provided from researchers working at universities, universities need to pay a large amount of money to get access to scientific journals, and to access to scientific databases built upon the scientific journals. Because of this, public universities aren't necessarily able to afford as much access to scientific journals and scientific databases as expensive private universities. Universities in poor countries also tend to have much less access than universities in rich countries.
Sci-Hub is a website that provides open access to scientific journals. They are currently in a legal battle with Elsevier, which owns the rights to publish most of the scientific journals. Students at public universities, and students in poor countries, can use this website to download publications, even though it might be somewhat illegal today.
But students at public universities and students in poor countries, usually cannot get access to all the scientific databases that are available at expensive private universities. Some of these databases are absolutely necessary for doing cutting edge research today. Students that are studying organic chemistry, might for example need access to SciFinder or Reaxys, in order to know if there are other people in the world that already have done what the students are planning to do. Without access to SciFinder or Reaxys, the students might start doing something that other people already have done.
We need open source databases, built upon publications from Sci-Hub in order for students at public universities and students in poor countries to be able to compete with students at expensive private universities. It also seems like a much more fair situation for universities to not spend so much money on access to scientific journals and scientific databases, since most of the scientific publications actually are provided by researchers working at universities. Most of the work with incorporating data from journals into open source databases can be done with machine learning algorithms today.
Universities are also spending large amounts of money on Microsoft licenses. Instead of wasting money on this, universities should use Arch Linux with the Cinnamon desktop environment, which is just as user-friendly as Windows or Apple, but completely free of charge. Most Linux distributions come with LibreOffice, which contains a word processor, a spreadsheet, a presentation application, a drawing application, a formula editor, and a database management application. However, it is probably better for students to learn to use LaTeX for many of these applications.
Building and maintaining these standardized educational facilities in third world countries is going to be expensive. A global welfare system can however be funded by a highly progressive tax system , so that people pay a higher percentage in taxes the more they earn, while the poorest individuals are completely exempt from taxes.
Such a progressive tax system would also work to contract how the banks are helping to increase global wealth inequality. Since the poor often are forced to take out huge mortgage loans while the rich usually deposit large amounts of money to banks, the poor mostly pay interest rate to banks while the overly rich mostly receive interest rate from banks. So the banks we have today actually take money from the poor while they give money to the rich (the opposite of what the English folklore hero Robin Hood did), and this does not just apply to individuals but to whole nations as well.
It seems fair to decrease global wealth inequality with a progressive tax system. However, it also seems fair that people are partially involved in deciding what their taxes are used for. If I am a pacifist and my country is waging war, it seems fair that my taxes aren't used to fund that war. If I believe in the importance of free mandatory education with healthy food and clothes included, I should be allowed to invest some of my taxes in this. This would make it more agreeable for me to pay taxes, and it might make me more supportive of a highly progressive tax system. It might also make our society more dynamic, by helping us to address problems more quickly. If for example the infrastructure is very bad in a society, many people might choose to invest their taxes in infrastructure, and as a consequence it might rapidly improve.
Tax payers are a diverse group of people, so it is unlikely that all of them are going to invest in the same sector. However, people should only be allowed to decide what 50% of their taxes are used for, in case some sectors get little funding from the tax payers. These sectors might nevertheless need money, and if the government gets the remaining 50% of the money payed in taxes they should have more than enough to ensure that all sectors get sufficient funding.
In the current multinational world, countries are competing to have the lowest corporate taxes and the lowest taxes for the rich, since it tends to attract businesses[5,6]. But wealth inequality also increases with less corporate/progressive taxes. So countries have the choice between more wealth inequality or less businesses. Since countries are completely dependent upon businesses for less unemployment and economic growth, the choice tends to be in favor of the right-wing argument. This is one of the main reasons why global wealth inequality continues to increase.
To invalidate the right-wing argument and remove the incentive for countries to have less corporate/progressive taxes, there needs to be a multilateral tax treaty which ensures that all countries have the same corporate/progressive taxes.
It seems to be somewhat difficult for people to understand the misery of being discriminated, unless they have experienced it themselves. However, discrimination tends to be detrimental for everyone in a society. Discriminated ethnicities will for example often rebel against and terrorize their suppressors. In the worst cases, discrimination has led to ethnic cleansing and genocides. There is a long history of discrimination against black people in the United States and Latin America. As of 2016, homosexual intercourse has death penalty in Yemen, Saudi-Arabia, Mauritania, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan. While there is life imprisonment in India, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tanzania, Zambia, Guyana. Most of these countries also have much less rights for women. One of the biggest achievements of modern western democracies, is equal rights for people of different ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. We believe these human rights must be implemented globally.
Social cohesion is needed to keep a society together. Religious morality has traditionally been involved in creating a common framework for righteousness and misbehavior, while Aristotelian logic and physics have been involved in creating a common framework for truth and falsehood. Even though modern science to a large degree has evolved from Aristotelian physics, it is not necessarily a good idea to teach Aristotelian physics today, since modern science gives a much more accurate description of reality. Similarly, our modern understanding of human rights has to a large degree evolved from religious morality, but seems to give a much more elaborate foundation for morality; especially in regard to equal rights for women, homosexuals, and all ethnicities.
Article 18 of the human rights declaration says that everybody should be free to believe in whatever religion they want, but since religions themselves are somewhat incompatible with our modern idea about human rights , this seems a bit contradictory.
Table 1: How religions are in disagreement with our modern understanding of human rights.
Judaism and Christianity
Although traditionally considered inferior to men, today most jews and christians believe in equal rights for men and women.
Homosexuality is often considered sinful among conservatives, but homosexuality is legal in Israel and most christian countries.
Women are worth half as much as men according to the Quran, and most islamic countries have less rights for women than for men.
Homosexuality is illegal in many muslim countries, and some even have death penalty for homosexuality.
Varies due to the pluralistic nature of hinduism. However, women in India face numerous problems, including victimization when raped and forced prostitution of young girls.
Varies due to the pluralistic nature of hinduism. However, sexual activity between people of the same gender is forbidden in India, and is punishable by lifetime imprisonment.
Women are often considered to be spiritually inferior to men.
Early texts do not mention homosexuality. Buddhist countries tend to be the most liberal for homosexuals in Asia.
Equal rights for men and women.
Equal rights for homosexuals.
In addition to discrimination against women and homosexuals, the Hindu caste system discriminates people according to which caste they are born into. This is also completely unfair, since all people should have equal rights and opportunities from birth. Religious groups also often discriminate people adhering to other religions.
When we are considering the health of a population, we need to take two things into consideration; the physical health, and the mental health.
Physical health is mostly influenced by such things as genetics, nourishment and physical activities, while psychological health mostly is influenced by such things as upbringing, social environment, and mental activities. Many of these things are difficult to control, but certain types of education might influence them to become more healthy. You can read more about this here. We might also to some degree be able to help our children to become more healthy by optimizing the availability of healthy nourishment and informative entertainment we make available to them. If children can choose themselves, they are likely to choose food that tastes good and entertainment that is fun, without taking into consideration how healthy or educational it is. And as long as there is lots of tasty unhealthy food and fun noneducational entertainment available, children are more likely to choose that.
The abundance of entertainment has increased exponentially since the invention of the color TV. The amount of attention we can give during a day, has however not changed. Today there is an enormous amount of entertainment available on the Internet, and companies are competing to get our attention. This competition is becoming increasingly ruthless, as companies are becoming better at using our psychological weaknesses to get our attention.
We are often not very good at deciding what to give our attention to. We seem to be more attracted to sensational news, than to investigative journalism. We are weak for sexual content, and advertisements with false spectacular promises. We also seem to be more attracted to websites that confirm our biases. There is lots of noneducational entertainment on the Internet. We might benefit from decreasing the availability of noneducational on the Internet, while making informative and educational information more available on the Internet, for example by letting search engines favor such information. We might also prevent children from getting access to everything on the Internet by requiring biometric identification to use the Internet.
Lifestyle diseases caused by consumption of unhealthy food is a problem in many countries today. As people usually prefer to buy cheap groceries rather than more expensive groceries, unhealthy food should be taxed heavily while more healthy food should be subsidized. This policy will make people prefer to buy the healthy food rather than the unhealthy food, and improve the diet in our society while decreasing the number of lifestyle diseases. As lifestyle diseases also are expensive to our society, this policy will also make our society save substantial amounts of money. Any product that is hazardous to health should be taxed at least so much that it covers the expenses of the diseases caused by the product. The glycemic index is a measure of how fast different types of food increase blood sugar level. Foods that have a high glycemic index increase blood sugar level rapidly, while foods that have a low glycemic index increase blood sugar level slowly. A high intake foods that rapidly increase blood sugar has been linked to obesity, coronary heart disease, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetes type 2. The number of these lifestyle diseases can be reduced by having taxes on foods with a high glycemic index, while subsidizing foods with a low glycemic index.
Consumable fat is usually divided into saturated, unsaturated and trans fat. Trans fats are rare in nature, but became common for human consumption after the 1950's, when we started to produce margarine by hydrogenating unsaturated fat. Trans fat has been found to be hazardous to human health in numerous of ways, but has been primarily linked to coronary heart disease. Since we have strong indications that trans fats are hazardous to human health, trans fats should be taxed heavily. Saturated fats are found mostly in meat, while unsaturated fats are found mostly in vegetables. Saturated fats have traditionally been regarded as hazardtous to human health, while unsaturated fats have been regarded as beneficial to human health. Today this is a highly controversial topic. Vegetables are however beneficial to human health for other reasons, as they contain a high concentration of fibres, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. We can also get about 10 times more calories per acre from plants than from farm animals, as a lot of energy is lost in the metabolism of farm animals. This means that we can feed about 10 times more vegetarians than carnivores from the same amount of land. These are good reasons to subsidize vegetables.
According to the microeconomic model of supply and demand, the price of a product goes up if the product becomes less available while the demand for the product stays the same. So the irony of drug prohibition is that the more money we spend on enforcing laws to decrease the availability of drugs, the more money criminals can earn on selling drugs as long as the demand for drugs stays the same. The American war on drugs has cost trillions of US dollars since it was implemented, while the amount of drug abuse has increased. The war on drugs has also contributed to a 500% increase in the number of people incarcerated. A report from 2011 by The Global Commission on Drug Policyregarded the war on drugs as a complete failure, and recommended to end criminalization of drug usage.
In a society where recreational drugs are legal there should be an optimal level of taxes and regulations on the drugs. Black market activity can be just as detrimental to our society as drug abuse, and if there are too much taxes and regulations there will be an incentive to sell drugs on the black market. It is however somewhat risky to sell drugs on the black market, so if there are not too much taxes and regulations the sale of drugs can be kept mainly within the legal system. If drugs are legal we can also require that they are manufactured according to the same standards as today's pharmaceutical drugs, and we can require that they are sold with labels informing consumers about what they contain and about potential dangers. Drugs in the black market often contain harmful impurities, and they do not have any labels informing consumers about what they contain and about potential dangers.
It would not be good if we taxed and regulated things that are good for us, while we subsidized things that really are not good for us. This is however not necessarily so uncommon today. In a report from 2006 by the UK Science and Technology Select Committee, the legal drugs alcohol and tobacco were found to be more harmful than many illegal drugs; such as marijuana, LSD, ecstasy, and magic mushrooms. The drugs were categorized according to physical harm, dependence and social harms. Another even more detailed report from 2010 by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugsdraw similar conclusions. An article from 2006 about the toxicity of recreational drugsfound the overdose potential of ethanol to be approximately a hundred times higher than the illegal drugs marijuana, LSD and magic mushrooms.
If taxes and subsidizes are not based on scientific research, it can generate more harm than good, and make the population of a country distrustful of the government. It has however been somewhat challenging to get unbiased information about how healthy and/or how harmful nutrition and pharmaceuticals are. We therefore propose a new digital way to study nutrition and pharmaceuticals. You can read more about this here.
One of the most important criteria for a healthy democracy, is for the general population to have some level of trust in the government. Without any such a trust, the general population will tend to work against whatever the government is trying to achieve, and the society will frequently turn into a battleground between the government and the general population. However, in such societies there is usually a reason why the general population is distrustful of the government. A government that steals from and lies to the general population, will of course have problems earning any trust from the general population. A government that completely ignores demands from the general population will also have a hard time earning trust. In order to earn trust from the general population, the government needs to be respectful, honest and responsive to the demands of the general population.
In nations where there is very little freedom of the press, people are easily brainwashed by the media, which does not write anything contradicting the government. So people are likely to reelect a corrupt government, simply because they are unaware of all the corruption in the government. Freedom of the press is also important, to provide negative feedback to the government. Without negative feedback, our understanding tend to grow into conceptual bubbles that lose touch with reality, as portrayed in the Danish fairy tale about the Emperor's new clothes. This is probably one of the main reasons why western democracies have tended to become more developed than authoritarian regimes.
Without freedom of speech, people also tend to become more anxious, which reduces life-quality. In Eastern Germany during the cold war, the Stasi used mass surveillance to induce a chronic state of anxiety in the population. This seems completely counterproductive for a government that works to promote a healthy society.
Political advertisements are detrimental to a healthy democracy, since the audience isn't exposed to counterarguments, and since they tend to oversimplify political matters. Political advertisements also increases the influence of money in politics, since wealthy parties can afford much more advertisements than less wealthy parties. In order for the population to get better informed about what they should vote for, there needs to be high quality political debates, rather than political advertisements. Since not allowing people to spread political propaganda for free would infringe on freedom of speech, the only way to limit political propaganda would be by restricting the rights to pay someone else to spread propaganda.
The more attention news media gets from people, the more money they earn on commercials. And since sensational news tends to attract most attention, many news sources seek out sensational news. On the other hand, investigative journalism is expensive to perform, but does not necessarily get as much attention as sensational news. So in order to get more investigative journalism, the government should subsidize it. It is however very important that news sources do not get subsidized just because they write favorably about the government, since negative feedback is one of the essential criteria for a healthy democracy. Rather, investigative journalism should be economically rewarded for revealing corruption in the government.
Global oversight might be important to establish certain ground rules about environmental protection and civil rights, or to prevent harmful tax competition and military buildup between countries. However, for many other societal issues, it seems appropriate to make decisions more locally. A national government might have more insight into domestic issues than a world government. It might also be able to react more rapidly and dynamically to national circumstances. A high degree of centralization also tends to make people feel alienated from society, and this can be detrimental to the health of a society. So many societal decisions should be taken locally just to make people more involved in society and make them feel less alienated.
Electing people that are going to represent us in other elections is generally not a good idea, since this creates room for corruption. One example would be a system where the population is involved in electing the leader of the world government, but is not involved in electing the leaders of lower governing bodies; such as the president of their national government, the governor of their state, and the mayor of their municipality. In such a system, people will also tend to be distrustful of the lower governing bodies, since they aren't involved in electing the leaders of the lower governing bodies.
The same would be the case for a system where the population is involved in electing the mayor of their municipality, but not in the election of leaders for higher governing bodies; such as the governor of their state, the president of their national government, or the leader of the world government. Such a system will also create distrust between the population and higher governing bodies, since they aren't involved in the process of electing the leaders of the higher governing bodies.
In order to minimize any room for corruption, the population should be involved in electing the leaders of all their governing bodies. This also creates more trust between the population and the governing bodies, since they are involved in the process of electing the leaders of all their governing bodies.
We can create an almost infinite amount stereotypes by inductive reasoning, but it also seems likely that we are born with some innate stereotypes, called archetypes. In the paleolithic era, when we evolved into humans, we lived in small communities, where most of the roles and professions of today didn't exist. There were however a few different roles. The leader of the community might for example have taken the role as an alpha male. Once a woman had given birth, she might have taken the role as a caregiver for her children. There might also have been a wise old person (sage), which held a special position in the community due to all his/her life experiences. It probably would have been beneficial for paleolithic humans to identify these roles instinctively. In order to have more balance between the sexes in our government, maybe it would be wise to elect three individuals based upon these archetypes to rule our society: one alpha male, one female
caregiver, and one wise old sage. Then these three individuals could make decisions democratically.
We are all somewhat biased since we can only see the world from our own perspective. However, when we are right about something, it is more likely that other people with different perspectives will agree with us, while when we are wrong about something, it is more likely that other people with different perspectives will disagree with us. So, when the caregiver and the sage don't agree with the alpha male, maybe the alpha male is a bit too extreme. Similarly, if the sage and the alpha male don't agree with the caregiver, maybe the caregiver is a bit too extreme.
It can actually be mathematically proven that a ruling body composed of three diverse individuals will be better at predicting than just one of the individuals.
It seems reasonable that the responsibility of the alpha male should include areas like the police and military, while the main responsibilities of the caregiver should include areas like education and health care. However, the alpha male should not be given any more power over the police and military, nor should the caregiver be given any more power over education and health care. If that was the case, the caregiver might order her teachers to influence kids to become more supportive of her policies, which might furthermore influence the alpha male to order his police department to start arresting subversive teachers. In order to avoid conflicts like these, they should not be given different powers.
Even though computers and Internet have been here for a while now, many of our social institutions are still based upon a how we used to think before Internet and computers came. Public broadcasting is still popular, even though many of us have started using Internet streaming services, such as YouTube and Netflix. Public schools and universities are still the most common institutions where people get educated today, even though many people now are educating themselves at Khan Academy, coursera.org, brilliant.org, Kurzgesagt and with games from Zachtronics. We are still getting most of our money from central banks, even though many people have started investing in cryptocurrencies which utilize blockchain technology that excludes the need for any central server or authority.
On the Internet, transactions can be made more anonymously with cryptocurrencies than with national currencies. This has made it appealing to the black market. The value of a Bitcoin has also been increasing steadily, which also has made it appealing to investors. The market capitalization of cryptocurrencies is well documented to have been growing exponentially since 2013, with a tenfold increase approximately every 2.5 years. If this exponential growth continues unhindered, the entire world economy will be using cryptocurrencies around year 2025. The dilemma with this, is that there will be hyperinflation of national currencies before that happens. So, savings in national currencies might become worthless, or perhaps more agreeable; mortgages might become worthless.
It might be that the exponential growth of cryptocurrencies will slow down, or they might even lose their market share. This however seems to be somewhat unlikely, since it appears to be easier to control inflation with cryptocurrencies than with national currencies. National currencies tend to control the rate of inflation by adjusting the rate of interest on loans from central banks to retail banks. The central banks are however limited in how much they can change this rate of interest, since it also influences the interest rate on mortgages and on loans to industry. Cryptocurrencies are introduced into the economy by a completely different mechanism called mining, and seem to have much more flexibility to deal with inflation.
Central banks and national currencies are so essential to the functionality of many modern nations, that they might collapse completely with hyperinflation of their national currencies. Some of the cryptocurrencies that are emerging are also more or less completely anonymous. This means they are highly suitable for evading taxes. Without taxes, there is however not going to be any funding to the government. This makes it even less likely that nations will survive the transition from national currencies to cryptocurrencies. In order to have a functional society, we cannot necessarily have completely anonymous currencies, since they are highly suitable for tax evasion. However, we need to forbid these currencies globally in order for it to have any effect. Otherwise, people will just use virtual private networks (VPNs) and transfer their money to other countries where completely anonymous cryptocurrencies are legal.
A complete absence of rules and regulations is unlikely to be beneficial to us, but highly authoritarian regimes are usually also disadvantageous to us. In order to prosper, we need some level of freedom, but we also seem to need some rules and regulations. The more we are able to realize this, the more we might be able to create a society that actually benefits ourselves.
After the first world war, the League of Nations was founded to maintain world peace. However, it was not very successful at this, because 20 years after its inauguration the second world war started. Due to the failure of the League of Nations, it was renamed and reorganized into United Nations after the second world war. Although the United Nations has achieved some success, there are some serious issues which prevents it from functioning optimally:
Electing people to represent us in other elections generates room for corruption
Since the world population is not directly involved in electing the people working for the United Nations, there is room for corruption between the national governments and the United Nations. In a system where the world population is directly involved in electing the people working for the world government, there will be much less room for corruption, and the world government will be much more in tune with the world population.
Permanent veto rights in the Security Council are undemocratic and prevents reform.
Giving certain countries permanent veto rights in the United Nations Security Council reflects a static and undemocratic world view. Some of the authoritarian regimes with veto rights have also prevented the United Nations from engaging to stop genocides and ethnic cleansing. The United Nations would have been much more democratic and functional without any veto rights. However, the countries with permanent veto rights can use their veto rights to prevent any reform that takes away their veto right, so it is highly unlikely that such a reform will ever happen.
Peacekeepers from the United Nations are not allowed to engage in offensive operations.
This is the primary reason why the League of Nations failed, and why there has been many wars and genocides during the last century. In 1994 UN failed to prevent the Rwandan genocide, and in 1995 UN failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre. If the biggest and most powerful army in the world belonged to the UN, any country that did not conform with UN law would be disciplined by the UN army. The UN could also command all world leaders to get rid of nuclear weapons, and set a maximum size for national armies. This would reduce the global military expenditure.
We propose that the world population should be directly involved in electing the people working for the world government, and that peacekeeper soldiers should be allowed to engage in offensive operations to prevent genocides, ethnic cleansing and other injustices. This world government should also work to reduce global wealth inequality and to protect the global ecosystem.
Even though the human species has existed for several hundred thousand years, the first agrarian civilizations started to emerge about 10 000 years ago. The paleontologist Cesare Emilian therefore proposed to add 10 000 years to the Gregorian calendar. This seems like a good idea, since most of human history would be included in the positive integers of such a calendar, and that might have a unifying effect on the cultures and societies of today. Many holidays are celebrated solely because of social conformity to traditional norms. Celebrations could however be used to strengthen our relationship to our modern understanding of mathematics, science, history and civil rights. These topics could be celebrated at the solstices and equinoxes to get them in equal distance from each other, so that all the periods without celebrations are equally long.
 A. D. B. et al., “Has the earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?,” Nature, vol. 471, pp. 51–57, 2011.
 J. Owen, “Farming claims almost half earth,” National Geographic, 2005.
 P. Gerbens-Leenes, Indirect ruimte- en energiebeslag van deNederlandse voedselconsumptie: Een ruimte- en energieanalyse vande Nederlandse voeding en onderzoek naar besparingsmogelijkhedendoor, vol. 102 of IVEM-onderzoeksrapport. Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (IVEM), University of Groningen, 1999.
 P. Gerbens-Leenes, S. Nonhebel, and W. Ivens, “A method to determine land requirements relating to food consumption patterns,” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 90, pp. 47–58, jun 2002.
 F. Montaigne, “Still waters, the global fish crisis,” NationalGeographic, 2007.
 R. Froese, D. Zeller, K. Kleisner, and D. Pauly, “What catch data can tell us about the status of global fisheries,” Marine Biology, vol. 159, pp. 1283–1292, mar 2012.
 A. L. Andrady, “Microplastics in the marine environment,” MarinePollution Bulletin, vol. 62, pp. 1596–1605, aug 2011.
 L. Nizzetto, M. Futter, and S. Langaas, “Are agricultural soils dumps for microplastics of urban origin?,” Environmental Science &Technology, vol. 50, pp. 10777–10779, oct 2016.
 A. A. Horton, A. Walton, D. J. Spurgeon, E. Lahive, and C. Svendsen, “Microplastics in freshwater and terrestrial environments: Evaluating the current understanding to identify the knowledge gaps and future research priorities,” Science of The Total Environment, vol. 586, pp. 127–141, may 2017.
 Y. Wada, L. P. H. van Beek, C. M. van Kempen, J. W. T. M. Reckman, S. Vasak, , and M. F. P. Bierkens, “Global depletion of groundwater resources,” Geophysical Reasearch Letters, vol. 37, 2010.
 Marc Humphries, “Rare earth elements: The global supply chain.” Congressional Research Service, 2012.
 H. J. Marlow, W. K. Hayes, S. Soret, R. L. Carter, E. R. Schwab, and J. Sabate, “Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter?,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 89, pp. 1699–1703, 2009.
 S. A. Scott, M. P. Davey, J. S. Dennis, I. Horst, C. J. Howe, D. J. Lea-Smith, and A. G. Smith, “Biodiesel from algae: challenges and prospects,” Current Opinion in Biotechnology, vol. 21, pp. 277–286, 2010.
 H. Pyle, The Adventures of Robin Hood. Sterling, 2005.