If there is one thing that people of all stripes seem to have in common, it is their opposition for the concept of a “one world government.”
Why?
I have come to the conclusion that the only argument for why people feel this way is: they’ve been told that it is wrong, even evil.
Why?
I imagine that those who have advocated for a single world government in the past have done so violently and to their own ends.
Why?
People are inherently selfish.
Why?
It’s a primitive survival tool.
Why?
At the most base biological level, selfishness allows for increased personal gain, but only to a point.
Why?
Selfishness is limiting, and prevents a species from the greater overall success achieved by social interaction.
Why?
A group can achieve more by working together than the sum total of the individuals, had they worked independently.
Why?
It’s honestly far too complex for one sentence, but perhaps the biggest factors are division of labor and specialization.
Why?
People are largely the same, but they can be molded to do different things with education, training, and other forms of socialization.
Why?
People are largely a product of their environment, especially as children.
Why?
I imagine it increases survival, and is perhaps humanity’s strongest adaptation.
Why?
Being prepared for many different environments allows us to flourish.
Why?
Through ingenuity – which is often derived through painful trial and error – we have been able to overcome even the rigors of space.
Why?
When large groups of people work together as a whole, greater things can be accomplished than when individuals or even small groups work in isolation.
Why?
Groups are more productive and more efficient, so more wonderful and more terrible things are possible, but the risk of gain far outpaces the risk of loss.
Why?
There is ample evidence in the form of tribal people who are still living stone age lifestyles that progress is not a given, that advancements are not accidents, and that large social structures are every bit as responsible for the accomplishments and horrors of modern society as the individuals they produce.
Why?
The more ideas pooled and people enfranchised, and the fewer people who are deemed unimportant outsiders (i.e. “foreigners”), the better society functions.
Why?
Creating differences with our vocabulary and identity erects barriers which only pen us in like animals, and even fails in their intended purpose of protecting us from the feared outsiders.
Why?
Competition is overrated, and cooperation leads to limitless potential.
Why?
Competition requires vast expenditures of time, energy, and money on frivolous and often deadly activities.
Why?
In competition, might makes right, but in cooperation, all are in heated debate over what is right.
Why?
This is the nature of these two systems.
Why?
Competition is inherently animalistic, down to simple reptiles or even amoebas, while cooperation is a later, more complex adaptation of higher organisms (especially present in mammals).
Why?
Competition can exist without cooperation, though cooperation cannot exist without competition.
Why?
Even when organisms cooperate, there is competition, though it is usually mitigated by restraint.
Why?
I don’t know.
Because when people compete, they become motivated to do and make things better than one another, which leads to new ideas and advancements.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
Because people like to be the best at any given subject.
Why?
Because this helps with survival as a species.