Nuclear war is what's ensured lasting peace at the moment. Or, rather, the threat thereof.
Though I could see arguments made that its denied us war, which tends to result in significant progress being made from the rubble, and generally forcing strength and resilience in people, through hard and dangerous times. Still, I'd be inclined to say we could most likely get by without that.
I can agree with the regions of desperation bit. I think that's a bit of a problem with the massive dislike for 'empires', 'colonies', and getting into the affairs of other nations. And I guess the defense of cultures as though they can not have any bad, because of different values.
Personally, I'd still rather just leave them to do what they want and improve on my own, but, I'm just generally inclined towards independent development, I guess. And, even if you do that, those other guys'll inevitably be a bit of a pain, as you'll have to work around them.
Wealth inequality is an inevitability of any system, near as I can tell. As far as I am aware, there's never been a system that didn't have it. Best we can hope for, I say, is to make a system where anyone who wants and deserves it, can get it.
I don't really know enough about climate to care that much, honestly.
Personally, I think we should just ditch the rock, anyway. Explore the stars. Find new planets.
But, by the point where we get that capability, we'll probably be able to simply terraform our problems away anyhow.> Would a world government be a good idea, do you think?
Depends on how it is done.
Local systems are better, in my opinion, by virtue of the being nearer to the people directly impacted. Larger systems tend to inevitably start dealing in statistics, rather than people. That can be dangerous.
However, large systems can be great for maintaining standardization, fair playing fields, that type of deal. So, in that regard, they can be quite nice to have.
What I'd suggest'd ultimately be a loose confederation of largely independent countries, with emphasis on standardization of requirements and restrictions, more than anything else.
No point, for example, in driving electric if China's going to continue burning anything they can get their hands on, essentially. So, better to make a standard set of rules they also have to play by. Goes for economic issues as well.
Though there's also inevitably this >>1171
The bigger the system, it seems the bigger the corruption.
It's another reason I like small governments. Easier for one good man to take it apart, and repair it.
BIg governments require a lot more organization... Which also ends up getting corrupted, meaning you need another group to get rid of that, and... Well, you get the idea. Bit of an ouroboros.