Different type of advancement, although in some regards I agree with you. Some technology's do come from the military, but these days research is just as reliant upon greed, and if that central government funds it you'll still have research. A single central government would create a completely globalized world, which has its ups and downs, but overall I don't think its practical to represent so many cultures and ideas into an efficient government.
You could have a global ruling power than a ruler of a continent than a ruler for every country until it boils down to the global community.
Can you restate that? Use better grammar. It doesn't take a grammar nazi to not understand that.
Well, computers and canned goods are the most well known things to come out of war. Not to mention the fact that a centralized government would fall apart withing months.
Of course, you could argue that the invention of canned food and computers has led to a rising obesity epidemic due to the ease of making food and the lack of exercise, which is bad just like the weapons they started with. In war however, things are put aside that shouldn't be. Imagine, if WW3 broke out right now, do you think funding would go to a cure for cancer? No real downside to that, other than a few more people living. Warm, although advancement comes from it, is risky. You might end up killing a person who was going to go on and invent light speed travel. Or, you might just exterminate the planet in a nuclear cloud. You can't argue that peace makes no progress, it just makes it at a slower rate, upon a different path of technology.
Wow, I really should have proof read that. Warm should be War, "No real downside to that" should be "No real downside to a cure to cancer", when I re-read it it sounded wrong. Sorry about that
Well, I think that the next World War will occur between the juggernauts of the Western World, namely the EU vs the not-far-off AU(American Union).
Whichever continent rises out of the ashes would would head an over-arching one-world government, on the premise of peace(which would go over very well, esp. after WWIII).
well, it depends. if it was a dictatorship then there would be rebellion and revolts. and there could still be wars, civil wars within countries. advancement would continue as it always will. it solely depends on the type of government that rules the world? a dictatorship or totalitarianist government? a democracy? a republic? fascism? you should be more specific.
okay then it could be alright for the most part. but is there a president? if there was then he would have full control over the world, god like power in essence. that's almost like a dictatorship, since one man makes all of the decisions for the world. i think that in some ways it could work and in other ways it couldn't.
I don't know that central government would have to be spread out over the world and they would have too much power which would mean that there would be a lot of corruption.
