The United States of Africa.

What if we (USA, Europe) helped set up a representative democracy. i.e. leaders of each ethnic group are elected to rule together. I think if Africa was united, it would be better able to pool its resources together and help the weaker nations out in dealing with warlords and famine and the like.

One of the problems with this is that the richer countries would inherit a shitload of debt. Making it a bad financial investment.

Africa can't pool its resources together. They don't have enough resources to feed, clothe, and shelter their people. And then they have to pay to combat diseases such as Malaria, HIV, Ebola, and Lassa Fever. And then they would have to track down possibly hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people running around Africa in guerrilla bands. Africa will never properly develop without massive financial and material aid from the west. This means money, medical supplies, and millions of volunteers, as well as military advisers to train African paramilitary groups to take down guerrilla leaders and the major guerrilla organizations. We need to start a massive program of developing Africa, because if not, we will have a massive problem on our hands. That problem is powerful African dictators sitting on massive mineral deposits, and on some of the most pristine environments in the world.

Let's say this happens 20 years from now. If we assume the western nations are stable and doing well by then, they could help them out financially.

What I am trying to say is, it could work with the help of foreign nations, like you mentioned. I am looking at about 20 years down the road, where the economy should be doing quite well.

The world economy in general maybe. But if Earth continues its current trends, then Africa will be even worse by 2032. Look up what disease experts have to say about the populations trends in countries where millions are afflicted with AIDS, like Kenya. Population experts say that the country will have virtually no people left who are between the ages of 20 and 40 by 2050. We con't just wait until our economies are fixed, not when the future of billions is at stake.

Well the only reason I was saying 20 years was because everyone was saying a United Africa couldn't work now but could in the future. However, if we do work to fix Africa starting now, then we should work towards uniting Africa at the same time.

If we unite Africa, and we already have a United States and European Union, doesn't it follow that eventually my dream of a completely united world could work? Like maybe 100 - 150 years from now?

*Sigh*. It means Africa would be one country and the USA would be one country. If the European Union gets stronger, we could see that as one country. This is our civilization moving towards type 1 status. However, a completely united world I wouldn't bet on ever.

Why not? A completely united world would be stronger, and as we lose a sense of national identity (which is beginning to happen) becomes more and more likely. In fact, the only thing in the way of a united world is people wanting their own countries. A united world would have no wars, no sanctions, no nukes.

A united world would still have nukes.

No. What's the point in having nukes if you'll never use them on anyone but yourself? Let me rephrase my statement, we would not have the threat of launching our nukes on Earth. Also, a United World would absolutely save the environment, because environmental laws would apply absolutely everywhere.

That's very idealistic line of thought. You realize that we are a long way away from everyone just throwing down their nation's banner and unifying with eachother. There would undoubtably be wars that would break out in forming this one nation planet(not everyone will be so keen on joining). Not to mention the sheer logistical nightmare it would be organizing everything. Medicine, military, police, local government, finacial system, currency, hell setting up government form everyone would agree with would be a nightmare alone. I can't see it working.

In case of giat meteors and other erxternal threats.

If that's the price of securing human future and Earth's future, than its worth paying.

Not hard at all.

A small military garrison will be created for the provinces (basically just areas of the world the size of former countries)

We follow the same model as the military. We create a police force for each province, and make sure they help each other.

Same as state governments in the US.

Pretty much open trade between the provinces, the government simply holds back some resources in reserves. Also, environmental laws will be enforced to ensure sustainable levels of mining, logging, water consumption, and farming.

Not hard to create at all. You set a former world currency, and everyone trades in their former currencies for a fair exchange rate. By fair I mean on that will make sure everyone gets money, as I understand in some nations money goes a lot farther.

Not really. In this case, the government would most likely be similar to our current UN. Each province would elect its representative, and would send them to the capital to serve a term in office.

Nukes would never significantly effect giant meteors. We don't live in a sci-fi movie.

So me conquering earth in the name of human unity would be all fine and dandy to you?

Do you realize the shear number of diseases that are in africa alone? Do you know how many vaccines would be to be created? How about the number of hospitals that you need to build and the medical personall to man all of them? The amount of ambulances and infrastructure needed? and thats just in africa alone.

You would need a massive military to keep all disparate ethnic groups from killing eachother as well as mainting public order and keeping anymemeber states from breaking away. Where would you recruit these soldiers? Would they all come from europe or from the local populace? How would train them or handle the numerious language barriers?

Same thing as the military.

So a bunch a sentors/congressmen representing each nation? What would the constitution be like? What would the relationship between State and Federal(or whatever you would call the overall government) power be like?

How do you know there would be enviromental laws? this is modeled on the US government, you can't just wave your hand make it so.

Some nations would be way more economically powerfull then others, thus they can influence governmetn policy in there favor more then other countries. How would you stop this?

Again how would the balance of power work? wouldn't the more devolped nations(who I assume would be responsible for this new world government) put themselves in a postions of advantage in the new government, ensuring they have morepower then weaker states?

No.

Yes, I do realize. I also realize building up infrastructure is easy when you have all the resources in the world at your disposal.

You would make a common second language compulsory and recruit the military from the province.

See above

I'm not planning an entire government right now
Maybe I will tomorrow. Hell, maybe I'll write my science fiction short story like that and post it on this site.

Actually I can wave my hand a make it so. Its my hypothetical nation. I won't be alive when my dreams come to being (if they ever do). I can only hope they will put great emphasis on preservation.

We don't have nations anymore, remember? And you would stop this by not doing it on population, but instead assigning the same number of delegates for each province.

Read above.

By that time, I think english will be spoken by almost everyone as a second language. Language wouldn't be a big problem.

It won't more then likely English will grow in use across the world, so we won't have a huge separation because of language in the future.

@General Mosh seems to think that organizing and maintaining a world government would be as easy as organizing and maintaining a game of D&D...

Anyway, why put an emphasis on uniting the people of Africa? What logic is there in it?
There are hundreds of partisan cultures and ethnic groups that, in many cases, can't remain unified in their states at hand.

In the modern world, what more sense does it make to have a united Africa than a united Slavic state?
The Slavic states are significantly more stable than many regions in Africa, yet despite this, they can't remain unified and even purged their cultural kin due to this lack of unity.

A united Africa of different cultures would only serve to divide the people and bring about more genocides, state corruption, and partisanship.

And I ask again, why a united Africa?
Why not a united Asia, or Europe, or a united Americas?

Surely everyone recognizes the distinct cultures in the Americas, Europe and Asia?
You would never expect the French state and the German state to unify into a simple European state, not in this day.
The same is expected of the Chinese states and Japan.
Most modern states recognize their own cultural sovereignty and the cultural sovereignty of the neighbors.

To promote a united Africa for the sake of a united Africa, when you're not an African, nor have you ever lived among the numerous and different people of Africa is to promote the obvious.

It's promoting racism through ignorance.

So war in the name of human unity is not ok? I though you said it was the price to pay?

Not really, you would need to basically either destroy or seriously alter all the road networks on earth to create an interconected highway system not to mentions subway sytems, railines etc.

So what are you gonna do for the first genration or two that won't learn the language. And if you recruit soldiers locally, they will be loyal to that province not your government. That's setting the scene for rebellion or civil war.

I eagerly await.

Even if it's just a fantasy of yours, you still need to look at real problems if you want to argue that this is possible.

I was saying the more powerful countries would give themselves an advantage as this nw government was forming(give their representatives more influence then a weaker nation's)