In Rosenblum's Horizons, she sets up a futuristic world where there are many similarities and differences to the world we live in today. Some of the new things that Roseblum introduces are more plausible than others.
I believe that one possible future invention that was seen is the idea of microchips. In the book, microchips are used to allow states to keep track of their citizens. While I think that the use in the future will not be as widespread as the book makes it seem, I feel people will be willing to use these chips as a means of protecting themselves. Although the government will be able to track where you are, this can be good in the sense of protecting their own. Parents would feel safer knowing that their kids had microchips in case they went missing. It would not be mandatory, but after time of seeing the benefits I think it that more people would be willing to put their skepticism aside in order to achieve a higher level of safety.
One of the aspects of Rosenbaum's futuristic world that I do not believe will happen is the idea of the World Council. In the book, the WC serves as the primary governing body of the world. I do not think that it would be realistic to think that a WC would be created, because each area of the world values their sovereignty so much. We have discussed in class how difficult it is for the UN to get tasks done on a large scale. Without any changes to the world stage, I do not see the WC being any different. I think that it would take a major world catastrophe (i.e. major natural disaster) for countries to give aside their power toward an over arching WC. Because I think this is extremely unlikely, I feel that the closest we can get to a WC is a stronger UN.
While I don't think it's 'extremely' unlikely, I definitely agree with your assessment of the conditions necessary for the WC to feasibly occur and actually have a meaningful, tangible impact on the world. As my group noted with the water crisis, it would take a disaster that transcends national boundaries (i.e. something like the contamination of the world's freshwater) in order to make states and major corporations and for some global, transnational organization with legitimate enforcement power to come about.
ReplyDeleteI think your take on microchips is interesting because I wrote about that being implausible in my blog yet I can see your point. I think that if it were a choice then it would be gradually more accepted. But if the government mandated that everyone get microchipped, then I think there would be considerable pushback and even open revolt because that would seem to be the ultimate invasion of privacy. I am curious as to whether microchipping everyone would really make them feel safer just because they gave up so much of their individual rights to the government who now has enormous power and can track the movements of each individual. I think this would actually make people feel less safe, but the enemy would be the government and not terrorism or whatever other enemy it might be.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that a World Council that is more of a international economic superpower is more plausible than just a stronger UN? I feel that looking at NATO and the AIIB we see a lot of political control being divided through trade, markets, and economies. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by people would allow microchips to protect themselves? Would these microchips be something parents could buy and put into their children or would it be a government issued microchip that civilians have no say on.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is unlikely that we will have a strong world government because people would be forced to give up their sovereignty. However, I don't think its unreasonably to think the UN might gain some more power or force if the right circumstances are presented internationally.
ReplyDeleteRecently we discussed government surveillance. Do you think our government would use microchips right now? What circumstances would be need for governments and the people be ok with using microchips to potential spy on their own people?
The way I mean protection is very similar to your idea of the parent-child relationship Val. I think that ideally the government would offer the chips but people have the ultimate authority as of whether to use it or not. The children also have the chance to have them taken out once they are of age. It can also be a mandatory thing for former criminals to make sure they do not revert.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Julie's question, I do not think that our government would use them now, strictly because of the major controversy. I think that starting on a small scale thing, such as having parents use them for kids, would be the first step to having them. But I do not think the government can use them to "spy" on people because of the severe oversight needed.