Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Sterling says: Marry the UN and the Net
An anonymous reader writes "SF writer Bruce Sterling is guest-posting on the global-eco-tech blog Worldchanging today and thinks we ought to marry the Internet and the United Nations. 'The UN has cumbersome rules, no popular participation, and can't get anything useful done about the darkly rising tide of stateless terror and military adventurism. The UN was invented to "unite nations" rather than people. The Internet unites people, but it's politically illegitimate. Vigilante lawfare outfits like RIAA and MPAA can torment users and ISPs at will. The dominant OS is a hole-riddled monopoly. Its business models collapsed in a welter of stock-kiting corruption. The Net is a lawless mess of cross-border spam and fraud. Logically, there ought to be some inventive way to cross-breed the grass-rootsy cheapness, energy and immediacy of the Net with the magisterial though cumbersome, crotchety, crooked and opaque United Nations.' It's obviously part tongue in cheek, but it does make you think."
Exactly.
The UN was created to unite countries, but it's largely ignored by powerful countries *cough* Iraq *cough* - and the Internet is beginning to being largely controlled by big corporations.
The goals of the UN are laudable, but quite honestly they are powerless to do just about anything substantial, except humanitarian and aid-work. What is the use of an International Body when you cannot keep aggressors at check?
From the Blog -
Then bride and groom would unite their virtues and overcome those gloomy vices gnawing at their vitals.
Hmm, what if it happened the other way around? Both of their negatives brought each other down?
Powerful corporations exist in powerful countries whose governments are controlled by powerful corporations.
It also provides for a single point of failure, if the so-called union did happen.
And oh, this is my 1000th comment. Yay!
... and so do the US, all over the world.
it's in my head
But even in europe there are still wars, Northern Ireland and Baskenland, because in those cases one side doesn't want peace.
an opportunity for peace in nortern ireland in the late 1980s was scuppered by the UK government because they're using ireland for gun-running.
How in the f*ck can the U.N. be construed as an arm of the U.S.? It is possibly the most anti-U.S. organization (except maybe the Democrat Party) on the plantet. If you think it's an arm of the U.S. you have a serious lack of understanding of world affairs.