@post 1 sorry I'll probably be rude, so just tell me if I do
You said when there were the ottoman empire etc etc, the world lived and developed. Well, I don't agree on this.
I mean, there were wars even in the middle age, but there are wars even now. So I don't get why do you think we should unify the world? I don't want to be a dick, but how do you expect that things are going to be better if you do this thing? Who knows if those things are going to become worse.
As I said I'm sorry if I can appear rude

Okay just taken the survey and to be honest I'm rather amused.
you talk of a "new empire" and yet all of the government options you mention, even the religious ones are precisely the same as what we've seen before, power is concentrated in either a hereditary monarchy, or an elected authority who are free to maintain their power via exactly the sort of corruption, cash throwing, political maneuvering, smeering and other shady tactics we see in politics all of the time.

I was at least hoping for some different or better method of government or distributing power, but obviously not.

Well I suppose it proves the old saying tru, "here is the new boss, same as the old boss!"

Heh, the romans? Yeah, I can totally see how the world developed while they were in power. Crusifictions, slavery, masakrering christians because they didn't believe in your gods, oh yeah and the whole expansion thing then the business where rome was burnt so nero could build his dormus aurea... yeah I'm really feeling the yutopia right now. The brittish? Oh yeh, you godda love your emperialism, invading other continents and putting the indiginous poppulation to work as slaves. Weren't they an advanced society when they decided to chain up a bunch of africans, lock them inside a rat infested slave ship, then transport them to america to work the cotten fields? Exterminating the native american population instead of trading with them and respecting their religion? I don't know much about the ottomans, but I do recall that particularly nasty bit of history where they chucked corpses over the walls of constantinople which were infected with the black death, so its people would get sick and die as well thus allowing them to take the city? Boy, those great empire's track records don't look so good now do they?

Hi Jonikster.
Even if this was a good idea, which it isn't, you can't make this happen on your own, no matter how hard you try. Human nature wil never allow anything like this to happen. Read up on psychology, you can't make everyone agree on everything all the time, unless you force them too, which has been done many times over the centuries.
I am a christian, and I know we can never be perfect, or have a perfect society, no matter how much we want this to happen. People want to seize money and power, and this will never change until the end. I'm not going to take the survey, because I can't take this seriously, and because it's not an idea which has been completely thought through. If you are very serious about this, become a politician, but eventually you will be corrupted in some way, like they always are.

What Guitarman said -- this will never happen. Even if you had a million people to do it, it would still never happen. Hell, even if you had every person on the planet wanting to do it, it still would never happen; oh, it might get somewhere in the first few years, but someone is going to rise up and disrupt that order you've spent so many years creating. Someone, or many someones, are going to rise up against you and destroy you, and that will simply cause a trackback in time, and restore things to what they were before you even started. It's a never-ending loop. You best not trap yourself in it.

well, have a think about that. If someone did it that way, would what was created really be true to its ideology? There's a difference between unifying all the world's nations in some sort of yutopian world state, filled with enlightened leaders and followers, which cares for the interests and well being of the people which will btw never happen, and of someone marching into neighboring nations, destroying infrastructure, killing thousands or millions of people to atain power, then exploiting the resources of the conquered lands to further your own gains and invade even larger areas. You say that hitler could have had the world, if he hadn't failed with russia. If you see a good side to this, I can't find it. Personally I wouldn't be that thrilled if he had obtained world supremmisy or at least control over a large part of it. It'd mean the death of millions of targetted population groups, jues, homosexuals, mentally impaired persons just to name some groups.

@6, the trouble with that eugenics idea of let the strong and smart survive while leaving the weak to starve, is that it's not always that easy to tell what genetic material will prove useful many generations down the line. It's not so much a case of survival of the fittest meaning strongest, but fittest meaning most suitable. It's strength in diversity. Nature's greatest strength is in not having all its eggs in one basket. When dinosaurs roamed the Earth, who'd have thought an asteroid or comet would strike, they'd be wiped out, and these meek little furry things would grow up to be creatures potentially capable of transplanting life to another star system, and therefore survive the ultimate catastrophy: the death of the Sun.

@7::

The Dutch, Spanish, French and others did the exact same thing (imperialism and conquests), for instance the Spanish conquests with the conquistadors, and the African tribes willingly sold their own people into slavery for decades before the European colonial powers got there, in fact African tribes are still reported to sell off their own members today long after imperial powers collapsed.

What about...say....the US 'empire', that is committing the exat same imperialist acts as the British, or French or other European colonial powers? Also, I find it odd you single out the British when there's documented proof the other colonial powers were just as big into the slave trade, in fact some sources state it was American and Carribean (yeah a lot of them ended up in French or British or Dutch or Spanish controlled islands, not just the USA) land owners paying the captains for slaves, not the captains sailing down to Africa of their own accord and buying slaves.

Lasly, a lot of prisoners of various powers were dumped far away. Australia's the notorious one, but quite a few ended up in the Carribean, the thought was if they were out there they couldn't do much harm...look how that turned out...

Hmm, doesn't sound nice but psychologically there could be some benefit to being from one nation with the same customs, language and laws. I don't really want to expand on that idea, as my own brain hasn't even figured it out entirely yet and I'm still debating with myself ... history has shown cases of me both being right and wrong, but as usual there are so so so many factors into the equation. I'm at least not completely adversed to the idea of a super nation that gains control through military power.

On the other hand I don't think it'd be as easy as to just hire armies from poor countries ... but maybe it is? Lol I could wave my fist left or right and that's all that I'm doing, it's quite redundent. I'll get back to you when I've made up my mind and pulled my reasons together.