Poll: Capital City of Earth
- Thread starter Arkley
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I marked Moscow, but only because Istanbul wasn't on the list.
I think the Capital should be centrally located to cover as many people as possible in the smallest possible area. Istanbul is a grand city with a long history, and is located at the perfect spot between Europe, Asia, and Africa, which places it nearby a huge percentage of the people on the planet.
Besides, it already served in this position once before. For over 1,000 years after the fall of Rome, Constantinople was the center of the world. It only seems appropriate to place the capital there once again.
I think the Capital should be centrally located to cover as many people as possible in the smallest possible area. Istanbul is a grand city with a long history, and is located at the perfect spot between Europe, Asia, and Africa, which places it nearby a huge percentage of the people on the planet.
Besides, it already served in this position once before. For over 1,000 years after the fall of Rome, Constantinople was the center of the world. It only seems appropriate to place the capital there once again.
Istanbul. Straddles two continents, neutral location, quite wealthy country. Plus, we could use the Hagia Sophia as the main building!
A totally new city. Here's why I give no to all of the others.
-Brussels: Making the world capitol Brussels would make it seem like the EU is the power here, as if they deserve the honor even though the EU is only a portion.
-Moscow: Too cold. Nobody wants to rule the world in the cold.
-Beijing: Now, this would be good, except for the whole pollution thing. China still uses coal as a regular energy source. No good.
-Tokyo: Too depressing and crowded. We need a capitol city, not a capitol mosh pit.
-Paris: Nobody likes the French.
-London: In the new world order, we don't need to bother ourselves with pompous Brits thinking that they own the world [small][sub][sub]again[/sub][/sub][/small].
-New York: We certainly don't need to validate the common New Yorker's mindset that New York is the only place on Earth that matters.
-Brussels: Making the world capitol Brussels would make it seem like the EU is the power here, as if they deserve the honor even though the EU is only a portion.
-Moscow: Too cold. Nobody wants to rule the world in the cold.
-Beijing: Now, this would be good, except for the whole pollution thing. China still uses coal as a regular energy source. No good.
-Tokyo: Too depressing and crowded. We need a capitol city, not a capitol mosh pit.
-Paris: Nobody likes the French.
-London: In the new world order, we don't need to bother ourselves with pompous Brits thinking that they own the world [small][sub][sub]again[/sub][/sub][/small].
-New York: We certainly don't need to validate the common New Yorker's mindset that New York is the only place on Earth that matters.
What you want is a country which is currently marginalized in global politics and isn't constantly represented for other reasons, that way it can't be said to be part of any kind of dominant (North American, European or Chinese) culture.
Sao Paulo would be my personal pick. It has a huge, multicultural population, a developed infrastructure, isn't already national capital, is a nice place to live and the Brazilian government can't really be accused of having massive influence in global affairs.
Sao Paulo would be my personal pick. It has a huge, multicultural population, a developed infrastructure, isn't already national capital, is a nice place to live and the Brazilian government can't really be accused of having massive influence in global affairs.
One Hammarskjold Plaza, New York City is the main UN Headquarters, being the home of the UN General Assembly. Though in New York, it's international diplomatic territory ie it's a neutral ground. The building is UN territory, not that of the USA.Danny Ocean said:There's several. One in Geneva, one in New York, Geneva (Switzerland), Vienna (Austria), and Nairobi (Kenya).Zeeky_Santos said:
The one in NY is the main HQ, the others are regional.
I should think it'd be a new construction in Switzerland or Denmark or Brussels somewhere like that. Something like the Ark from Brink would be awesome, though:
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/untour/subunh.htm
Geneva is home to the old League of Nations. And before I get anyone trolling "it shouldn't be in New York, it's not neutral" let me just say now that the UN was formerly set up by, and was the brain child of Franklin D. Roosevelt and "the United Nations" in 1945 meant something very different to what it does today. Then, the UN was seen as the winners club- all the members were members of the Grand Alliance which defeated the Axis Powers in World War 2.
I think that Mass Effect had the right idea- no unified Earth government, but instead a supra-national body representing the human race as a whole. Above local Earth politics, and able to act decisively in humanity's interests on the Citadel....
Damn. I have to go play Mass Effect 2 now.
neoman10 said:
Woo! National stereotypes shall lead us to victory!
Not really. Beijing would be terrible. The Russians would ignore it, the US will scream bloody murder, the North Koreans will try nuking Japan and there you go...
The international system isn't there yet by a long, long mile. I don't know about you, but I don't think that a state that tramples over human rights has any right to represent the whole of Humanity.
No city on earth fully deserves this, so why not construct a neutral one? Personally, the idea of a city run to service such a government is quite utopian and appealing, but regardless of location, nobody's going to be happy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Washington DC was designed with something similar in mind? No one state could claim the capital, it belonged to all of them in a specially neutral District Colombia that saw to Federal matters only?
