The United States of Africa.

I just don't see Africa with all its diversities and problems (expected to get worse) to ever become unified like say the EU, which I would remind everyone is going through a pretty rough time at the moment.

No, thats not what I think
I understand organizing and then maintaining a world government would be the hardest thing us as a human race have ever done. But what kind of people are we if we can't put aside our petty differences and unite. We, as a race, sometimes act more brutal than animals. To stop that, we need to unite. And besides, life isn't easy, so why shouldn't we take a little bit of a challenge on?

He's right, if wealthy first world nations can't do it alone...how are genocidal third world nations ever gonna do it alone?

But you said if you wanted to just do it. No one person should ever hold power over the entire world. A democracy is the only way to rule a world, because one person can't accurately represent every culture in the world.

No. An interconnected highway system would be easy to build because all you need to do is build up and connect already existing roads. When they build a new road, they don't tear the old one down, they build upon it (they being road construction workers in this case).

For the language, there will always be plenty of people who speak English and other languages, plenty enough to translate. That's not a severe problem. Yes, obviously they will be loyal to that province. But the government isn't there to antagonize and oppress the local populace. Who would try and break away? Think about how cold and lonely the world would be if you were at war with the rest of it.

Should be fun to write. I actually do have a short story assignment in Science Fiction class, so maybe I will right about a United World. Of course, since its a short story and I don't want to bore my classmates with politics, I'll add in some war or something, but you'll get the general idea of the world situation.

Environmental laws aren't a problem. Many countries and corporations have shown they can survive on sustainable resource use. We don't have to over fish, over farm, over log, or drain the land.

They really couldn't do much. You have to consider, a United World would be decades in the making as well. You wouldn't inherit a world overnight. You would be slowly expanding, through peaceful and violent means. Thus, by the time the entire world was under one flag, much of it would already be adjusting, and a government would already be solidly established. Problems would have been seen and addressed. Creating a new government would not be needed, because what you would do is create a government about a quarter of the way through your expansion. It would then simply be a matter of adding provinces and delegates to the government.

I have one word that proves we can not unite under one government: Quebec.

And the winner is.

Who's the winner???

Observer.

Quebecois troops stopped him from saying it. They're interrogating him in the basement right now.

They told him to say that.

Africa is divided very ethically and I think it will not work, it may actually cause more destruction. The best solution for Africa would be for them be simple colonies from European powers to keep better order.

Cain... He's African, right?

Yes, African America.

Actually, he's an American.

OK, whatever floats your boat.

No, too many conflicts, ethnic strife, religous conflicts, famine, would all cause internal instablility. It would be like the Balkans all over again.

No, it wouldn't work both for social and economic reasons.

To get regions to become one nation means that they have to use one currency. One currency means one interest rate. However, Africa has countries in various stages of development.

Poor countries will not benefit because they wont be able to depreciate their exchange rates making their exports uncompetitive. Then why not just depreciate the exchange rate for all? That will cause inflationary pressures in the rich regions. What's worse, is that its worsened because developing countries tend to cluster their resources in one area, leading to rises in land rents and a rise in congestion.

That's one problem, getting back to their interest rates, its the same problem. Either you set them too low or too high in relative terms, there's no middle ground. The worst part is that rich regions tend to suck capital and other resources from the poor if transporation costs are low enough (This observation is what gave Krugman the Novel Prize) leading to a worsening of development in poor countries.

To get it to work, you're going to have to depress wages hence the price level in rich regions (This is what Greece tried to do recently) and as we all know, that caused riots and nothing got done.

Jesus Christ guys, stop assuming they would have to do this all on their own. Nations such as the US, Britain, etc. would play a big role in helping them sort everything out.

They played a big part before, I'm sure the continent wouldn't mind a little more European intervention in their geo-political landscape again.

I'm not saying Europeans controlling everything they do and ruling over them. I'm talking about aid, UN peacekeeping forces, officers to train african soldiers, and helping them change currencies as well as actually set up the government and making sure it remains stable.

It won't work, it would destroy African society and there culture, unity in thought is better then unity by force.

Oh noes not the culture! When you unite with someone that's the first thing to go. A price you must pay for progress.
United states of Africa still wouldn't work, I guess a few African countries could pull of being united. The others would tear each other apart.

I think losing your culture is a small price to pay for better living conditions in general.