How long will it take to have the various cultures and religions of the world to break down old social beliefs and learn to tolerate one another?
I would think that in this age of information and technology we could come to a mature agreement on how deal with global interests on a civil level. Yet years go by and the same old wars rage on. Centuries of debate, diplomacy, and war have still left the world in a state of conflict. So is there a chance for world peace? No.
Why? Well it's just impossible. In order for everyone in the world to get along we'd all have to be conformists. We'd all have to think the same way and believe the same things. The idea that someone wouldn't fight for their beliefs is ludicrous.
It's just not in human nature to be content, and certainly not in these times. Look at marriage; the most fundamental of human relations between two people, and yet more than half of the marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. So if half of us can't handle a relationship with just one other person how is it feasible to think that we could maintain a healthy rleationsip with the rest of the world.
Personally I think the world is doing pretty damn good. We've had nuclear weapons for centuries now and, between Russia and the U.S., we have enough fire power to destroy ourselves ten times over.
This is just the newest age of international relations. It's not that hard to imagine a second cold war. Given time another conflict will always arise. We can't help but argue...it's in our nature.
2 comments:
Right on. It does seem impossible for there to be complete cooperation and total peace. This is only because everyone has different interests and will continue to pursue those interests regardless of conflicts. This may be in the form of resource conquest, religious banter, or just uncivil arguments.
The best thing to do is admire what parts of society haven't been destroyed and to appreciate the advancements we make despite the setbacks. Tolerance may be a great virtue but it is still just a pipe dream for the world as a whole.
Sounds a little like the David Brooks piece "Human Nature Redux." I know what you're saying about the danger of ignoring human nature, psychology, etc, and trying to produce a utopia via social engineering (it has yet to work, despite numerous attempts, from the Oneida Community in upstate New York to the Soviet Union). But I'm wary of the "human nature" argument because it can be used to excuse the worst behavior. Is it in our "nature" to kill, or rape, or maim, or is that a byproduct of nature and certain conditions? Because if that IS our nature, and civilization is just covering up these urges, papering over something that can never be changed, then maybe we're not worth saving as a species. But I'm not a nihilist, so I guess I'd like to think we can be better than we are. However, I agree with you that not nearly as much has changed as we sometimes like to think.
Post a Comment