Recently commented on
Antagonist Systems: A Proposal
I've recently come across a rebuttle to the vision of a future Utopia, where humanity coexists relatively peacefully. The anti-thesis is this:
Throughout evolution, the concept and implemention of conflict (ie. war) has been paramount to get us where we are today, therefore, war and fighting will continue in our future.
I find this troubling. On the face of things, and from an evolutionary standpoint, this is probably a salient point. However, I also believe that it overlooks the potential for change and adaption that we humans seem so skilled at. I have since thought of a counter-point, and would like to run it by the Collective to see if it resembles anything at all, or whether any of the arguments are invalid.
My thought was this. If we accept the inevitability of conflict as a necessary prequisite (or result) of evolutionary progress, could we not simply change our opponent?
What if, in a hypothetical future, Humanity IS united in some way, and in turn, all of our attempts at conflict are concentrated on a global problem, such has hunger, efficient energy production, a particular disease, or even great engineering feats to further our knowledge of the universe, (Something akin to the LHC or a space station/mission)
If we transfer all of this need to "battle" something, why not unite our efforts, and tackle the "Aids Monster." Or perhaps a global unification to destroy the "Evil obstacles denying humanity a trip to Mars." Could we not "Kill" these complex systems of problems instead of eachother? Might a perspective such as this quell our psychological need to expand to the detriment of any who oppose?
So that is the re-buttle to the argument. Do you think it offers a possible alternative to the categoricaly implication that: World peace is impossible?
I sure hope so.
If you were director of a global program, what would you propose to a worldwide commitee?
Throughout evolution, the concept and implemention of conflict (ie. war) has been paramount to get us where we are today, therefore, war and fighting will continue in our future.
I find this troubling. On the face of things, and from an evolutionary standpoint, this is probably a salient point. However, I also believe that it overlooks the potential for change and adaption that we humans seem so skilled at. I have since thought of a counter-point, and would like to run it by the Collective to see if it resembles anything at all, or whether any of the arguments are invalid.
My thought was this. If we accept the inevitability of conflict as a necessary prequisite (or result) of evolutionary progress, could we not simply change our opponent?
What if, in a hypothetical future, Humanity IS united in some way, and in turn, all of our attempts at conflict are concentrated on a global problem, such has hunger, efficient energy production, a particular disease, or even great engineering feats to further our knowledge of the universe, (Something akin to the LHC or a space station/mission)
If we transfer all of this need to "battle" something, why not unite our efforts, and tackle the "Aids Monster." Or perhaps a global unification to destroy the "Evil obstacles denying humanity a trip to Mars." Could we not "Kill" these complex systems of problems instead of eachother? Might a perspective such as this quell our psychological need to expand to the detriment of any who oppose?
So that is the re-buttle to the argument. Do you think it offers a possible alternative to the categoricaly implication that: World peace is impossible?
I sure hope so.
If you were director of a global program, what would you propose to a worldwide commitee?
2 comments
| Promote |
|
Add to favorites (1)
|
| Create synapse |
|
