The Problem
World Peace. (Or, "Jeff's list of simple, easy steps to achieve world peace and great abs in just twelve minutes a day.")
Is it a person hugging a tree or a tree with arms and legs? Look closely.
The Backstory
This is kind of a big one. But I haven't seen anyone solve it yet, so why not give it a shot?
First, it's important to note that we're already making good progress. As this excellent "Think Again" article in Foreign Policy points out, war deaths have been steadily decreasing for decades. War has declined in scope, quantity and violence. Even civil war.
"Worldwide, deaths caused directly by war-related violence in the new century have averaged about 55,000 per year, just over half of what they were in the 1990s (100,000 a year), a third of what they were during the Cold War (180,000 a year from 1950 to 1989), and a hundredth of what they were in World War II. If you factor in the growing global population, which has nearly quadrupled in the last century, the decrease is even sharper."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war
That is reassuring. So, in addition to asking what we can do different, we should also be asking, what are we doing right and how can we do more of it?
Also, I think that this issue, more than most, is a psychological and philosophical one, which leads down the path to mushy "everyone should just love one another" thinking but I will nonetheless do most my best to keep it as practical as possible.
The bigger picture aspect of all three steps I will suggest is a desire to have different groups of people see themselves as a single larger group (see what I mean, it's already getting abstract.)
The Solution
1. Landlines
What is the difference between the slavery issue in the 1850s and the abortion issue in the 1970s? They were both vicious disputes that polarized the United States into two equally large rival camps -- one for and one against. The two sides showed repeatedly that they felt strongly enough to kill for it and in neither case was there much room for compromise. So what was the difference? Why did one result in the most destructive war in the nation's history and the other didn't?
The difference was that while in the 1850s the two camps were split along geographical lines (The North versus the South), that was not the case in the 1970s*. There were of course some areas that were more pro-life and others that were more pro-choice but at no point could you draw a line down the middle of the country and say these people are for and these are against like you could with slavery. Because all of the pro-life and pro-choice people were mixed in with each other, there was no front line. There were not cohesive groups. And equally important, every pro-lifer knew a pro-choicer and vice versa. These were not faceless masses, they were friends and neighbors. For all the talk about the civil war being a fight between brothers, the northerners and the southerners were so separated by distance and lifestyle I don't think they had any trouble de-humanizing their enemies.
So how do we turn slavery into abortion? We do it with Internet and English. The combination of English steadily becoming the international language and the internet easing communication a thousand fold has the potential to form us into one giant world community. As soon as the individuals within two groups can talk to each other and socialize with each other, the de-humanizing breaks down and it gets a lot harder to kill your facebook friend (unless they besiege your status update page with farmville presents -- but surely a jury would understand.)
There will still be major disputes, just like abortion, but as long as they don't split the world geographically, I think we'll still be ok.
This could be a nuclear warhead launch sequence graphic instead of being about the internet and you would never know.
2. The Anti-National Movement (Note I am not referring in any way to the band The Nationals -- I am decidedly pro-The Nationals)
It's clear to most people that disliking another group because they are different than you is a social ill. It causes discrimination on a national level and war/agression on an international level. What is less clear, but I think equally true, is that liking a group because they are the same as you is also a social ill. For instance, they knew in the 1910s that it was wrong that the French and the Germans should hate each other just because they were different. However, they saw no problem in French people loving France and German people loving Germany. That is nationalism. But there is a problem with that. It separates the human race into little sections that you elevate or leave alone. Saying the French are the best is just a different way of saying the Germans and everyone else aren't. This nationalism led to World War I.
But it isn't so obviously immoral. Why is there something wrong with celebrating your people? Patriotism and national, ethnic and religious pride still feel a bit like virtues, not vices. Shouldn't we be proud of our communities? My answer to that is yes, but only on a global scale. Rather than be proud of the accomplishments of the Korean people, we should be proud of the accomplishments of people. It is the compulsion to love our own kind that causes us to think less of someone else's. I think that we are emotionally wired to have this attachment. If you hear about a shooting spree in the town where you grew up, you care more for some reason than you do when you hear about the same thing happening on the other side of the world, even if you didn't know anyone involved. But the only real distinction between those two horrific events is that one happened in a community you elevate.
Not much has changed on this front in the last 100 years (or 1,000 or 10,000.) American presidential candidates still spend all of their time declaring America the greatest country in the world and Americans the greatest people. But flattery is the sincerest form of bullshit. This addiction to nationalism (and its relatives) is a real problem, and we should work on it.
My suggestion is an anti-national movement. I would like to see people all over the world give up their citizenships. I want an international movement of non-citizens, of world citizens, working for common interests. I don't this blog has quite the clout necessary to make a public call for the renunciation of all citizenship, but maybe one day.
Patriotism is the conviction that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it. - George Bernard Shaw
A Stronger World Body
I think this is becoming a recurring theme in my posts on world conflict but the UN needs to be stronger and its rules need to be crystal clear. Diplomatic Intervention in Libya worked. It is the future. Any aggressive country acting against any other will soon have the world's military might in the other corner. This is the most powerful deterrent we have. We should use it more.
This is also a step towards a true world government, another way in which we could see ourselves as part of one big body rather than a bunch of smaller ones.
Notes
You may have noticed that these steps are not as quick and are a little more wishy washy than I usually prefer, but they'll have to do until I or someone else thinks of something better, or more comprehensive -- like some kind of peace drug (not pot.)
*Yes I know there are other important distinctions here. The biggest one is that slavery was so economically important to the south, while no one in the 70s had their life savings in abortion futures. Economics are as big a driver of war as anything else so this is a more than warranted criticism however, I don't think it invalidates the point I made above about the importance of a geography split.
Sorry, no time to edit it this. If it rambles and makes no sense that's because it's a blog.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment