Let's start with the proposition that the US is the greatest nation of all time. Now what do we do when it is challenged by other kids on the block (with nuclear weapons) who are becoming just as economically powerful (but who may not have e "western" concept of human rights etc.).
Now do you think that its a good idea to introduce some effective global governance (in preference to nuclear war) whilst you are still in a position to lay down many of the ground rules? "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
And we throw apple pies, not mud pies, you communist. ;) WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
for their to be
"...for there to be...." Gah. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
What's it going to take on a global level?
A survivable alien invasion that doesn't damage civilization beyond repair. No, I'm not kidding. It's the only kind of "us vs. them" narrative that can forge a human identity in a short period of time (short meaning less than several centuries). We've had very limited success creating meaningful movement beyond national identity, and the crisis we are facing today do not provide the "humans vs. external threat x" narrative we need to do so. They do almost the opposite - they are perfect for reinforcing national identity, and if there is a breakdown of civilization, identity will fracture back to smaller regional and local units.
you are the media you consume.
British fiction is full of despair and decaying motorways. The last time anyone tried to invade us they were martians and they had their gelatinous asses kicked by the Edwardian common cold.
Even in the run up to WWII, there was no serious invasion fiction to speak of.
Also Europe - really not invasion minded. There's probably a West German Cold War novel about life under after the Soviets languishing somewhere, but that never seems to figured as part of the quasi-superstate's psyche.
So what is with the US? You keep fighting the same wars over and over - sometimes in fiction, sometimes in reality.
Look at John McCain and Peyote Bill.
And you can't tell me Cindy doesn't look a little out of this world. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
If we had, say, another 25 generations in this current "want not" environment, I think it would be achievable. All the behaviors that were good for survival in a local, low energy, and short term context could be expunged - most forms of violence including sexual violence, wars of conquest, etc, etc, could be eliminated.
We don't have that much time, though - which is why I believe the only way to unite humanity in a short period of time is through an external threat. If you have an alternative, please present it, rather than going off on an unrelated tangent about what nutters "we" are.
Rounding up every child who showed signs of excessive dysfunctional aggression or narcissism and seriously impoverishing the rich would do it. The rich do often seem to grow up with a sense of entitlement and disconnection from reality, so forcing them to live in that reality would create some changes.
It's not a practical answer either, but it's possibly more practical than aliens are.
My point about aliens was that all you'd get then is just another fantasy war scenario - it wouldn't be the human identity you were looking for, just a different enemy to hate and fear. I.e. business as usual.
I agree. A neonatal diagnostic test for narcissistic and borderline personality disorders is possible someday, though.
Ok, sorry for the overreaction then. I agree with your point.
What evidence do you have that these disorders are present at birth?
Rounding up every child who showed signs of excessive dysfunctional aggression or narcissism and seriously impoverishing the rich would do it.
Wasn't that first bit an actual Labour proposal at some point? WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Further down the scale, the most 'successful' business and finance types are milder versions of the same syndrome. Wall St selects for them on the basis of being 'hungry' and aggressive enough to go after killer deals without any interest in the consequences for people whose lives are affected by them.
We really only have one planetary problem, and that's how to deal with these people to prevent them hurting themselves and others. Without this particular form of mental illness, politics and economics would be very much more straightforward. It would certainly be much easier to deal with almost every issue in a realistic way.
it's a mental/spiritual disease, stemming from not enough love and security.
all monsters are created this way. The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
with all due respect frank, i think you are 180° wrong on this.
who teaches kids to hate and become narcissistic? The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
who teaches kids to hate and become narcissistic?
Bad parents and teachers do. However I have always been amazed at the resilience of kids in even the worst circumstances - kids whose parents were drug addicts, sociopaths, who were sexually abused, beaten, starved or who caught up in gangs. Many are damaged for life but many also survive and grow into remarkable adults.
I think we are in danger of a logical fallacy here. Just because some kids are dysfunctional and some leaders are dysfunctional doesn't mean that one caused the other. We select/elect our leaders according to certain societal norms and with special interests trying to exert their influence. But who, ultimately, is responsible for those that make it to the top?
We are. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
yup, you're right on that, however they are the exception, not the rule.
the other side of the coin is that many with this disease are hidden in plain sight, in niches where their pathology can run amok in many many tiny ways, utterly lacking the unsubtle grandiosity of the cartoon arch-villains we love to point to.
it's my contention that the accumulative effect of these petty barbarities constitutes hannah arendt's famous banality of evil, cutting in to the moral grain of society with a million daily cuts, each too small to grok... until you consider the effect en masse.
Bad parents and teachers do.
actually i feel that parents and teachers flail helplessly to mitigate socio-cultural currents of mad-ave, totally amoral, self-as-little-godling narcissism.
totally overwhelmed by the tsunami of media babble, peer pressure has become the only guiding light for many young people, haplessly devoid of any guidance or wisdom from their elders, who find themselves too morally rootless, flummoxed by the dizzy rate of change, to offer much in the way of advice.
it worked for great grandpa, and grandpa, started coming unglued for me, and as for you, son, well good luck to you making a life in the psychic rubble you've inherited from our colossally ignorant malfaisance.
oo, look what's on telly tonight! The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
If we had, say, another 25 generations in this current "want not" environment, I think it would be achievable.
First of all, we don't have a "want not" environment for the vast majority of people in the world, and are even less likely to have one in the future as the world population continues to expand.
Second - it is precisely the opposite - a badly wanting environment which leads to change - not a complacent self satisfaction that comes from having it all.
Thus what major changes in the global order we have seen - League of Nations, United Nations, Nuclear non-proliferation, World Trade Organisation, World Bank, World Health etc. etc. have become precisely because of terrible wars, famines, disease and deprivations or the threat of same.
If you want change, people have to be convinced that the status quo is no longer tenable - and they usually arrive at that conviction far too late to avoid the most terrible of events.
Yes, it probably will take a nuclear war to convince the world that we need much stronger global governance. A few million dead here or there in Africa simply doesn't cut it. Rwanda? Where's that. A little local difficulty. Nothing to be too concerned about? Zimbabwe - hardly worth a Security Council resolution.
This diary is predicated on the forlorn notion that it should take another world war, or climate collapse, or 100s of Millions of dead from starvation to convince people we need to progress the development of more cooperative and collegial law based global governance systems.
Unfortunately even here on ET such a notion seems to evoke little more than scorn and derision. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I think you're taking the historian's view that change is caused by singular events. I believe singular events are only a catalyst.
The component of human behavior that is formed through the environment has a limit to how much it can change from generation to generation. The number of generations needed for a particular behavior to change can be very large, even when the environmental conditions that led to the original behavior are no longer present. Thus my "25 generations" comment.
If you're referring to change that can happen within our lifetimes, then yes, shock therapy is our only hope. I think we obsess over that time frame more than we should.
Watchmen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In a lengthy monologue, Adrian explains his early worship of Alexander the Great, which later turned to admiration of Rameses II (whose Greek name was Ozymandias); his realization that the current arms race and disregard for the environment would lead to cataclysm by the 1990s; his belief that someone must save the world, and that only he could do so; and finally, that the crux of his plan is to teleport a genetically-engineered telepathic monstrosity into New York City, a process that will kill the monster and cause it to emit a massive psychic shockwave that will kill half the city and drive many of the survivors insane. Adrian believes that America and Russia, perceiving an extraterrestrial threat, will abandon their arms race and unite in defense of their planet.
...the US is the greatest nation of all time...
But then I go to read poemless' diary: I Don't Care Why. The USA lost every bit of credibility... The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
Why should we? That's ludicrous, and polarizing. Let's start with the fact that the US is big, huge, has lots of people, lots of money, lots of bombs, more of all of those things than a lot of the other countries, except the other global hobgoblins like China, Russia. Like those countries, we win a lot of Olympic medals, as we're crazy competitive and proud. So we have a lot of tangible and intangible resources for controlling the game. The idea that America is exceptional is part myth (embraced around the world) and part just plain default. As much as you call us names, it's not going to change.
Fortunately, our policy for letting other people get in on the action is one of the best in the world. You can even wear a headscarf. Come, my friends, 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world.
The idea that America is exceptional is part myth (embraced around the world) and part just plain default. As much as you call us names, it's not going to change.
I think the idea that America is exceptional is dying fast around the world. Bush killed it. Opinion polls around the world have shown many regard the US as a greater danger to peace than ANYONE else. You are in danger of believing your own propaganda. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
