Is Peace sneaking up Unnoticed

[thelerner]

[Encephalon]

"The facts are not in dispute here; the question is what is going on," John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics."

 

That's the key point of the article. I don't see any room for exuberance just yet. It sounds like the perfect assignment for the authors of "Freakonomics," the sleuths who've distinguished themselves with their economic detective work. If I had to shoot from the hip I'd say that the mechanisms of the social surveillance and control, the vast networks of global intelligence agencies, have a lot to do with maintaining order. As alarming as it would be to see us all go up in smoke tomorrow, such an event could conceivably be consistent with dozens of mass extinctions of the past.

 

Missing also from the piece are the implications of the collapse of the fossil fuel era, any nanosecond now, geologically speaking. That alone is going to unleash a violent competition for remaining resources that will wash over the globe, unless we grow up as a species or solve energy debt problem.

 

As usual, I hope I'm wrong.

[Cat Pillar]

I hope you're wrong too, Encephalon.

 

But I think you have a pretty realistic assessment of things.

[thelerner]

"The facts are not in dispute here; the question is what is going on," John Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics."

 

That's the key point of the article. I don't see any room for exuberance just yet.

I don't think its about exuberance, or the coming utopia, but its a reminder that things may not be as bad as we're led to believe.

 

The dark projections are by no means inevitable. We've solved the whale oil problem, the streets aren't filled 200 feet high with horse shit as projected in 1900. Things may not improve, we could go downhill, but there is some very positive news out there. And its good to celebrate it, because we're inundated with so much negativity that if we don't stop and appreciate what is good, we're at risk of damaging our psyche.

[Encephalon]

I don't think its about exuberance, or the coming utopia, but its a reminder that things may not be as bad as we're led to believe.

 

The dark projections are by no means inevitable. We've solved the whale oil problem, the streets aren't filled 200 feet high with horse shit as projected in 1900. Things may not improve, we could go downhill, but . And its good to celebrate it, because we're inundated with so much negativity that if we don't stop and appreciate what is good, we're at risk of damaging our psyche.

 

We did solve the whale oil problem... with kerosene! With the end of the fossil fuel era about to wreak havoc with our entire planetary culture, the whale oil analogy ain't exactly a good fit, is it?

 

I agree with everything you say except the idea that "there is some very positive news out there." Very positive? I don't see it. I see a race between the complete exploitation of the biosphere and a further exploitation of the inherent creativity and imagination of humankind. To me it seems like the race between the car and the elevator of the early 20th century - no contest.

 

I am entirely convinced that my new daughter will be in charge of her life but I don't share that optimism with the bulk of humanity, barring a radical breakthrough in solar-powered electrolysis of sea water for hydrogen. I know that sounds reductionist but it really does boil down to solving the energy debt and creating more stable-state living environments.

[steve]

Nice post Michael.

I do think sometimes about how good things currently are.

Not just from the technology perspective but our very existence.

But there is always a balance of good and bad

We like to compare then to now but it's always now.

So it's interesting to look at just that process of judging good and bad and getting invested and stuck to it like it has some tangible component. But you can never quite put your finger on that because it doesn't exist.

But that's what we are - the one who is judging.

And if we can let that go, what are we?

And I'm rambling...

[Encephalon]

Nice post Michael.

I do think sometimes about how good things currently are.

Not just from the technology perspective but our very existence.

But there is always a balance of good and bad

We like to compare then to now but it's always now.

So it's interesting to look at just that process of judging good and bad and getting invested and stuck to it like it has some tangible component. But you can never quite put your finger on that because it doesn't exist.

But that's what we are - the one who is judging.

And if we can let that go, what are we?

And I'm rambling...

 

It's not rambling, it's the dialectic in action! Hegel's answer to yin/yang! Static ideas are worse than useless. Impermanence is the only reality.

Edited October 23, 2011 by Encephalon

[Enishi]

There may indeed be less *physical* violent crime in the world now, but it could also be argued that more harm is done to peoples' inner psyche. The hunter gather who died young due to feuds with a nearby tribe may have suffered less and experienced more satisfaction in life than the modern office worker who puts on a smiling face and tells himself he's happy because he believes he is supposed to be, yet on a psychological level he is dying a bit more every day....

Edited October 23, 2011 by Enishi

[gendao]

"It's been 21 years since the Cold War ended and the United States has been at war for 14 out of those 21 years," Mearsheimer said. "If war has been burned out of the system, why do we have NATO and why has NATO been pushed eastward...? Why are we spending more money on defense than all other countries in the world put together?"

 

What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful." And he worries that a strengthening China is about to upset the world power picture and may make the planet bloodier again.

Lol, the US launching a preemptive strike under false pretenses and killing a million Iraqis is "keeping peace all over the world?" :lol:

 

And this dude is worried about China? China has never waged war against distant lands in its entire history, only engaged in debatable border disputes. It doesn't have military bases spread all over the globe (like the US). And in fact for the most part, it's been on the defensive against foreign invasion (see Great Wall, Mongols, Manchus, Opium Wars, WWI & WWII, etc). Usually, only small countries limited by small landmasses (Rome, Mongolia, Spain, Britain, Germany, Japan, etc) felt the need to go out and conquer foreign lands. China does need more resources, but not landmass. They already have enough trouble securing their present borders! And culturally, China is just far more prone to waging internal wars, than wars against foreigners, lol..

 

Anyhow, a lot of the % decrease in violence is due to the population explosion in 3rd world countries.

With 7 billion people now, even killing a million Iraqis doesn't amount to much, %-wise anymore...

 

In fact, if 4 billion people suddenly got wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow...our global population would simply return to what it was in about...1960. Just ONE generation ago!!!

Edited October 23, 2011 by vortex

[Encephalon]

Mearsheimer used the term "pacifier," not peacekeeper. Pacification in its modern usage frequently refers to coercive powers of the state to maintain order. This was my original point; reduced violence due to state apparati. Mearsheimer is more transparent than he believes. The fact that the US fits the criteria of a modern empire doesn't seem to have figured much in his equations, either.

[thelerner]

thelerner, on 22 October 2011 - 11:08 PM, said:

"It's been 21 years since the Cold War ended and the United States has been at war for 14 out of those 21 years," Mearsheimer said. "If war has been burned out of the system, why do we have NATO and why has NATO been pushed eastward...? Why are we spending more money on defense than all other countries in the world put together?"

 

What's happening is that the U.S. is acting as a "pacifier" keeping the peace all over the world, Mearsheimer said. He said like-minded thinkers, who call themselves "realists" believe "that power matters because the best way to survive is to be really powerful." And he worries that a strengthening China is about to upset the world power picture and may make the planet bloodier again.

Yeah, I had a problem with that part of the article too, and thought of editing it out, but thought it would be cheating. But Vortex, you fight so hard against any sign of optimism. Your reflex is to go to dark places. Are there any bright spots of development in the world for you?

[gendao]

Yeah, I had a problem with that part of the article too, and thought of editing it out, but thought it would be cheating. But Vortex, you fight so hard against any sign of optimism. Your reflex is to go to dark places. Are there any bright spots of development in the world for you?

Well, I wasn't disputing his central premise - just noting the impact of a key factor that was omitted and debating some of the commentary. I've gradually come to the realization that many journalists and professors simply...aren't that smart.

 

I would say his primary assertion still holds true, though. For, even if the average African woman wasn't an Octomom, the world as a whole has still seen a marked per capita decline in violence (according to his stats).

 

Of course, the "downside" to this is overpopulation, over-pollution, poverty & resource depletion..