Two posts ago, I published my submission to Philosophy Now's Question of the Month, from 2 months ago: What are the limit of knowledge? Which was published in Issue 159 (Dec 2023/Jan 2024). Logically, they inform readers of the next Question of the Month, which is the title of this post. I'm almost certain they never publish 2 submissions by the same author in a row, so I'm publishing this answer now. It's related to my last post, obviously, and one I wrote some time ago (Humanity's Achilles Heel).
There are many aspects to this question, not least whether one is an optimist or a pessimist. It’s well known that people underestimate the duration and cost of a project, even when it’s their profession, because people are optimists by default. Only realists are pessimistic, and I’m in the latter category, because I estimate the duration of projects professionally.
There are a number of factors that mitigate against world peace, the primary one being that humans are inherently tribal and are quick to form ingroup-outgroup mental-partitions, exemplified by politics the world over. In this situation, rational thought and reasoned argument take a back seat to confirmation bias and emotive rhetoric. Add to this dynamic, the historically observed and oft-repeated phenomena that we follow charismatic, cult-propagating leaders, and you have a recipe for self-destruction on a national scale. This is the biggest obstacle to world peace. These leaders thrive on and cultivate division with its kindred spirits of hatred and demonisation of the ‘other’: the rationale for all of society’s ills becomes an outgroup identified by nationality, race, skin-colour, culture or religion.
Wealth, or the lack of it, is a factor as well. Inequality provides a motive and a rationale for conflict. It often goes hand-in-hand with oppression, but even when it doesn’t, the anger and resentment can be exploited and politicised by populist leaders, whose agenda is more focused on their own sense of deluded historical significance than actually helping the people they purportedly serve.
If you have conflict - and it doesn’t have to be military – then as long as you have leaders who refuse to compromise, you’ll never find peace. Only moderates on both sides can broker peace.
So, while I’m a pessimist or realist, I do see a ‘how’. If we only elect leaders who seek and find consensus, and remove leaders who sow division, there is a chance. The best leaders, be they corporate, political or on a sporting field, are the ones who bring out the best in others and are not just feeding their own egos. But all this is easier said than done, as we are witnessing in certain parts of the world right now. For as long as we elect leaders who are narcissistic and cult-like, we will continue to sow the seeds of self-destruction.
6 comments:
Unfortunately if just one leader is narcissistic and cult-like, then they will most likely cone to dominate and oppress, build a military that will lead to resistance etc .. i.e. non-peace … Simple prisoners dilemma. If Pepsi stops advertising, Coke wins all.
Optimistic market Economics claims that selfishness and perfect competition are likely to lead to the best of all possible worlds - peace, low prices, greater quantities.
Realistic game theory Economics suggests that selfishness and competition are as likely to lead to undesirable outcomes such as arms races, and races to the bottom.
I've spent a working lifetime in engineering and I've observed 2 different approaches to developing and executing a project, both during design and construction.
One approach, commonly adopted, is based on the idea that people produce their best when in competition with each other. So you have 2 parties, usually in a client-contractor relationship, and they compete: for ideas, designs and methodologies. In practice, you get opposition and blame-games, resulting in stalemate, depletion of morale and occasionally, legal disputes (I've been involved in more than a few). This is classic ingroup-outgroup dynamics, where the most intelligent people can become highly emotive, even irrational.
The other approach is collaborative, where disagreements still occur but are worked through constructively with mutual respect. In this case, you have a leader who can form a consensus and is a good people-manager. They're rarer, so all the more valuable.
Dr. Albert Einstein denied having any idea what weapons would be used in WWIII, but, he said, he had a good idea of what weapons would be used in WWIV. The reporters asked, "What?" He said, "Sticks and stones."
I don't know if you've seen the movie, Oppenheimer, but the politics at that time was pretty scary. America was willing to use both A-bombs and H-bombs against Russia, even before there was an arms race. The politicians of the day really believed that Russia would never develop the bomb. The scientists knew otherwise.
I wrote about it here.
Paul, your rendition says it all. The way you presented these facts is superb.
Thanks for the kudos.
I expect it still might not get published, which would be mid-year if it happens.
Post a Comment