In his asynchronous soliloquy this week, Professor Jackson introduces several "scenarios" as possible futures for the international realm, which could supercede the historic rise and fall of great powers and incessant competition for power among them. The first scenario is hegemonic institutions, backed by a great power and the threat of coercive force; the second is constitutional moments, in which states would cooperate in what they perceived to be a common goal; and the third Jackson names the "human project," in which all of humanity would unite for the common good.
As Jackson points out, the prospects for the "human project" seem dim, given the very human tendency to a) form subgroups within a population and b) only unite against a common enemy. But this analysis is outdated because the communication and social constraints that once governed human interaction are loosening as technology advances.
It is true that the modern world contains people of strongly, even violently, opposing viewpoints. It is also true that the media too often plays a divisive rather than unitary role as it serves as the medium between people in different parts of the world. But increasing access to a variety of media sources and individuals' stories means that it is harder for a single story to manipulate large numbers of people.
It may not happen this generation, nor even the one after. But rapidly increasing access to information worldwide means that we will eventually have a better idea of whether humans, unfettered by biased media or self-interested governments, desire or are capable of the "human project." Perhaps they (we) will reject it; perhaps not. Only time will tell. It is premature, however, to assume that only an extraterrestrial enemy is capable of uniting the human race.
As Jackson points out, the prospects for the "human project" seem dim, given the very human tendency to a) form subgroups within a population and b) only unite against a common enemy. But this analysis is outdated because the communication and social constraints that once governed human interaction are loosening as technology advances.
It is true that the modern world contains people of strongly, even violently, opposing viewpoints. It is also true that the media too often plays a divisive rather than unitary role as it serves as the medium between people in different parts of the world. But increasing access to a variety of media sources and individuals' stories means that it is harder for a single story to manipulate large numbers of people.
It may not happen this generation, nor even the one after. But rapidly increasing access to information worldwide means that we will eventually have a better idea of whether humans, unfettered by biased media or self-interested governments, desire or are capable of the "human project." Perhaps they (we) will reject it; perhaps not. Only time will tell. It is premature, however, to assume that only an extraterrestrial enemy is capable of uniting the human race.
When I initially listened to this idea of a human project, I thought it seemed silly. And maybe it is. But I think you're right that as globalization spreads and the speed in which we have access to information continues to increase, the possibility of this happening seems to be growing. I do no think it will be soon, but it does seem possible at some point to me.
ReplyDeleteWhen I initially listened to this idea of a human project, I thought it seemed silly. And maybe it is. But I think you're right that as globalization spreads and the speed in which we have access to information continues to increase, the possibility of this happening seems to be growing. I do no think it will be soon, but it does seem possible at some point to me.
ReplyDelete