|
Just how practical is global peace? Just how possible is it? Beyond professors writing books for tenure, how practical is it for us to seriously entertain the thought of global peace? I’ve spent the last 15 years thinking about evil, about peace, about war. Whatever reason we’re going to Afghanistan, it doesn’t matter. For all we know, all of the lives lost could simply be for posturing. Russia invades Georgia; we escalate our military actions in Afghanistan to show we’re still #1. I’m no longer interested. People will die and wars will be fought.
Is global peace possible? No. It never will be. I’ve thought long and hard about it. It’s theoretically possible, but practically, impossible. There are too many vested in our suffering. So they keep us busy with ipods and gadgets, hdtvs and accessories, while they fight over resource. In the end, it doesn’t matter anyway because we’re all going to die. Schopenhauer was right. It’s absurd.
I saw him sell us a war and we bought it. I bought it. And, in a sense, I loved him for it. We need this war for reasons the public will never know, at least not for the next few decades. I’m not sure why we’re fighting anymore, but it must be important. I still respect all that our soldiers do to defend our freedoms. I still hold our president in the highest regard, but I no longer care.
After thinking about global peace, I came to the following conclusion: the closest we will ever get to global peace are tiny segments, brief moments in time where there is peace—and they are few, and they are fragile. Here’s my charge to the US and other superpowers. After we resolve our battles in the Middle East, why not try to go without war for just five years, just five years. Let’s start there. Of course there will be terrorist plotting to overthrow “the West” and they should be dealt with, but to commit all of our military forces. Really?
Someone out there reading this blog should start betting, like in the futures exchange, on just how long we can last without engaging in war. Why not bet on peace? Can’t that be profitable? I think we’re all weak, ten years tops. I doubt the 21st century will see 20 years of peace. Peace, if you think about it, is more difficult to maintain than war.
I remember being a young boy and watching one of the war movies. I don’t remember which one. The father would call his kids pigs, because that was the best he could do. It was the best affection he could show. Never crying, being hard and tough those were the signs of a real man. I’ve known countless men like that and none of them were real men. A real man provides for his family.
If the government was our father, how well has he provided for us? Are we eating? Are we being educated? Are we healthy? Does he love us? Will he protect us? OF COURSE HE’LL PROTECT US!!! He’s been out protecting us for too long though. The fridge is empty. There’re no jobs and we hold summits about jobs to distract us from the war. But I don’t care about that anymore. A neglected child, after a while grows cold, bitter, detached, disinterested, uncaring. When dad comes back home from protecting us, he’ll be surprised to find out that he’s a bit older, a bit weaker, we’re in our prime, fearless, cold and bitter, without jobs and with nothing to lose. It won’t be too good of a homecoming if he’s gone much longer.
Global peace is an illusion. I fight for as much of it as I can get. Those who fight for peace, as paradoxical as that sounds, still fight. Those who wait for peace, get slaughtered at the hands of those who are fighting. That is why, as all good economists do, I’m placing a bet on peace. I won’t bet recklessly and waste the prime of my life discussing foolishness like global peace, I’ll leave that narrative for the fiction writers. I also won’t entertain the eschatological doomsday gloom of the inevitability of our sudden demise because those guys wanna see the mushroom cloud. Some worship at the alter of the mushroom cloud. I’m trying to stay a step ahead of both these groups.
We’re resourceful, human beings. We get things done. And the truth is, the world really is a more moral place than it’s ever been, which is nothing to say of our past. We evolve and adapt, not out of koom-bye-yaness but out of necessity. I’m with Thomas Hobbes. We’re all psychological egoists out to get what’s best for us. In the end when all the calculus is done and it finally clicks, we’ll realize what Hobbes figured out centuries ago, our saving grace is a social contract. It’ll be broken and manipulated but it will remain because the day that it dies, we all die.
That contract is the only thing keeping us in check. People aren’t afraid of jail, there’s certainly enough evidence to demonstrate that it’s no deterrent. People aren’t afraid of death, some of us embrace a shot at immortality. But people are afraid of a world without that contract, without order. The interesting thing is, it’s not this academic heady thing called anarchy. It’s that beast inside all of us. We’re scared of what we’re actually capable of doing. Of all the books on Nazi’s and Khmer Rouge fighters, militia men and boy soldiers that I’ve read, one thing remains, as Waller and Arendt said it best, ordinary men commit extraordinary evil. Our government better get back to the domestic agenda. Dad’s been gone too long. Misfits and delinquents are popping up. Once paranoia sets in, all hell’ll break loose.
But hey, what should we care. I’m typing in an air conditioned room, on an expensive desktop, sitting in a swivel leather chair, crying about the troubles of Americanism to an army of virtual friends, none of which know me, none of which I know, while people are starving and being butchered. And then I remember, I have to get away from this computer, call my friend in the Congo, wire that money, finish writing that grant proposal, send those Band-Aids, help that young mother, excite some grad students about peace, do my part, spread awareness. I define myself in relation to my ability to help others. Without that, my life would be meaningless. And I refuse to live a meaningless life.

 
|