this came up, and is imo, the greatest callenge humanity faces today…
we need something to solve the worlds problems in a different way
i think:
we need a force, but not necessarily a military one
we need it to have enough influence to solve conflicts and simultanously… it mustn’t be corrupted by its own power…
make sure there is an alternative for war,
make sure it puts people first
make sure it represents all people…
make sure it works…
Do idealists completely envision the ideal that they hope to achieve? Have they completely seen IDEAlists? A destination for one is frequently not one for many and many a man’s stride has been either too short or too long. What is far off can not be seen, and if one has been to this beautiful place it remains hard to convince others to start the journey.
Some goals are unworkable, yet nevertheless, should be goals.
What happens to idealism when it achieves it’s goals? Are all great goals destined to become yesterday’s conservatism?
It has been said that revolutions kill their own children and the greatest ideas become mere phantoms when assimilated into the main-stream; One slowly begins to realize that the idea was bigger than the head that should have received it and that without all of those people who are unenlightened there could be no ideals, nor idealists.
Ideals frequently become idols which must be demolished to build the temple anew.
I was merely playing the advocatus diaboli (devil’s advocate) and pointing out the darker side of idealism. Of course we should make the World better. I have always felt that the best way to do that is to improve myself but we live in an increasingly interdependent society. Perhaps institutions like the United Nations that represent everyone’s interests are needed. Things like education, respect for others, culture. I wish Smooth were here, he’s a real visionary, you might talk to Gadfly too, he’s big on R. Buckminster Fuller and synergy.
mmm… yes that’s what i meant really… an institution that would look after the interests of every living thing …
but it’s very hard to set such a thing up… it seems like UN isn’t working like it should… well, it surely does many good things indeed
but i think such an institution shouldn’t be built on old national structures
it should go directly to the people, disregarding the country they live in…
but that would be almost impossible… or not?
i’m looking for some sort of well… perfect structure…
I think the trick to improvement on a world scale lies not in creating a powerful organization that can “force” people into conforming to its idealized society, but rather in increasing people’s ability to do two things: to communicate thier ideas effectively and to listen effectively without responding in violence or self-censorship/avoidance.
I believe the vast majority of our problems extend from a failure to truely percieve the thoughts of others, and a tendancy to react needlessly rashly to those with viewpoints we percieve as contradictory to our own. Be it in rashness in the form of a two-man fistfight or a world war.
How can these problems be solved? The answer is simple: Education.
By education, I don’t mean indoctrination to the “right” ideas, but rather the teaching of those skills neccessary to better comunicate and listen to others. This type of education is already on the increase worldwide.
you’re right, nugan
the fact that no-one should be forced to cooperate with a better way should be inherent, for else, it wouldn’t be better …
education and the developing of a broad understanding of the world and its cultures
is indeed, of major importance, it would increase people’s capability to communicate, and the quality thereof, it would solve a lot of the worlds conflicts i think…
but not all… we need to deal with power as well…
While I do not believe that any human institution will ever be perfect or perfectly ideal, I do believe that we already have the institution that you are requesting in the United Nations. The stated goals of the United Nations is explicitly for the representation of all countries, to avoid wars, to promote a more humanitarian world, etc. While not perfect, it exists and provides a vital function.
The ironic part is that, while the preamble of the United Nations “constitution” (or whatever its called) looks and sounds like the U.S. constitution, and was signed off here in the U.S. (in San Francisco) and is presumably modeled after this great country’s example of democracy, the entire institution’s purpose and aims was totally sh*t on by our own President Bush when he defied the suggestions of the entire United Nations and went ahead alone and waged a war. The whole POINT of the United Nations is to find alternate means of dealing with international situations in order to avoid wars. The arguably most powerful UN representative (our President) made this space effectively null and void. Why should the rest of the world take seriously the United Nation’s function (and even reform it to be the system we wish it were) if even we dismiss it so completely when it doesn’t side with our own interests?
That’s the problem, in my mind. We ask, wouldn’t it be great to have this space for the whole world to get together and solve problems peacefully? And when we do, instead of making it stronger, we arrogantly dismiss its existence and wage the war it was meant to avoid.
i was hoping other people would help me a little with that
basicly i was thinking of a very basic, simple and transparent democratic structure, by which people from all over the world would be represented…
but not based on countries, i’d like to skip that level… if you get my drift
That wasn’t the first time the U.S. did that. They do it all the time. As put by president clinton “the united states will act multilaterally when possible, unilaterally when necessary.” This basically translates to "f*ck you U.N. we’ll do whatever the hell we please, this is the American Empire.
Nothing is wrong with the U.N. What is wrong with the U.N. is that countries refuse to follow international order. Read Noam Chomsky’s Rogue States some time if you have a while. It explains all about that. I think countries need to remain intact. The only problem with the U.N. is maybe it’s just too peaceful. I think when a country defies the U.N. they should be put in their place whether that be through trade embargo or warfare if absolutely necessary. The problem is that there really aren’t any consequences for defying the U.N. while there is plenty of political incentives for greedy or violent nations. The world court has actually found the U.S. guilty of international terrorism in Nicaragua before. They ordered them to stop the destruction immediately and pay retribution to Nicaragua. The U.S. reacted by escalating the atrocities. After that, everyone just forgot about it, and it was never mentioned again. This just shows how little consequence there is to defying the U.N. I think that as a governing structure, and humanitarian support they are great. But as a global enforcer they are terrible.
My first reaction is to agree and go on a rant about the U.S. However, I am slowly realizing that this reactionary position leads to nothing but bloody revolutions or such polarization between ideological camps that reform becomes impossible. I want to attack the problem of this sort of U.S arrogance from the assumption that it is possible to keep the main U.S. interest in remaining the world power along with the more global hope (which I do think in theory the U.S. agrees to as much as in theory other nations agree to) of peaceful global negotiations and progress in global human rights.
Is there a way to balance the two? How can we reform the U.S. without going off the deep end on revolutions and changing the entire world order? In other words, how can the U.N. entice the U.S. (or whatever nation is being the asshole, its usually the U.S.) to cooperate fully? More importantly, to WANT to cooperate fully?
Right. That’s what I’m talking about. Of course all countries will act in their own interests, the U.S. no exception. And whatever country happens to be the “World Power” at the time will be free to exercise that power in their own interests to a greater degree.
Given this reality that will not change…
How do we create a better balance? How do we find common ground while at the same time furthering our own interests.
I do not believe we will ever circumvent power. How do we work with it? Can we?
