How Will the Future Unfold?

            Will versus might are strong words when debating the end state of humanity and our interaction there within. Should we lean to what "might" happen, then it feels as though we are haphazardly guessing at the future of our world. On the other hand, saying what "will" happen makes us seem like we have actual power and that we aren't just agents in a much larger cosmos of chance and interactions. Much like debating the future of the international realm, I believe trying to pinpoint where we will end up and how we end up there is folly when sometimes we cannot even figure out which foot to step off with.
            Debating the balance of powers theory seems like a dreary way to spend the day when ultimately, someone always seems to be in control. Likewise, debating the future of the United States seems to suggest that we deserve a place in the future. No country, government, institution or person is guaranteed their next day. Try as we might to equalize humanity, there exist disparities both man-made and from nature. Thinking that we can ultimately agree to some international constitution seems odd when we can't agree who can have access to clean water, what they should pay for it, or how it is cleaned. Debating glorified theories seems to take the human aspect out of the equation.
            I don't argue that we shouldn't think about the future. I also don't argue that we are in some realist world where only power will dictate the flow of interactions, but I do think that to some extent to simply live and witness events unfold is the best solution. Why try to predict or change what we often don't understand? Calculated planning creates expectations that often cannot be met and lead to feelings of exasperation and failure. To understand each other, we need to focus less on classifications and more on communication.
            I do think the world can undergo a seismic shift in the international realm, but I do not think this is spearheaded by decisions, debates, and rules. As agents, we must accept that our choices affect our destiny, and we must work with each other to take responsibility for those choices. Respect will never accomplish what friendship can accomplish, rules will never stand in for agreements. Communication is critical to reworking our world; far to often we live behind walls with no way to understand those outside of our compound. Maybe there isn't a table large enough to gather members from all areas of the world to converse, but equal footing starts with treating all nations as equals. As long as we treat other nations as pawns and playthings, we can debate humanity to no avail. When people become more than a statistic, then perhaps we can have more than a 50/50 shot at resolving underlying conflict to work towards lasting change.

Comments

  1. AnonymousAugust 8, 2018 at 3:35 PM

    Thank you for your comment. In terms of maintaining and/or ameliorating global harmony, I also believe that the best way forward is to be less tactical and more genuine. To achieve this goal it is necessary to have open communication with all actors whether they are allies or states that are considered threats. Even though the world has experienced a relatively long period of harmony compared to past times, there is still hostility and room for attack in the current global landscape. In order to mitigate the tension I believe dialogue is the first step because fears are generally decreased through conversation especially face to face interaction. Friendships, as you mention, are probably the key to war prevention and maintaining peace in global affairs (ie. EU). How we get there might seem complex but it might be as simple as genuinely trying to live in a world where we don't have to worry about your neighbors trying to encroach or dominate the globe. Maybe this is accomplished by having a multipolar world where most or all nations are more or less equal as suggested by the balance of power theory and academics like Kenneth Waltz. Moreover, agreements are made concerning war, economy, trade and military capabilities, may help deter war and prevent the rise of hegemonic states ensuring peace and balance.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more