I disagree with the statement: "The only way to keep them [the space-residing humans, who are phenotypically different even though they are genetically the same] safe is to be separate. A nation with the power to protect its own."
I think that a state that represents "different" people is only highlighting the problems and making them worse. For example, if I were to form a coalition of girls (v. the boys) of letts 6 war would definitely ensue. Why? Because we've highlighted our differences. Each "nation" will want to hold power over the other, so war is inevitable. (It occurs to me that this is a realist arguement).
Also, people naturally like to be with those who are similar. Conversely, people can find easy reasons to dislike the opposition. Rivalry.
It can also be inherently gathered that by deciding to make your own nation, you view the different nation as less worthy/desirable (otherwise you would be a part of it). And that is reason enough for the other side to dislike you. (This is a constructivist argument).
While I'm on a roll with the realist/constructivist arguements, a liberal would actually agree with this statement and say, "hey, maybe they can work together!Just because they're different states doesn't mean that the phenotypically different humans can't work in orbit and help the people down below!" And that is probably a correct assumption, except that there would stil be underlying hatreds of the 'different'.
Elle - I understand your point of view and although initially I had a different stream of thought when I saw your blog post, I agree with concepts such as rivalry and desire for power within nations that have incredible levels of difference. Although you make the distinction that "difference" is more towards different races, we could further divide this within even the same race. You cannot expect the EU countries to hold similar views. A Frenchman and an Englishman are phenotypically similar, yet their ideas may be completely opposing. Do we even have the right to associate an idea with a group? Is that highlighting the differences within that micro group? Not all within that group are going to share a similar view and you can continuously keep on dividing groups further. Nevertheless, there will always be a degree of rivalry as people tend to be very centered on their own way of thinking. Its a phenomena that society will always live with.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI generally agree with what you're saying here Elle. The segregation of different populations into separate sovereign nations would only be a recipe for destruction. Unfortunately you're also probably right in your assumption of what would happen in a liberal system of government if this were actually an issue on the forefront of world politics (which isn't saying that it's not). Humans admittedly cannot seem to get along for too long; we like to have strength measuring contests among one another, and this isn't limited to actions taken on the world stage. But how do we solve this? If we have no nations, we have the problem of too rapid of a change too fast. If we have too many nations, there's the problem of underlying realist sentiments where countries will want to begin taking over one another. Seems like there's no easy answer. Oh well.
ReplyDelete