Reply
Fri 28 Dec, 2007 10:12 am
Human beings are qualified moderates. These qualifications are expressed in terms of ideologies - and so long as that ideology goes unchallenged, they remain moderate. However, denied the possibility of moderation in terms of that ideology - all sense of moderation is lost. Thus, it's unlikely that humankind might survive, for there are only two equally immoderate, and therefore unlikely possibilities for survival.
The first is that they adopt science as a level playing field, as a common ideology, and as the rule of global government - and on this basis act as a species in relation to a valid conception of reality to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability. However, because this infers a common species identity and broad material equality, it contradicts the ideological qualifications all human groups place upon their moderation, and is therefore unlikely.
The second possibility is that the northern states kill 5 billion people, conducting a genocidal war to depopulate the earth. A nuclear first strike on China by Russia would be likely to succeed given that China believes its enemies lie further west - and similarly, the nuclear arsenals of India and Pakistan could be neutralized and their populations then exterminated by more conventional, less polluting means. Depopulating China and India alone would remove almost 3 billions from global population. North America, Europe and Russia could then move military forces south, exterminating the South Americans, Arabs and Africans - removing a further 2 billion people from global population.
The immoderation of this idea renders it an unlikely solution, even while it's likely that for the sake of qualified moderation humankind faces an equally, but purposelessly horrific future. Divided by religious, national and economic ideology they will continue moderately in these terms, but divided be unable to cooperate to address the energy crisis, climate change, over-population and environmental degradation. These problems will grow until they make it impossible to act moderately in terms of these ideologies - and then all sense of moderation will be lost. This will not be purposefully directed immoderation however, but immoderate violence directed toward no end but annihilation of the ideologically defined enemy - religious, national and economic groups using science as a tool in a conflict for dwindling global resources, that for the sake of qualified moderation they could neither cooperate to protect, nor grasp for themselves.
If this is to be avoided, clearly, a pre-emptive genocidal war is preferable to submitting to the rule of science. Continuing engagement in warfare long after it was established that humankind is a single species demonstrates that scientific fact has less motivational potential than religious, national and economic ideology. Human groups have engaged in genocide in these terms on numerous occasions - and while the genocides of the defeated are generally deplored, the genocide of the Native American people for example, is routinely celebrated in film. Therefore, genocide is not as unlikely as the adoption of science in that it would not require revision of the ideological qualifications upon moderation now in place - only that these be seen as compromised by the existence of the 5 billion people mentioned above.
@iconoclast,
So you are saying that because people are not able to follow moderate ideaologies, they are left with only two options of survival: either adopt science as global government, or world war three in which five billion people are killed?
@Didymos Thomas,
That's a very moderate interpretation! I'm asking whether moderation is the virtue it's cracked up to be. I think it might be argued that ideologies of moderation have brought us to a place where our only options are immoderate.
@iconoclast,
First, you would have to show that moderation is responsible for our many problems.
Take global warming. Excess is the cause, not moderation. I think you will find similar cases regardless of where you look - either excess or ignorance is to blame.
As for moderation being a virtue, this one is easy. You could eat yourself to death, but instead, by moderation, you are still alive. Tada!
@Didymos Thomas,
you say: First, you would have to show that moderation is responsible for our many problems.
this is my assumption, but not moderation of individual behaviour, but ideologies allowing the moderation of social cooperation - rather than, Nietzsche like, Darwin like, survival of the fittest and devil take the hindmost.
it was aristotle who suggested the moral is the moderate - and used examples like yours, and this understanding was incorported in the judeo-christian tradition informing modern european culture, but does it continue to pertain, and how is it that the moderate drives us on toward extinction?
this is essentially the question i'm addressing.
@iconoclast,
Even ideaologies that promote moderation - how are these responsible for our problems? It would seem, if anything, that people ignore the moderation of their ideaologies and this is the problem, not the moderation suggested in the ideaologies.
If the Buddha teaches moderation, and some Buddhist go to extremes, the Buddha's teaching is not at fault - those who went to extreme are.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace