• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Issue 132, March 2007
The big question
by
 Left and right defined the 20th century. What's next?
100 Prospect contributors answered our invitation to respond to the question above. Their answers are below. The pessimism of the responses is striking: almost nobody expects the world to get better in the coming decades , and manythink it will get much worse.(Thanks to John Brockman, custodian of the Edge website, from where the Big Question idea was taken) Bruce Ackerman, academic Cosmos vs patriots. Cosmopolitans come in two varieties: for left cosmos, the pressing need is to deal with worldproblems--global warming, nuclear proliferation, and the unjust distribution of wealth and income. For right cosmos, it is tobreak down barriers to world trade. Cosmos of all stripes demand a big build-up in the powers of world institutions, and acutback on state sovereignty. For local patriots, the cosmos represent a new imperialism by Davos-man and his do-goodhangers-on. Left pats insist on protecting local workers from foreign competition and local cultures from McDonaldisation.Right pats want to protect the natives from strange ethnics and engage in pre-emptive strikes against threatening foreignpowers. Pats of all varieties insist that the nation state remains the best last hope of democracy against the meritocraticpretensions of cosmo-elitists. Arthur Aughey, political scientist
 
 Immanuel Wallerstein defined the politics of the 20th century in terms of an irresolvable tension between the modernity of technology--the capacity of human inventiveness to increase our material wellbeing--and the modernity of liberation, thecapacity of political action to enhance our secular wellbeing. The ideological faithful on the left and the right, albeit fordifferent reasons, believed in the harmony of technology and liberation; the ideologically sceptical on the left and the right,again for different reasons, agonised about technological enslavement masquerading as emancipation.However, for both, the distinction between technology and humanity was the commonsense complement to an ethicalsystem that distinguished between the determined (our creations) and the autonomous (our capacity for freedom). That tensionwill be challenged in the future because technology will develop personality and persons will become "bio-technologised." Inthis new era the faultline of politics will be between post-humanism, the radical version of which would abolish alldistinctions between the natural and the artificial, and old humanism, the radical version of which would transform theinheritance of the modern into a quasi-sacred and romantic cult of authenticity. The contesting visions are likely to be Blakeanin tone, about the nature of being and not about the distribution of wealth. Michael Axworthy, writer The end of the cold war removed the edge of the left/right division, and left a question about the direction of politicalleadership. Political spin moved into that space, but the spin doctors got overconfident, and scandals and cover-ups followed.Truth reasserted itself, and the people became disillusioned. They see a country that has real problems: terrorism, climatechange, an overblown civil service that neither governs nor critically analyses the operation of government. Above all, acountry lobotomised by the failure of state secondary education, and the failed theories of comprehensive schooling andso-called child-centred teaching. The division in future will not be between left and right, but between the vested interests of governmental incompetence onthe one hand, and the democratic urge for reform on the other. Sooner or later some politician will discover the opportunity toreassert honesty and integrity, tackle the problems, and achieve popularity. Julian Baggini, philosopher The new conflict is between liberal universalism and a communitarianism which asserts the need for cultures to maintaintheir own values and traditions. Is the latter just a temporary brake on the former, or will the universalist dream die? One of the tasks of politics is to work out which values are universal and which are not.
 
 Robin Banerji, journalist In the 21st century there will be a new emphasis on the rights of the group as opposed to the 20th century's concern with theindividual. Meanwhile, the relationship between the human and the non-human (primarily animals but also plants, plantspecies and perhaps even landscape) will become important as the consequences of climate change play out. Political Islam,which looks so menacing at the moment, will be contained and defeated, as it is a negative, nostalgic and reactive movement.Great progress will be made in biosciences and in particular neuroscience. The first challenge will be to understand the linksbetween mind and brain, and once those are worked out, medical and bio-scientists will move towards a new understanding of the physiology of the unified mind and body. This will have profound consequences not just for healthcare, but for law andeven for philosophy and religion. Cheryll Barron, writer What comes next is giving the intellectual heritage of non-western cultures a place above the salt. "If we are to feel at homein the world after the present war," Bertrand Russell wrote in 1946, "we shall have to admit Asia to equality in our thoughts,not only politically, but culturally."His prescription is exactly right for today's eastward shift in economic and political power. Prospect won its spurs spurningdead-end partisan politics and thinking. In the same spirit, it will seek more contributions from lively investigators of centuries of eastern scholarship, writers and journalists who know better than to dismiss it all as woolly mysticism, and whohave proven their own worth by exacting standards for critical thinking. Writers like John Gray, Amartya Sen, MartinJacques, Francis Fukuyama--and others obscure today, trained in the hard sciences or harder soft sciences, like economics. Don Berry, journalistWe need a planet-saving alternative to democracy. Mankind is set on exhausting the planet's resources. Voters in richnations will not want to give anything up; voters (or dictators) in developing nations will seek what the rich have. Sincedemocracies must reflect what majorities want, they cannot stop this process. (Dictatorships won't care.) Science will not riseto the challenge. Old ideas about philosopher-kings and benign dictatorships may be revived. Completely new ideas mayemerge. Either way, democracy as we know it will not survive the century.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...