(written in 10-11-08)
At one particular time or another, somebody creates a new term. If it is a good idea, it “takes on”. It becomes incorporated into the language. It takes its place in dictionaries and enriches and harmonizes communication. The new word is even useful for saving energy from the point of view of muscle use. It saves the diaphragm, tongue, lips and even arm movements - principally if the vigorous speaker is Italian - if you will pardon my pleonasm. It is popular belief - not yet scientifically proven simply because nobody has shown an interest in the task - that these passionate Europeans and their descendents gesticulate to a greater degree than peoples of other races. In all certainty, more than those of restrained Japanese, English and Nordic origin.
I have long concerned myself with the idea that humanity is in need of a new form of communication; or, even better, a new brain. Yes, a new brain, already with billions of extra neurons at birth, for if it were not so, however much the individual studies, he or she will not be able to accompany the vertiginous advance of human knowledge. Man, even if cultured, is currently badly informed - because he is incapable of assimilating, analyzing and synthesizing the huge mass of news and knowledge that cannot find space in the thin layer (between one and four millimeters) of the cortex. As a consequence, he will make erroneous or only partially correct judgments regarding almost everything: about himself and about others; in choosing leaders, in elections; about which legislation is most suitable from the point of view of general interest; what really is “general interest” (an extremely difficult distinction); the exercise of a profession; choice of a spouse or equivalent; diet, etc, etc.
There are those that predict that, with the passing of time (I have already touched on this subject in another article), the computer, very much quicker and more rational than human beings, will take over the reins of power, it only being necessary for its artificial “intelligence” to advance to the point of self-awareness for this to actually happen. At the present time, such an idea may seem to be exaggeration or science fiction, but it is a real possibility in the scientific field. Furthermore, going beyond this, it may be that future scientists will be able add corresponding Ethics to artificial intelligence, to a degree that is greater than that which we currently exhibit, inherent in living beings. Perhaps it will not be necessary for scientists to program such Ethics, as this is not the enemy of rationality - just the opposite. There is no reason to presume that, once artificial intelligence has been created, this will not spontaneously “segregate” a purer form of ethics, free of contamination by such instinctive, glandular influences as envy, carnal jealousy, thirst for vengeance and the like. Following the creation of complete artificial intelligence, it will only remain for information technology scientists to take the precaution of keeping a button within reach that will deactivate the supercomputers in the event that they intend to initiate a “great rebellion”. Nevertheless, autonomously intelligent computers will serve as lucid coordinators of think tanks, thinking at a velocity that is one thousand times greater than that achieved by their slow-witted flesh and blood colleagues.
Considering that the aforementioned advance will only occur many decades or centuries in the future, dependent as it is on advances in the genetic engineering field or the well-intentioned handling of stem cells, we remain, for the time being, with the question of “neologisms”, these synthesizers of new ideas.
Patriotism is a highly valued word. It expresses an idea that is already associated with an emotion. It suggests altruism, self-sacrifice for one’s country. When Samuel Johnson, the great English essayist and lexicographer, said that patriotism may be the “the last refuge of a scoundrel”, he was attacking the scoundrel, the blasphemer; not patriotism itself, this being a word that, when pronounced, deserves a certain aura of respect.
However, the world has turned many times. It has become ever-more unified and globalized. That which happens in one country has repercussions on others. The last American presidential election appeared to be a global election, with people from all continents giving voice to their “vote” in favor of the candidate who most “represents” them, in a manner of speaking. In view of its power, a well-led United States of America means greater potential happiness for all other countries. One more sign that, without even noticing, we are moving in the direction of a global (obviously democratic) federation. When the USA errs, it is not only North-Americans that suffer.
The old patriotism - that which only takes the advantages of its own country into account - is already outdated, even pernicious. In the medium or long term, it backfires. Hence the almost euphoria shown by young people and idealists throughout the world following the victory of Barack Obama, who promises to engage in dialogue even with those considered to be “evil”. One should not forget that, almost without exception, those considered to be “evil” sincerely imagine themselves to be “good”. For example, does the terrorist walking to his death wearing an explosive-laden vest imagine himself to be a bandit? Enmity may originate from an invincible feeling of being wronged. Only intense and frank dialogue, with necessary and fair concessions, can remove the detonator that will cause the explosion, killing in a non-selective manner.
As far as I am concerned, Obama represents “neopatriotism”. Instead of simply “crushing” those who look at us with hatred, also try to understand the origin of this hatred. Who knows, maybe there is some kind of valid reason for so much resentment. If there is, we acknowledge our mistake. We concede to that which should be conceded. Only if there is no injustice underlying the animosity, if terrorism is simply the fruit of despotism, bad faith or gangsterism, will it be appropriate to use force, even devastating force. “Neopatriotism” does not mean weakness or passivity. It only means awareness that the world is ever more unified, whether we like it or not. It is an immense social organism which, in a similar manner to biological organisms, will only be able to grow successfully when all its individual parts interact in harmony. And the United Nations Organization has still not attained this degree of scope. It needs to do this as soon as possible. The current global financial crisis has provided proof of such a need. Otherwise, without a conscience to orientate or re-orientate the so-called “invisible hand” of market economies, or the roguish “imbecilic hand” of certain financial “wise-guys”, we will have ungoverned economic growth, oppression, revolt and conflicts. Cancer enjoys total independence in its growth; it is an excellent example of an unrestrained being, but not even for this reason is it a model for humanity. When uncontrolled, it ends up in a coffin. It kills its host, but it also dies.
George W. Bush and his Vice President, Cheney, represent to old style of patriotism (maybe even well-intentioned). In his prayers, before going to sleep, W. Bush probably asks himself, in his conversations with God: “Lord, where did I go wrong? Did I act wrongly when, thinking of the well being of the American people (who I hold so dear), I altered or “forced” the “truth” regarding the cause and effect relationship between September 11th and Saddam Hussein? In truth, I lied, but with unswerving patriotic intent. What is so reprehensible in this? What statesman, at any time or in any country, has not lied, to a greater of lesser degree, in order to benefit the interests of his country? If I lied to my own people, it is because I could not openly say that I was lying. I could not make one address to those outside my country and another to those inside it. It would be an aberration, contradictory. I acted like a good attorney, who can even lie in benefit of his client. After all, with the invasion, which did not exactly have the desired outcome, I gave the Middle East a good “shaking up”. The modernization of Iraq will infect the whole neighborhood. I brought down a cruel tyrant and, at the same time, tried to benefit my country, disconcertingly dependent upon Middle Eastern oil. Is there something wrong with being a patriot, diminishing this lack of security? If Osama Bin Laden had not encouraged Iraqi resistance, I might have been considered the statesman of the century. I ran a risk and paid the price. “Sorry, but I do not feel that I am to blame...”
It is highly likely that he still thinks like this. The victim of an outdated viewpoint, of being mistaken: he is not aware that everything in this world has evolved, including the concept of patriotism. The planet is moving towards a single world, although he just cannot see it.
Walter Cronkite, the famous American journalist and an advocate of world government, when referring to those who considered such an idea to be utopian and “impractical”, retorted: “what is so “practical” about war?” The problem is that, in order to prevent wars, it is necessary to give a new meaning to patriotism.
No comments:
Post a Comment