Neo, I'd bet on continued chimpoid human nature rearing its ugly head.
Which isn't to say we are all the same, but that unless our social contexts are managed well, those on the barbaric part of the bell curve gain ascendancy and suddenly we are all enmeshed in the atavistic dog eat dog style of life which has run humanity for eons.
By having political systems which are poorly designed, we almost guarantee we'll end up back in the old ways.
Democratic processes have been well-proven to ameliorate those dog eat dog tendencies and so have other things such as separate judiciary, executive, legislative, veto body, religious and other vested interests being kept separate from the state. The open society is a civilized society.
Many countries have now got democratic processes established and institutional stability. But, on the grandest scale, we are still almost in the Arabian Nights dog eat dog shifting alliances self-interest tragedy of the commons situation.
There is some UN procedure and design already established which eliminates the worst of the old ways, but it's only a work in progress.
Also, using the word evil misrepresents what's really going on. A criminal might be evil, but only in the sense that he's representing his interests at the expense of others. The reason evil is banal is that it isn't supernatural or the product of some malign separate entity occupying a person or swarm of people. It's as simple as Clinton's, "Because I could".
Evil is simply a product of chimpoid desires for status, sex, food, property, fun, security and so on. It's only when the desire is not properly self-limited or society controlled that things go off the rails. The desire isn't intrinsically evil or even bad. It's just that greed is the root of all evil and megalomania is uncontrolled greed.
Children are notably self-serving, self-interested and will take what they can. They learn to be civilized, hopefully. To a greater or lesser extent, they learn to modulate their impulses.
Some people never do, such as Saddam. The sky's the limit for them. Communal controls are essential to provide a controlling framework. Even those can be overthrown if circumstances are right - such as Hitler being voted in, then bullying his way to total power and then going ape, literally.
I consider the current global rule-book to be a recipe for catastrophe when things go a big wrong and push comes to shove. There's no mechanism to decide things other than self-interest. No moral suasion. It'll be dog eat dog and as the USA found and is finding, even big dogs get bitten.
I can foresee a more perfect United Nations. Most people want it. Not many enjoy the current mess. Around the world, there is always pressure to have stable government which isn't too repressive. We want the same thing on a grand scale too. We already have it partly built.
Some countries which count have been less than enthusiastic, namely the USA. Others have been less than enthusiastic too, but the USA, China, India, Germany and Russia are big countries which need to fit into the rule book, along with most of the others. I can imagine some might choose to not be part of the NUN and provided they don't cause problems for those who are, I suppose that wouldn't be a problem.
Double the life-span doesn't seem forseeable to me, or perhaps even desirable, given that genetic engineering might mean people like us are obsolete, living fossils from another time and another place, with no ability to cope with the world existing then.
Another 30 years might be good for 120 years. It seems such a waste to spend decades learning things, to then have it all burned in an incinerator. Most of my knowledge is already obsolete, so perhaps it's working out about right. Nature has been a long time in the design process, winnowing our genes for a billion years, selecting the good ones, fit for purpose.
If genetic engineering, which I consider a certainty and very forseeable, means brainpower and other good things are improved dramatically and problems eliminated [the useless or harmful genes which are polluting our genome, such as cystic fibrosis, wonky eyes, and crooked everything else] then long-living fossils will not be much use to others and could be quite a blight on the landscape.
Chimps are nice in their natural habitat, or in a zoo, but we don't want millions of them roaming the streets.
"Because I could" might not be good enough reason to expect to live for 200 years or even 150. Greed for life can perhaps be excessive too. Accepting our mortality is perhaps a good thing. I'm feeling greedy right now. I hope I can go on to age 500! Or even 1000. A 1000 Year Mq Reich!
Being able to sustain oneself might be difficult in a world where the fossils are left behind by the superchildren of tomorrow. I don't see why those coming later should pay for the dopey old fossils of today for another 100 years.
Mqurice |
