If Kerry Becomes President.....

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

I have to question your understanding of familial dysfunction if you believe it can be remedied by avoidance. Your analogy about attendance at a family dinners suggest, at best, a superficial understanding of a dysfunctional family. (Congratulations on your ignorance by the way).

I'm not sure that proximity is a prerequisite to familial function, but in any case I could certainly have chosen a better word than "remedied".

However, I do not think this a product of an "ignorance" you "congradulate" me on.

I don't have any nifty insults for you, so I'll get back to my original point and comment on it:

No insult was intended. All I meant to suggest was that if you are so unfamiliar with the dynamics of a dysfunctional family that you believe the effects of one can be remedied by simply withdrawing from interaction, then it would seem that your life experience has been with a functional family, and, if that's the case, I truly congratulate you.

Let's opt for the hackneyed option of agreeing to disagree on who might have been overly sensitive and who might have been rude, and turn instead to much more interesting subjects.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

...if a family will only form around a commonly perceived threat, the actuality of a given threat is immaterial to the formation of a family unit. Family units will form in response to a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist; they will not form in response to an actual threat that is not perceived

Thing is, I'm not sure that a "family" will only form in response to a threat unless unrealized interests are characterized as threats.

Realized or unrealized interests alone are not, in my opinion, sufficient to form a family. A jointly perceived threat (actual or not) is required. I don't think that this is sematics or hair splitting. Interests may exist independent of a response to a threat. mutual interests may lead to cooperative efforts or groupings, but I do not believe that they lead to the sort of intense bonding exhibited in family which is far more likely to produce counterintuitively (from an evolutionary perspective) altruistic behavior than mere cooperative groupings.

If you have used family as a loose metaphor for cooperative groupings, then we have approached the original issue from two different points of reference.

I do think that increased complexity leads to decreased effectiveness of cooperative groupings, but I don't believe the existence of cooperative grouping relies upon a threat or threats for its impetus.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

How is it practical? What practicality is actually achieved by conceiving of a family of man that cannot be achieved by conceiving of a family of Americans or a family of Floridians or a family of miamians ...

In regard to your first question: I'm referring to the shared interests of "the body of man", and not collaborative societal structures.

I think it is practical to recognize shared interests and reduce instinctual protectionism to forward them.

I have no idea what you are asking in the second question.

This exchange began with my assertion that the notion that there is a family of man is a romantic one. You suggested that it is a practical notion as well.

My question is what practical interests are served in conceiving of a family of man that are not essentially served by conceiving of the less grandiose, and more realistic, notion of a family of Americans, or of Floridians for that matter?

Environmental degradation is, arguably, a threat to the body of man. If it is perceived and countered by smaller and more natural groupings like the family of Americans and the family of Chinese etc, isn't the same practical effect achieved without the need for a romantic construct of a global family of man?

My basic point here is that I don't believe there is a, currently, a practical necessity for the global recognition of interests and threats and that the body of man can be, ultimately, preserved by the actions of much smaller families organized around more realistic ties.

This is not to say that cooperative efforts on a global scale are not to be desired or pursued, simply that given the extraordinary complexities they entail their reliability is anything but certain, and, fortunately, not necessarily required. In my opinion, the notion of global cooperation within the context of a family of man does far more to serve emotional needs that practical ones.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

That is all well and good Craven, but these attitudes are hardly antiquated unless there is, at least, a building wave of new ones. I don't believe there is. It may be pleasant to think there is, but where is the evidence that this change is upon us?

This is an interesting point. I'm inclined to agree. The attitudes can't accurately be described as "antiquated" and as you aptly point out they are still entrenched.

However, I contend that they are not "forward looking".

It is certainly conceivable that one day humanity will exist as the remnants of human intelligence, housed in mechanical forms. Against that possibility, it would be true that it is not forward looking to wish to preserve human physicality or not to wish on working towards such an end.

This is an, admittedly, stark example used to make a point: That a family of man can be conceived doesn't make it either inevitable or necessarily desirable, and that looking forward to such a world, is not, necessarily, superior to adhering to existing concepts.

You may very well not have implied the value judgment I inferred from your use of "forward looking," but my guess is that you intended the phrase to connote progression as well as temporality.

This touches on the notions of liberalism vs conservatism, but we can save that for another thread.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

I speak of the difference between attitudes of nation versus world and nation among world.

Your speaking of it doesn't make it so. I have to assume that you have examples in mind of the world moving in this direction, if not having actually arrived.

Doesn't make what so Finn? Each nation is a nation among a world of nations.

If you are asking whether there is a thrend toward more collaboration I think there is, but when you speak of "arriving" what do you have in mind?

I think I misread your statement. I retract the comments.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What geopolitical evolution is that?

Globalism has risen and receded in the past. It's dominance is not inevitable and it certainly isn't necessary to the continued survival of man or geopolitics.

This is a really intersting point. I'm curious as to what you think of the "inevitability" of globalism, but if it's not too much to ask I'd also like to know what you mean by "globalism" (people tend to use the word for very different concepts).

To me globalism is the interdependency and interweaving of national economies and culture, leading toward and culminating in an overarching world government.

I would like to believe that a globalist world is inevitable, but I'm not confident that it is. My lack of confidence is due in part to the seemingly unchanged nature of mankind and the sense that globalism is not necessary to the continuing survival of the species or its civilization. However I am a romantic and would like to think that globalism will eventually occur.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

That an increasingly global economy increasingly intertwines the interests of nation states doesn't make a family of man inevitable. Whether one focuses on threat, as I do, or interests as, perhaps you do, it is not enough that these threats and interests actually exist. They must be realized by the would be family members. Perhaps there is a family of nation states forming, but that is something quite different from a family of man.

Part of this is still in the dispute of the appropriateness of the "family" metaphor. But I bring it up anyway because it has some interest to me beyond that.

What do you think of the likelihood that said realization of threats and interests will not be realized?

A more difficult question to answer that it might seem.

To the extent that any of these threats actually materialize to a point where individuals throughout the world feel directly threatened, the recognition will, perforce follow. It may however, be to0 late to do anything about the threat.

To the extent that you are asking of the likelihood of the world recognizing these threats and interests before they become undeniable, I think its slim.

And, at the risk of re-entering my pedantry about "family", if a family of nation states is forming, and it is quite different from a family of man, would you also agree that it's different from a family of a single nation?

Yes, absolutely.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

As to whether nations can work together cohesively that is a separate issue to the way one evaluates geopolitical evolution except in that people who continue to subscribe to the "versus" view are an impediment to said cohesion.

That is the issue of whether or not a family of nations is functional or dysfunctional. It will only be a family if the members clearly wishes to organize to respond to recognized common threats

However, it is not a small difference that separates a family of nations and the family of man.

I agree that realization of common threats and interests is necessary, do you think the protectionism I spoke of earlier ("us against the world" is an impediment to this?

Only to the extent that protectionism might inherently promote a certain degree of myopism, and then only to the extent that it impedes early recognition.

I think though that the impact of protectionism is not so much on the recognition of threats, but on the acceptance that cooperative efforts are the only means to successfully respond to them, once they are recognized.

Infectious diseases can present a globally scaled threat. It would probably take a protectionist society longer to recognized that a superflu threatened everyone on the planet, but, more importantly, their response to the threat may be to close themselves off to the rest of the world, rather than joining with it to mount a defense.

Lastly, where do you see the family of nations trending, and what do you suppose it will result in?

I personally think we trend towards it, and I think it will grow. I don't think it will be as absolute as you seem to interpret "family of man" which is perhaps another definitional incompatibility that I don't wish to spend time on.

I'm very much uncertain.

If we look to the first tier of nations we see a definite trend towards a family of nations. When we look to the second tier of nations we see, perhaps, a recognition of the potential value of globalism, but something of a fear of being unable to leverage that potential for the benefit of their countries and of being consumed by the first tier nations. When we look to the third tier of nations, we see chaos and virtually no desire or ability to look beyond local day to day concerns.

Unfortunately the second and third tier nations outweigh those of the first in numbers, population, world resources, and the potential for launching or exacerbating a global threat.

A truly global threat doesn't insure the creation of a family of man, but without one I see no chance in the near term (100 -200 years) for such a concept to actually materialize.

Actually, as I consider your question, I find I am of the mind that there is even less a chance that a family of nations will develop. A true family of nations (not necessarily one that adheres to my definition of "family," but something far more than the United Nations) will depend upon national leaders who have been empowered by their people to consider the interests of other nations as having the same or almost the same value as their own. I just find it hard to believe that this is something we'll see anytime soon.

Even the current trend among first tier nations is fragile as evidenced by the the circumstance leading up to and following the war in Iraq.

In the end, if there does develop a family of nations it will be because economics and culture have done most of the hard work and politics will simply fall into line.