Robert Wright defines "destiny" in the introduction to his book:
Any book with a subtitle as grandiose as "The Logic of Human Destiny" is bound to have some mealy-mouthed qualification somewhere along the way. We might as well get it over with.
How literally do I mean the word "destiny"? Do I mean that the exact state of the world ten or fifty or one hundred years from now is inevitable, down to the last detail? No, on two counts.
(1) I'm talking not about the world's exact, detailed state, but about its broad contours: the nature of its political and economic structures (Whither, for example, the nation-state?); the texture of individual experience (Whither freedom?); the scope of culture (Whither Mickey Mouse?); and so on.
(2) I'm not talking about something that is literally inevitable. Still, I am talking about something whose chances of transpiring are very, very high. Moreover, I'm saying that the only real alternatives to the "destiny" that I'll outline are extremely unpleasant, best avoided for all our sakes.
Some people may consider it cheating to use the word "destiny" when you mean not "inevitable" but "exceedingly likely." Would you consider it cheating to say that the destiny of a poppy seed is to become a poppy? Obviously, a given poppy seed may not become a poppy. Indeed, the destiny of some poppy seeds seems—in retrospect, at least—to have been getting baked onto a bagel. And even poppy seeds that have escaped this fate, and landed on soil, may still get eaten (though not at brunch) and thus never become flowers.
---
Thus "human destiny" means that it is exceedingly likely the future of human civilization is assured.
In spite of the recent violence around the world, be it civil unrest or war, it is transient.
What is permanent is the positive steps humanity has made to ensure our survival in the 21st century: foreign aid, humanitarian aid, and mutual co-operation between democratic nations.
Indeed, both war and civil unrest are in effect two of the many challenges which face humanity today.
Thus it is likely that with compassion and wisdom, many good people will face and overcome many challenges over the next few years.
3 comments:
The old paradigm of win-lose scenarios -- wars where one side wins and the other side loses, and conflicts where the guys with the bigger guns win -- is outdated.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Indonesia -- these nations are locations where it isn't just a case of good guys winning over bad guys anymore.
As for the recent riots in Paris and in Australia, it's a much more complex issue involving the use of the Internet and modern technology.
At the root of all is fear of the unknown - be it the growing threat of terrorism or of ethnic cultures.
This is all transient and temporary, this win-lose paradigm.
In contrast, the recent kidnapping of anti-war activists in Iraq has led to the positive support of their families back home, both by the worldwide Muslim community and by a growing number of antiwar supporters.
This is evidence of the win-win paradigm.
And its effects will prevail.
According to Seligman's book Authentic Happiness, win-lose scenarios are the ones which make use of negative emotions, while win-win scenarios make use of positive emotions.
Thus, we make use of negative behavior, psychology and thought for win-lose scenarios and positive behavior, psychology and thought for win-win scenarios.
For a richer life, it is the responsibility of each of us to moderate our daily living.
This may be maintained through a mindful balance between negative and positive psychology.
One way of balancing out the negativity of life is to recount the positive experiences of the day.
Seligman's website can be found at http://www.authentichappiness.org.
Post a Comment