Emanuel Kant, the great humanist philosopher of the 18th century, and torch bearer of The Enlightenment in Western Europe outlined his view of peace among states in his essay, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Among the many ideas he put forward were the formation of a League of Nations (a super-state that would be the arbiter of disagreements between nations), the eventual abolition of standing armies, and the prevention of states coming under the dominions of other states.
He also advanced the notion that democracies involved in free trade would not go to war—not out of any moral superiority, but simply because their own success would be contingent on the continuing success of the other.
It is heartening to see that in the early half of the 21st century large swathes of the world have come to a stumbling and bumbling consensus on Kant’s view. Kant may have sounded airy-fairy in the 18th century when he put forward his thesis on peace, but much of what he says has been vindicated by current economics and geo-politics.
This is not to deny the existence of war, internecine conflict, and tribal attacks today. However, a historically literate evaluation of the human condition in previous centuries would lead to the undeniable conclusion that on the whole, modern states have evolved to be just that much more civilised in how they resolve disagreements.
A case in point is the recent stand-off over Gibraltar between Britain and Spain. In the past, a disagreement of this nature would undoubtedly have led to the two countries waging war to resolve their dispute. The kings, queens, and miscellaneous royalties of the past were wont to launch wars on a whim and as a matter of course. However, today the issue is being taken to the European court. All sides see the sense in resolving the conflict by taking the matter to an independent judiciary.
Carl Sagan’s thoughts on seeing the picture of earth as a pale blue dot sent by the Voyager probe from 6 billion kilometres away are some of the most poetic words ever uttered by a scientist:
“Consider again that dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”
I submit to the reader that the idea of Patriotism ought to be a relic of the 20th Century. The notion that people will pledge their allegiance to artificially created states and vow loyalty only to their countrymen is simply too ludicrous to contemplate in a world that is so remarkably interconnected. As we move forward into a new digital age where the internet is ubiquitous, where information is increasingly being stored in the cloud, and where smart phones are more powerful than the supercomputers of the 60s, we need to question the value of our primitive tribal impulses that evolved when we lived for millions of years in the Savannahs. This drive to see ourselves as Mongolian, Indian, Lebanese, Argentinean, or what have you, has little utility in the 21st century (except to keep the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, and the War Machine in business).
The first step is to articulate loudly, clearly, and unapologetically that patriotism is undesirable—just as we did with racism and sexism. However, the military machine and the parochial-minded members of world governments see this as a disastrous proposition.
Stephen Hawking once said, “The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.” David Deutsch, in his book, The Beginning of Infinity disagrees with this view. If we divided the entire universe into solar-system-sized cubes, then a typical cube would consist of absolute vacuum. A typical cube would be so devoid of matter, so isolated, and so distant from everything else that if a supernova was to explode and you were looking in its direction you could wait forever and still not see a flicker of light. That is how cold, vast, and inhospitable our universe is.
So Earth is not typical. Earth is incredibly precious. It’s rare. It’s beautiful. It’s the one place we know where life not just exists, but flourishes. Millions of species share this planet. Humans are just one among them. Our large pre-frontal cortex, our ability to use language, and our opposable thumbs have made us masters of this planet.
As we move into an exciting new era of privately-funded space programmes, as we contemplate regular trips to the moon, and as we anticipate bigger colonies in space, we need to step back and look at the larger picture. We need to think of earth as a Pale Blue Dot. Let us give up our primitive instincts for tribal loyalty and think of ourselves as one species.
It is not anarchy that is being proposed. Neither is it a call for open borders or mass immigration. Rather it is a plea for citizens of our planet to recognise our place in the universe. The universe is vast; it’s mysterious; it’s dangerous. Unimaginably fascinating things are simply waiting to be discovered. Let us not be held back by a petty, parochial, narrow-minded love for one’s countrymen. Let us love our species instead–nay, let us love all sentient life. Let us owe our allegiance not to the state but to our planet. I daresay, one day in the distant future, we’ll owe our allegiance to the Milky Way.
*** *** ***
A personal take on Patriotism and the Cosmic Perspective
When I was in Cambodia a few years ago, I couldn’t help noticing the squalor, poverty and illiteracy that is typical of many countries in Asia, South America, and Africa. However, what was remarkable was that the topic of daily conversation was not about the impoverished conditions they lived in. The anger the people felt was not directed towards the government. Instead, the topic of heated discussion and the anger on the street was directed at the occupation by Thai troops of some remote temple on the disputed border. If only the Cambodians realised that the entire conflict was being orchestrated by the powers that be to keep them focused on something that has little or no relevance to their daily life; If only the average Cambodian realised that their government wanted to keep them distracted from the lack of electricity, the filthy sanitation, and the dearth of employment by directing their anger against the Thais.
The mongers of hate and the peddlers of violence are at it again in the Indian subcontinent. No sooner is a civilian government elected in neigbouring Pakistan than acts of terror take place on the Kashmir border. No sooner does the Indian government find itself embroiled in yet another scam or fraud than we hear of another incident on the border. The game both sides are playing is to keep the average citizen distracted by distant events on the border. The game they are playing is to direct hatred towards ‘the other’. The Indian and Pakistani governments realise that they can continue safely in power as long as their citizens have someone else to hate and blame their problems on.
The repeated focus in the Indian media of Chinese incursions into Indian territory makes for dull and tedious reading. But the fact is neither side wants to resolve the border dispute.
Taking a cosmic perspective on these border disputes between India, Pakistan and China would mean to first recognise that none of these countries existed in the past with their present boundaries. China was a collection of cantons united at various times by various emperors. India was never one country until the British united it. And Pakistan was artificially carved out specifically along religious lines.
Borders have been changing regularly and repeatedly all around the world. The 20th century alone saw the creation of dozens of new countries with borders being drawn and redrawn. What India, China, and Pakistan need to do is sit down and resolve their border disputes once and for all. They may take their dispute to an international court if they have to. But to be spending this inordinate amount of time, resources, and money on something as primitive as a border dispute implies that the people and the governments of these countries have a lot to learn from their European counterparts. The Swedes don’t stay up at night worrying about their border with Norway. The Swiss are not mobilizing troops along their border with the French. The Western Europeans have moved past all that. It’s time now for China and the rest of the Indian subcontinent to do the same.
