The distribution of the world can most simply be understood by looking at a map of the globe. When you look at a map, you see countries, bodies of waters, types of terrain, and whatever the index may grant you. Inside of nations are cities, composed of regions, chock full of communities with families and individuals humans making up those groups. Sick of these lists? So are the people society; they're sick of the lists of wars that flood history with tragedy.
The 21st century is unique in that the individuals that control it now have become quite more rational, learning from humanity's past mistakes. Violence still occurs because human nature will drive us to the extreme to defend personal values such as honor, religion, culture, etc. However, should we expect globally noticeable conflicts to occur?
Based off of recent trends, the answer is possibly no. The first reason may not be a trend, but more of an incident that has frightened all of us to our core. Little Boy and Fat Man are to blame, and I'm not talking about Stewie and Peter Griffin. Nuclear weapons existing have made nations fearful of a retaliation, deterring them from attacking in the first place. The non-weapon testing policies that nations have put into place are very clear examples of this! This news should excite you.
Another reason is that economies are so globalized. If one country, such as China or India, were to be attacked, the United States would be indirectly destroyed. If their technology, export/import capabilities, or anything that the economy is dependent on were damaged, ripple effects would arise. I won't bore you, but the logistics behind this are immensely preponderant.
Terrorism and small-scale strifes could never be eliminated, but there is a chance that the apocalyptic scenarios can. The last 60 years do have some improving elements in them, and the decrease in super-power warfare is an example. As humans become more rational, hopefully asinine attempts at "security" such as intervention will begone. No matter what happens though, civilization is probably screwed in the coming centuries... on the real.
Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5207803/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-by-Michael-Quinlan-review.html
The 21st century is unique in that the individuals that control it now have become quite more rational, learning from humanity's past mistakes. Violence still occurs because human nature will drive us to the extreme to defend personal values such as honor, religion, culture, etc. However, should we expect globally noticeable conflicts to occur?
Based off of recent trends, the answer is possibly no. The first reason may not be a trend, but more of an incident that has frightened all of us to our core. Little Boy and Fat Man are to blame, and I'm not talking about Stewie and Peter Griffin. Nuclear weapons existing have made nations fearful of a retaliation, deterring them from attacking in the first place. The non-weapon testing policies that nations have put into place are very clear examples of this! This news should excite you.
Another reason is that economies are so globalized. If one country, such as China or India, were to be attacked, the United States would be indirectly destroyed. If their technology, export/import capabilities, or anything that the economy is dependent on were damaged, ripple effects would arise. I won't bore you, but the logistics behind this are immensely preponderant.
Terrorism and small-scale strifes could never be eliminated, but there is a chance that the apocalyptic scenarios can. The last 60 years do have some improving elements in them, and the decrease in super-power warfare is an example. As humans become more rational, hopefully asinine attempts at "security" such as intervention will begone. No matter what happens though, civilization is probably screwed in the coming centuries... on the real.
Source - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/5207803/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-by-Michael-Quinlan-review.html
No comments:
Post a Comment