From a Google Image Search - YouTube - Sri Sathya Sai Official
I have been having a conversation with myself in which I wonder if I am blocking changes in the ways global power functions just because I can't accept who is forcing us to change, or if the flaws of these rich and powerful people make them unsuited to bring transformation to our lives.
Sometimes I wonder if, by trying to save democracy, I am working to prevent global changes. If the nations of the world are choosing autocracy, is this choice driven by fear of the obvious changes to our climates, our oceans, the patterns of Earth's air streams, and the resulting migrations of humans into areas already populated by other humans?
Will humans cause the end of toxic nationalism through rebellion, revolution, or simply by human demand, thereby rejecting autocracy? Every cell in my being rejects autocracy as an acceptable form of government. Relying on the mind of one individual to guide a society has always been a terrible mistake. Autocracies are always corrupt in the end, and there are no safeguards.
But Edward Albee once wrote, "Sometimes you have to go a long way out of your way to come back a short distance correctly." Some powerful leaders have changed human cultures and left tracks in our history that may have helped us evolve. Genghis Khan was frightening to behold, I'm guessing, but he brought the East to the West and eureka progress. The Roman armies set out to conquer "barbarians," but they brought order, roads, aqueducts, military tactics, and much more. Was the upheaval worth the results? It's probable that many people died in these conquests and that it took generations for the "barbarians" to adopt new customs.
In those early years the planet was not home to 9 billion humans and there were new lands to conquer which were still sparsely inhabited. I know that we find imperialism and colonialism wrong, but if we were to learn to travel in space, we might become colonizers once again, Star Trek rules forgotten in the mad rush.
Autocracy seems tied to nationalism in the twenty-first century. Nations want to retain their national identity, and they feel that vast numbers of war-climate-economic migrations will overrun that identity. They are probably right.
Religion has a place in this equation. Christian nations want to be Christian nations, Islamic nations want to be Islamic and they want to take their religion with them if their lands become unlivable. Since the southern hemisphere seems more in danger of climate degradation, that means that members of the Nation of Islam as well as Christians are on the move.
Then we have the issue of skin color. The new crop of Eastern and Western European autocrats seems to feel that whiteness is superior to brownness or any other hue. Since Europeans and Americans have built the strongest economies, they have come to believe that white brains are somehow superior. But, many of the cultures they denigrate are far older than the cultures of Europe or America. These ancient cultures had their moments as stars of economic development and artistry. Somehow the first Industrial Revolution passed them by, perhaps on purpose.
With the election of Donald Trump, America has joined the movement towards autocracy for reasons of our supposed white Christian national identity. This, indeed, leaves out a fairly large proportion of Americans who do not fit this description. This racist nonsense seems to be the main point of the right-wing movement in America rather than just a feature.
Is it necessary to allow our democracy to become an autocracy to guarantee the eventual end of nationalism, religious zeal, and discrimination? Do we have to give up compassion for survival? Will there ever be a day when national boundaries are less important than global cooperation?
Do things have to get worse before they get better? Is autocracy the only pathway to global justice and greater equity? Do we get a better culture by allowing bigotry and small-minded ideas? It's very difficult to believe that this path, littered with hate and greed and the hunger for power will ever lead to a culture the world will take pride in. Do the ends justify the means, as the saying goes?
Perhaps humans yearn for the future we encounter in movies, TV shows, and books. Not Blade Runner, of course, something a bit more utopian. Perhaps we are looking for one Big Daddy or Mommy who will unite the world into a shiny tech machine that creates new tech, shops for us, entertains us, assigns our work, holds our money for us, puts down revolts, filters out negative thoughts, takes care of our health care, decides who we marry and encourages us to reproduce (or takes reproduction out of human hands); technology that conquers other universes for humans to inhabit.
Of course, the current residents of Earth might be extinct before that all happens. Did we build our dual nature into our technology, or as humans learn to design tech that does not require human input, will human flaws disappear or be suppressed by our creations? So far every bit of human progress repeats the best and the worst that humans are capable of.
As billionaires like Elon Musk see the world as their bespoke box of chocolates and try to eat the world, will that start a billionaire war to see who can eat the most chocolates (countries)? Are white Christian nationalists the best humans to bring us the future, and what will that future look like? How much death and destruction will happen in the world before a new future arises?
It always seemed that sometime in the future human skin color would end up as a toasty shade of brown. But as we speak, white nationalists are trying to force people to reproduce because reproduction rates are declining among many populations and in America, especially among white folks. Will these nationalists, riding a wave of wealth and power, use genocide to make sure that the future belongs to humans with "white" skin? Seems like a useless pursuit. Denying climate change caused by humans is contributing to the reluctance to reproduce, yet these folks are climate deniers.
I am asking myself if I am clinging to our democracy because I am afraid of change. Is this save-democracy movement preventing some inevitable global transformation of human societies? Or am I right that no good can come from atavistic policy and narrow-minded governance? What do you think?
Here’s what MLK had to say on the subject:
From a Google Image Search - AZ Quotes
I really admire your questioning, Nancy. It's very healthy. Most people couldn't do that. However, I think you know the answers.