I'd just come out of watching an amazingly-shot documentary titled Insect Wars, which basically documents how empires of insects attack and defend against other empires of insects. These wars have been waged throughout the history of the animal kingdom, and the rise and fall of these empires are mere flecks in the canvas of time.
It is quite amazing how this parallels the human world so much at parts. I saw how almost every insect colony, be it winged or terrestrial, had universally common defence strategies, such as understanding that the power of an attacking threat can be reduced if you force them to invade only through small channels. I saw how ant or hornet scouts are a commonly employed tactic, and these scouts are specially designed for stealth. I saw how slavery appears to be a very common theme, as is class divides, in ensuring that a powerful kingdom runs efficiently.
And in the last segment, I saw how a 'pretender' ant infiltrated the royal chamber and killed the queen ant, covering herself in the dying queen's bodily fluids, and then emerging from the chamber flaunting her new majestic scent. The rest of the colony, unable to tell her apart from the dying queen, treated her as the queen herself, licking her feet as they prepared to receive her eggs.
Sometimes, it feels as if believing that humans are a higher order of species is getting a little too full of ourselves. We could be anthropomorphizing animals, or we could very well be behaving just like animals. History levels all its earthly subjects, as the patterns turn us into puppets and dictate the rise and fall of empires.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Monday, 6 September 2010
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Until Lions Have Their Historians, Tales Of The Hunt Shall Always Glorify The Hunters (African Proverb)
Has Thailand's politics ever been more ablaze than now? This is a classic example of an uprising. My lack of revulsion doesn't mean I'm harbouring somewhat sadistic emotions about what's going on; it's just that this is history in the making.
The Reds were on the brink of retreat; in fact a significant number of their leaders had declared surrender. Many people were tired, particularly those who want nothing to do with the political affairs of the warring camps. These people simply wanted stability and normalcy to occur. Up to a point, some of the laypeople interviewed were even accusing the Reds of going out of the way to get their demands heard. "This [violence] is not the right way to do things," one person was quoted as saying.
But truthfully speaking, is the violence all that unwarranted? Could they have garnered the attention they have now if they didn't resort to taking up arms and aggressing? Aside from Gandhi, who has nobly set a very high standard for non-violent protest, all revolutions and uprisings have been violent and entail unrest, often destabilizing society. History tells us the story, and history will repeat itself again. As Churchill puts it well, "we are not makers of history; we are made by history." The violence is almost inevitable - in the battle between the system and the idealists, lives have to become dispensable.
Perhaps irresponsibility occurs only when people forget the cause they fight for and enact unnecessary violence because emotions are running wild. The building set ablaze as the Reds were apparently surrendering brings to mind one such example. But in the zealous fight for an ideological end, it can be quite hard to draw the lines on these things.
"The history of the world is the record of a man in quest of his daily bread and butter."
- Hendrik Wilhelm van Loon, The Story of Mankind
The Reds were on the brink of retreat; in fact a significant number of their leaders had declared surrender. Many people were tired, particularly those who want nothing to do with the political affairs of the warring camps. These people simply wanted stability and normalcy to occur. Up to a point, some of the laypeople interviewed were even accusing the Reds of going out of the way to get their demands heard. "This [violence] is not the right way to do things," one person was quoted as saying.
But truthfully speaking, is the violence all that unwarranted? Could they have garnered the attention they have now if they didn't resort to taking up arms and aggressing? Aside from Gandhi, who has nobly set a very high standard for non-violent protest, all revolutions and uprisings have been violent and entail unrest, often destabilizing society. History tells us the story, and history will repeat itself again. As Churchill puts it well, "we are not makers of history; we are made by history." The violence is almost inevitable - in the battle between the system and the idealists, lives have to become dispensable.
Perhaps irresponsibility occurs only when people forget the cause they fight for and enact unnecessary violence because emotions are running wild. The building set ablaze as the Reds were apparently surrendering brings to mind one such example. But in the zealous fight for an ideological end, it can be quite hard to draw the lines on these things.
"The history of the world is the record of a man in quest of his daily bread and butter."
- Hendrik Wilhelm van Loon, The Story of Mankind
Saturday, 12 September 2009
A Skimpy Caveat To Liberalism
A contemporary thought on the changing landscape of global power is that of the prominent rise of China and the apparent decline of the US as a hegemonic power.
Authors such as Ikenberry have elegantly conceived of the possibly of such an occurrence of China overtaking the US and becoming the new global power as not happening because the structure of global politics defies history - the globalised world today doesn't play by conventional rules of interstate relations.
For one, the decisiveness of nuclear weapons in settling a war has rendered the possibility of a world war - the classical instrument for overthrowing the world order - unlikely. Secondly, the global institution based on the principles of capitalism created by the US after World War II is one that is 'hard to overturn and easy to join'. Thirdly, the many agents within the system ensure that any drastic action by any one is kept in check by a collective governance of states.
The trade regime in place creates a huge incentive for states to cooperate rather than resort to conflict. With more states within the Western order, the more wealth there is to create and gain, and the more likely one will lose out if one doesn't join in the trading playing field.
This economically-dominant system is seen as vastly different from global systems led by hegemons in the past, when the world order was created and run by the state with the greatest physical force. This contemporary and globalised world order appears benign and inclusive, more liberal than imperial, brings democracies and market societies closer together and facilitates the participation and integration of both global powers and newly developed states. This US-led world order also caters to the interests of market societies, creating incentives for states to participate and avoid being left out.
If the US focuses its efforts not in beefing the power of its country up but in ensuring that the Western order is enforced to encourage engagement, integration and restraint, countries that are rising global powers will have no choice but to play by the rules that have been established. China's economic rise is imminent, but remains checked by the system that is highly interdependent among many states. China's policy changes suggest that Chinese leaders do recognize the inevitable advantages of playing by these rules as they have increasingly embraced global trade rules.
However, history always has a sly and enduring way of ensuring that trends never change. It may be argued that the global system now may buck the trend simply because it is different. However, there is the chance that the global trade regime may fail to hold as the declining hegemonic power - The US - does what any declining power will typically do - it will desperately try to secure its own interests. One can observe this happening in its increasingly protectionist measures and socialist policies which signal its lack of commitment to the global world trading order it created and would constrain the growth of other global powers with.
By loosening its position as the foremost supporter of the global system of governance that underpins the world order, there can be (and is) increasing disincentive for countries to open up their doors to trade and resort to protectionist measures, causing liberal trade to collapse (this is especially highlighted by the neverending difficulty in ratifying trade agreements during WTO meetings). The weakening interdependence among countries can allow runaway global powers to attempt to rise up and overthrow the world order which would otherwise have been kept intact by the many countries it serves.
This seems to me to be another possible case of power shifting history occurring again, and it would signal a sense of inevitability when it comes to the tyranny of history's dictates - there can be no system so privileged that it that escapes the trend of the past.
Realists will also love to contend that the cooperation that liberalists like to proclaim as good between countries isn't so much a harmonious feature of interstate relations, but rather one that is chock-full of political conflict. As Keohane points out, harmony occurs when everyone's interests naturally align, but cooperation occurs because conflict or potential conflict arises, and cooperation then entails that patterns of behaviour must be altered.
Game theorists have shown that strategies that involve threats, punishments, promises and rewards are more effective in attaining cooperative outcomes than those that rely on persuasion, often the cornerstone of the capitalist's argument for the free market.
Cooperation hence does not imply an absence of conflict. Without the looming potential of conflict, there is no need for cooperation. The role of realism in focusing on the insecurities between states is still prevalent.
So, it is still early yet to say for sure if the new world order can hold out and that realism is dead in the idealised promise of liberal theory.
Authors such as Ikenberry have elegantly conceived of the possibly of such an occurrence of China overtaking the US and becoming the new global power as not happening because the structure of global politics defies history - the globalised world today doesn't play by conventional rules of interstate relations.
For one, the decisiveness of nuclear weapons in settling a war has rendered the possibility of a world war - the classical instrument for overthrowing the world order - unlikely. Secondly, the global institution based on the principles of capitalism created by the US after World War II is one that is 'hard to overturn and easy to join'. Thirdly, the many agents within the system ensure that any drastic action by any one is kept in check by a collective governance of states.
The trade regime in place creates a huge incentive for states to cooperate rather than resort to conflict. With more states within the Western order, the more wealth there is to create and gain, and the more likely one will lose out if one doesn't join in the trading playing field.
This economically-dominant system is seen as vastly different from global systems led by hegemons in the past, when the world order was created and run by the state with the greatest physical force. This contemporary and globalised world order appears benign and inclusive, more liberal than imperial, brings democracies and market societies closer together and facilitates the participation and integration of both global powers and newly developed states. This US-led world order also caters to the interests of market societies, creating incentives for states to participate and avoid being left out.
If the US focuses its efforts not in beefing the power of its country up but in ensuring that the Western order is enforced to encourage engagement, integration and restraint, countries that are rising global powers will have no choice but to play by the rules that have been established. China's economic rise is imminent, but remains checked by the system that is highly interdependent among many states. China's policy changes suggest that Chinese leaders do recognize the inevitable advantages of playing by these rules as they have increasingly embraced global trade rules.
However, history always has a sly and enduring way of ensuring that trends never change. It may be argued that the global system now may buck the trend simply because it is different. However, there is the chance that the global trade regime may fail to hold as the declining hegemonic power - The US - does what any declining power will typically do - it will desperately try to secure its own interests. One can observe this happening in its increasingly protectionist measures and socialist policies which signal its lack of commitment to the global world trading order it created and would constrain the growth of other global powers with.
By loosening its position as the foremost supporter of the global system of governance that underpins the world order, there can be (and is) increasing disincentive for countries to open up their doors to trade and resort to protectionist measures, causing liberal trade to collapse (this is especially highlighted by the neverending difficulty in ratifying trade agreements during WTO meetings). The weakening interdependence among countries can allow runaway global powers to attempt to rise up and overthrow the world order which would otherwise have been kept intact by the many countries it serves.
This seems to me to be another possible case of power shifting history occurring again, and it would signal a sense of inevitability when it comes to the tyranny of history's dictates - there can be no system so privileged that it that escapes the trend of the past.
Realists will also love to contend that the cooperation that liberalists like to proclaim as good between countries isn't so much a harmonious feature of interstate relations, but rather one that is chock-full of political conflict. As Keohane points out, harmony occurs when everyone's interests naturally align, but cooperation occurs because conflict or potential conflict arises, and cooperation then entails that patterns of behaviour must be altered.
Game theorists have shown that strategies that involve threats, punishments, promises and rewards are more effective in attaining cooperative outcomes than those that rely on persuasion, often the cornerstone of the capitalist's argument for the free market.
Cooperation hence does not imply an absence of conflict. Without the looming potential of conflict, there is no need for cooperation. The role of realism in focusing on the insecurities between states is still prevalent.
So, it is still early yet to say for sure if the new world order can hold out and that realism is dead in the idealised promise of liberal theory.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Time Immemorial
On numerous occasions in temples and mountains in China, I'd get into mental states where I could imagine and visualize ancient Chinese people dressed in their slacks and pulling their carts of fruit around me as I walked across paths made up of stone smoothed out by centuries of weathering and human traffic. The alleys and streets would get crowded and I'd practically bump into them, if not for the barrier we call time that separated us from one another.
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
- Albert Einstein
Audio Candy:
Ludovico Einaudi - Interludio
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
- Albert Einstein
Audio Candy:
Ludovico Einaudi - Interludio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
