I would very much like to get acquainted with the opinion of readers on the theses and arguments set out below. They are about a possible future, which, by the way, may come during the life of many of you: the newest history has significantly accelerated its pace.
From the author's statements, in my opinion, only one, under the second number, does not raise any particular objections. The rest of the provisions are seen somewhat controversial.
Why the current system is doomed to radical reformatting
Within the framework of a small article, I am not able to provide the entire array of data, primarily statistical, confirming each of the theses indicated here.
1. The contradiction between the processes of globalization and the traditional national state structure
Its meaning lies in the fact that, despite the apparent suspension or, as some authors note, even the “end of globalization”, it has not gone anywhere.
Promotional video:
This process itself, of course, is not linear, and the strengthening and increase in the quantitative number of intraplanetary interconnections (of a very diverse nature, from financial and trade to Internet communication and cross-cultural) can experience temporary recessions and decelerations, but all these changes in dynamics do not carry critical.
The policy of the current US president, his trade wars with China, by no means abolish the transnational interpenetration of finances, resources, services, and especially the information and cultural mixing of the advanced and most educated strata of any national society into a kind of planetary cocktail.
The difficulties created by the powerful political will of Trump's team for Huawei by no means slow down the virtually exponential growth in the number of all kinds of international contacts, which, during the period of slowing globalization, simply move from the interstate to the private level (social networks, labor migration, education, tourism, supranational social movements, etc. etc.).
And the actual contradiction lies in the fact that this new international “globalist” content no longer fits into the old national-state forms. The existing supranational institutions - such as the G7, G20, IMF, WTO, etc. - are morally outdated and, in fact, are a continuation of structures almost a century ago, which are more diplomatic than managerial in nature.
We live in the era of the formation of a global mega-society - a single and, alas, rigidly stratified, almost caste, planetary civil society that does not fit into the traditional schemes of citizenship, taxes, constitutional rights and obligations in relation to one country, etc.
Anticipating exalted criticism and accusations of neo-Masonry, mondialism, etc., I will note in advance that what is indicated here is not desirable for me. But I can't bring myself to deny the obvious.
2. The contradiction between the ever-increasing technological complexity of the modern world and the fall of the general educational level (as well as the weakening of motivation for intellectual development and work) in advanced countries
It has already become a commonplace to talk about a drop in the general education level in developed countries (the same can be said about motivation to study and work). The exception is China, but the exception is temporary, due to the relatively recent inclusion of this country in the race of "progress leaders".
Many people say and write about this, but not many people think of what a tragedy this fall can turn right now in our world, permeated with technology. A world in which extremely complex technologies, understandable only to a limited number of educated people, are the backbone, the skeleton, on the strength of which all the well-being of modern civilization rests.
What 30-50 years ago could have passed relatively painlessly (for example, an unexpected power outage for several days in a metropolis), in the age of the dominance of automated systems will inevitably turn into a catastrophe with multiple human casualties.
And this is far from the worst case that can occur due to incompetence and banal carelessness (which will play their tragic role not only as the cause of the emergency itself, but also during the elimination of its consequences).
A typical example is the last two crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX, the cause of which is the negligence of the employees of the world aviation leader in software development, and this was manifested at once at several stages of the aircraft modernization.
3. The contradictions between the new reality of the new digital age and the old morality, work ethic, etc
You can treat Marxism as you like, but it is absurd to deny the regularity noted by the founders of the doctrine that the critical lag of social relations from the new mode of production leads to all sorts of social cataclysms and revolutions.
In this case, I would like to single out the categories of work ethics and morality from the complex complex of social relations. Categories in our time are especially important, since our attitude to work, as noted above, in an age of total technological complexity depends not only on the well-being, but also on the very life of billions of people.
Here is one of the most striking examples. Evolutionarily, a person is arranged in such a way that he reacts much better (remembers, etc.) brighter, emotionally rich information.
At the same time, it is obvious that due to the general laws of physiology, the amount of this "active attention" is not unlimited - only a few hours during the waking period.
The same 30-40 years ago, this did not carry any threat. On the way to work, during and after it, a person could read a newspaper or a book (which in itself is already a development factor), go to the cinema or theater, in extreme cases watch TV, guess a crossword puzzle, or just chat.
This took away from people quite a bit (we will use the literary expression) "mental strength" out of the limited amount of those by the very period of wakefulness.
The rest of the time was spent on creative intellectual work, self-development, etc., or on non-intellectual work and aimless pastime, but even in this case there was always a potential biological opportunity for using the mind for purposes useful to humanity. What do we see now?
Change first
Many of us spend a significant part of our waking hours (more than one hour) on the Internet. More precisely, most of us. Considering that the number of hours per day remaining after satisfying natural physiological needs (sleep, food, hygiene, etc.) is quite limited, it turns out that we spend a colossal share of the precious "residue" in a fundamentally new environment for HOMO SAPIENS - virtual (digital).
This is a truly revolutionary change in everyday human life - a fait accompli, from which there is no escape and which cannot be reversed.
Second change
In a virtual (digital) environment, we are constantly thrown from one link to another (completely unnecessary), from one video to another (completely unnecessary), from thought to empty demagoguery, etc. The pace of this "surface sliding without immersion" is unthinkable for previous eras.
And now - the main thing. As already mentioned, the potential of our "mental powers" (the ability to concentrate intelligence / attention) is physiologically limited.
And all the information coming to us from the virtual environment is so bright, so emotionally colored, and therefore looks like biologically significant (exactly how and precisely biologically). But it is biologically significant information that makes us concentrate our attention to the utmost!
And watching another, in fact, completely unnecessary video on "YouTube" or communicating on topics divorced from our real needs on Facebook, we are not just wasting precious time of our lives.
We scatter the precious resource of our attention, which is why our work suffers catastrophically in this extremely technologized era, where a critical mass of errors can lead to simply catastrophic consequences (and work, as the production of material and cultural values, is much wider than what we are supposed to) job descriptions).
For those who have not yet understood, let us clarify: this factor generates, or intensifies, "contradiction number two" - a drop in motivation and the level of knowledge versus an avalanche-like complication of technologies.
To all of the above, I would add a few more "challenges" that are not insoluble, like the above contradictions, but nevertheless are capable of contributing to the destruction of the world we know now. I will outline them in passing:
- this is a "challenge of satiety." You and I are the first generations on Earth, devoid of constant fear of being hungry (I'm talking about developed societies), and the absence of this fear (read - stimulus) is a serious challenge to modern mankind;
- the threat of "information chaos". There is so much information that at present there are difficulties with its systematization, and without systematization, most of the information becomes ineffective, at least in its practical application.
These three insoluble contradictions, or dialectical antitheses, coupled with intractable challenges (in fact, there are much more challenges, just the format of the article does not allow to describe them all) will completely unbalance and eventually break modern civilization to give life to a new one. This does not have to be an apocalyptic scenario - the Middle Ages retreated before the new era, capitalism before socialism (and vice versa) is bloody, but for humanity as a biological species it is almost imperceptible.
What will this new civilization be like?
We will talk about this next time. Let us only note that its contours will be discernible in the individual actions of individuals, who can be conventionally called "new". These people, realizing or just intuitively feeling the first impulses of the coming tectonic shifts, will behave in accordance with the answers with which life itself will resolve these insoluble contradictions within the old system.
Author: Ivan Rakhmetov