A Brighter Future or a Return of History?
The Origins and Conclusions of Values and Benefits
In order to understand the international system well enough to be able to answer the question, "Can it be changed?," one must first look at the parts which make it up. As has been established in this course many times over, we live in a world of sovereign nation-states. Whether that world is changing or not is not the focus of this particular entry. Instead it will be more of a discussion on my point of view on the origins of values and benefits (payoff structures, related to interests), then ultimately, how those origins affect the world we live in. The ultimate goal is to define the international realm, and the actors which make it up, as a category of the 2x2 chart discussed in class.
The assumption we work with (from the perspective of this author) is that all human beings begin as a blank slate with no predisposition toward one particular way of thinking or another. That having been said, governments (the precise term being systems of government, or regimes) and societies are similar, generally because they are comprised of people - a fact often forgotten.
My theory on all of this is something like the riddle of the chicken and the egg. I firmly believe that in the course of human history, dating back to the earliest civilizations, circumstances (the environment, both natural and man-made) affect strategic interests (aka goals that achieve perceived benefits) and those interests then help to define values. So in this case, the chicken (interests) comes before the egg (values). What then, created the chicken that laid the egg? The answer is, in my academic opinion, the environment. The interactions and effects that the circumstances have had and presently have on both interests and values, and the change that occurs as a result, most closely the analog of evolution.
So, the circumstances (environment), through evolution, produces the chicken (interests), which produces the egg (values) - critically, evolution is not a singular event, it continues to this day - that is why things change. It is important to note that because the evolutionary process is cyclical, this does not preclude values from eventually affecting interests. Past values do have an effect the following cycle of interests much in the same way that a when a hen lays an egg, that egg's genetic material affects the next generation of chickens.
Since we are looking to define how things change, it is critical to note that change is of course possible. There is evidence of this in human history, particularly in the 20th century. So how do things change? The theory I present, as stated, is that change follows a pattern of evolution. Through a change in circumstances, benefits are affected, which alter interests that ultimately define values, et cetera, et cetera and the cycle repeats. Given this, the best way to generate change is inherently an alternation of the circumstances that govern benefits (payoff structures). Over time, this will cause a shift in interests and eventually, another shift in values. The greatest example of this theory can be seen in the evolution of industrialized warfare and the advent of nuclear weapons. Once the payoff structure made the cost-benefit ratio of war between great powers too costly, interests and then values began to change. Today such conflict, in a direct manner, is far less likely than it was 100 years ago.
Thank you for bearing with that analogy, but I hope that it made this idea easier to communicate. What are your thoughts on this theory and on change in the international arena as a whole?
My theory on all of this is something like the riddle of the chicken and the egg. I firmly believe that in the course of human history, dating back to the earliest civilizations, circumstances (the environment, both natural and man-made) affect strategic interests (aka goals that achieve perceived benefits) and those interests then help to define values. So in this case, the chicken (interests) comes before the egg (values). What then, created the chicken that laid the egg? The answer is, in my academic opinion, the environment. The interactions and effects that the circumstances have had and presently have on both interests and values, and the change that occurs as a result, most closely the analog of evolution.
So, the circumstances (environment), through evolution, produces the chicken (interests), which produces the egg (values) - critically, evolution is not a singular event, it continues to this day - that is why things change. It is important to note that because the evolutionary process is cyclical, this does not preclude values from eventually affecting interests. Past values do have an effect the following cycle of interests much in the same way that a when a hen lays an egg, that egg's genetic material affects the next generation of chickens.
Since we are looking to define how things change, it is critical to note that change is of course possible. There is evidence of this in human history, particularly in the 20th century. So how do things change? The theory I present, as stated, is that change follows a pattern of evolution. Through a change in circumstances, benefits are affected, which alter interests that ultimately define values, et cetera, et cetera and the cycle repeats. Given this, the best way to generate change is inherently an alternation of the circumstances that govern benefits (payoff structures). Over time, this will cause a shift in interests and eventually, another shift in values. The greatest example of this theory can be seen in the evolution of industrialized warfare and the advent of nuclear weapons. Once the payoff structure made the cost-benefit ratio of war between great powers too costly, interests and then values began to change. Today such conflict, in a direct manner, is far less likely than it was 100 years ago.
Thank you for bearing with that analogy, but I hope that it made this idea easier to communicate. What are your thoughts on this theory and on change in the international arena as a whole?
No comments:
Post a Comment