I just read a thought provoking piece by David Atkins titled: Nation States Will Destroy The World.
What’s really interesting is that while I agree with his conclusion to a large extent that we need a new system and institutions for the problems that we confront as humans, I don’t necessarily agree with the journey he took to get there.
For instance, in a previous post on liberalism, he spoke of ideas and in a tone which I found profoundly paternalistic. Further, while I agree with Atkins that no matter what one does, there will always be bad people in the world, I also feel extremely strongly that in order to be a leader for change and good, it requires exposing your own hypocrisy and getting your own house in order to reduce the amount of ill will you create and simultaneously (and perhaps even more importantly), rid people who continue to act aggressively or violently of any excuse for their behavior. Thus, they can be isolated as rogue actors with no legitimacy and can be dealt with accordingly.
At the same time, it’s clear to me that what Atkins says about the current structure of how we govern ourselves is not the best that we can do is true. Why is it that we change everything and innovation is considered such a benefit to every area of our lives, but when it comes to governing institutions, systems and models, the exact opposite claim is made? What was created 300 years ago cannot be the pinnacle of human achievement in this area, can it? I think not, precisely because what was created 300 years ago was not made for a current world, with all the benefits and dangers it presents, that people could not even envision 300 years ago.
So why not figure out something better?
With that being said, I’ll be interested to see if and what Atkins proposes as a better way to organize the world though. At that point, given what I can deduce from his worldview, I think what agreement we have may be shortlived…