In Issac Asimov’s “Lecture on Humanity”, given in 1973, he makes many predictions about the 21st century. He says, among other things, we’ll need population control, a shift in our view of education, a change in food production, and we’ll have to realize “we’re a world without war” (10).
I rather agree with Asimov's predictions, not so much that they have come into effect but that they are what we need. Essentially, if these predicitons had been realized by others at an earlier time, we may have been currently leading easier lives. The fact is that there have not been overall understandings and realizations on these sorts of things. More or less, people have been a bit too focused on the things that pertain to their own lives rather than the world. Many people exist in their own exostential mentalities, where they care very little for anything that may have harmful or negative effects on the world. It's an issue of ignorance.
Population control is really somewhat self-explanatory. The world's population limit is predicted to be WELL under 10billion, and with the population rising as dramatically as it had been during the 1900's, this posed a major threat to humanity. Boom-and-bust was definitely a contemplated theory. It seems though that as the 21st century came about, the next generation of parents were limiting their households. Yes, there are people with two or three (or nine) children, but for the most part, average is 1 or 2. This has definitely helped to at least slow the population increase problem, if not to begin reversing it. For any real changes to be made in population, though, there would have to be very explicitly written laws, which would be violating many human rights. Who is to say that a woman can not have as many children as she wishes? While personally I feel no threat by this law, because I have no intention of increasing the population ever, there are definitely women out there who want to have lots and lots of babies. Restricting women from bearing children would lead to more problems than most have ever fathomed. And not only the issue with women, but the fact that many cultures will be under the influence that we are trying to wipe them out by inflicting these laws upon them. So, while population control is a definitive issue, it is not going to be solved anytime soon unless immoral legal measures are taken to do so.
The view of education seems to have actually shifted. More people aspire to big things, it seems, now than before. Seeing as I'm not particularly aware of the education system that existed in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, I have no part in saying that, but it definitely feels as if education is a major role in the lives of people today. Perhaps even too big of a role...? For now it seems that education is non-stop, that it never ends. And while yes, we do never stop learning, at least hopefully not, we believe as children that once you graduate from high school, graduate from college, you're done, and you are simply handed a job by the world. Education now continues almost endlessly. People are being educated in their 40s and 50s... Even older! Not saying that education should be less important than it is, I simply think that maybe another shift would be more beneficial towards the youth of the world.
Realizing that we are a "world without war" first means that we would have to be a world without war. As we are currently in the midst of a very long-lived war, that can not be realized, since you can't exactly realize something that isn't true. If it were possible for this to be a world without war, then that would be wonderful, and then maybe everyone could realize that we are a world without war. Maybe then there would be peace. This seems highly improbable. Like ying and yang, in order for peace to exist there must also be chaos--war. And it is not merely the physical wars that are important here. Physical wars don't merely start, normally. There is usually a cause, a motive, some grudge held against another by one, be it a country, religion, race, ethnic group, etc.. People will always have the bit of will in them that makes them have their own individual ideas. Some people will and do fight for their ideas, for their beliefs. In a world without war, people would have to be less than people, I believe. It seems unlikely for such a thing to exist.
----
Asimov's humor is quite witty in the lecture. It probably helped him a great deal with connecting to the crowd, first of all, but it definitely helped with the understanding of this whole thing. Had it been a dry, boring, flaky piece on the same things we hear from left-wing and right-wing politicians, this would most likely have been something that was not as much understood as read and memorized, like a science article. Humor makes things much more understandable, as well as bearable. Entertaining a group of students for so long would require either an enviable personality or a wonderful sense of humor. Asimov seems to be blessed with both here.
Not only that, but his stories are interesting. And slightly motivating, too. The first story, that of the article from 1938-39, is very moving. It not only brought up a much-overlooked side of an argument (that most don't realize it is an argument because it is so overloooked), but it showed the benefits of being an individual. Normally, stories of individuality are accompanied by a few words: jail, prison, cops, court. Those, and their synonyms, seem to be what scare people away from individuality, but here Asimov shows a true reward of it. His article was published for the reason that he had actually shown the resistance. And, surprise surprise! He didn't go to jail for it. This is the sort of thing, the very mild resistance that doesn't go to the extremes, but still manages to do something. I think people need to take a good look at this sort of thing, and maybe if we did that, we could get a better look at ourselves and the world. Hey, maybe we could even come closer to Asimov's "world without war"... ?
----
As for synoptic philosohpy, Asimov tends to speak of the human race as a whole, and eliminates alot of the general distinctions we create among ourselves. Even gender is not an overruling factor in our lives, we tend to think, but Asimov makes a point of almost always looking at humanity as a whole. Perhaps to make an example for others, to maybe start on the trip to a world where these distinctions are not made...? And then, again, a step closer to the "world without war"...?
Whatever the case, he makes his point and does it well.
Population control is really somewhat self-explanatory. The world's population limit is predicted to be WELL under 10billion, and with the population rising as dramatically as it had been during the 1900's, this posed a major threat to humanity. Boom-and-bust was definitely a contemplated theory. It seems though that as the 21st century came about, the next generation of parents were limiting their households. Yes, there are people with two or three (or nine) children, but for the most part, average is 1 or 2. This has definitely helped to at least slow the population increase problem, if not to begin reversing it. For any real changes to be made in population, though, there would have to be very explicitly written laws, which would be violating many human rights. Who is to say that a woman can not have as many children as she wishes? While personally I feel no threat by this law, because I have no intention of increasing the population ever, there are definitely women out there who want to have lots and lots of babies. Restricting women from bearing children would lead to more problems than most have ever fathomed. And not only the issue with women, but the fact that many cultures will be under the influence that we are trying to wipe them out by inflicting these laws upon them. So, while population control is a definitive issue, it is not going to be solved anytime soon unless immoral legal measures are taken to do so.
The view of education seems to have actually shifted. More people aspire to big things, it seems, now than before. Seeing as I'm not particularly aware of the education system that existed in the 70s, 80s and early 90s, I have no part in saying that, but it definitely feels as if education is a major role in the lives of people today. Perhaps even too big of a role...? For now it seems that education is non-stop, that it never ends. And while yes, we do never stop learning, at least hopefully not, we believe as children that once you graduate from high school, graduate from college, you're done, and you are simply handed a job by the world. Education now continues almost endlessly. People are being educated in their 40s and 50s... Even older! Not saying that education should be less important than it is, I simply think that maybe another shift would be more beneficial towards the youth of the world.
Realizing that we are a "world without war" first means that we would have to be a world without war. As we are currently in the midst of a very long-lived war, that can not be realized, since you can't exactly realize something that isn't true. If it were possible for this to be a world without war, then that would be wonderful, and then maybe everyone could realize that we are a world without war. Maybe then there would be peace. This seems highly improbable. Like ying and yang, in order for peace to exist there must also be chaos--war. And it is not merely the physical wars that are important here. Physical wars don't merely start, normally. There is usually a cause, a motive, some grudge held against another by one, be it a country, religion, race, ethnic group, etc.. People will always have the bit of will in them that makes them have their own individual ideas. Some people will and do fight for their ideas, for their beliefs. In a world without war, people would have to be less than people, I believe. It seems unlikely for such a thing to exist.
----
Asimov's humor is quite witty in the lecture. It probably helped him a great deal with connecting to the crowd, first of all, but it definitely helped with the understanding of this whole thing. Had it been a dry, boring, flaky piece on the same things we hear from left-wing and right-wing politicians, this would most likely have been something that was not as much understood as read and memorized, like a science article. Humor makes things much more understandable, as well as bearable. Entertaining a group of students for so long would require either an enviable personality or a wonderful sense of humor. Asimov seems to be blessed with both here.
Not only that, but his stories are interesting. And slightly motivating, too. The first story, that of the article from 1938-39, is very moving. It not only brought up a much-overlooked side of an argument (that most don't realize it is an argument because it is so overloooked), but it showed the benefits of being an individual. Normally, stories of individuality are accompanied by a few words: jail, prison, cops, court. Those, and their synonyms, seem to be what scare people away from individuality, but here Asimov shows a true reward of it. His article was published for the reason that he had actually shown the resistance. And, surprise surprise! He didn't go to jail for it. This is the sort of thing, the very mild resistance that doesn't go to the extremes, but still manages to do something. I think people need to take a good look at this sort of thing, and maybe if we did that, we could get a better look at ourselves and the world. Hey, maybe we could even come closer to Asimov's "world without war"... ?
----
As for synoptic philosohpy, Asimov tends to speak of the human race as a whole, and eliminates alot of the general distinctions we create among ourselves. Even gender is not an overruling factor in our lives, we tend to think, but Asimov makes a point of almost always looking at humanity as a whole. Perhaps to make an example for others, to maybe start on the trip to a world where these distinctions are not made...? And then, again, a step closer to the "world without war"...?
Whatever the case, he makes his point and does it well.
No comments:
Post a Comment