Can blogging create World Peace?
I was chatting to an old (as in long term - I would never call her old) friend of mine today and we got to talking about Politics and Justice and all those light weight things (as you do). We are both very interested in those topics.
We got to talking about how the latest wave of social software might help improve the world. I almost alluded to it in a recent post about Web 3.0 (*cringe*).
We came up with this interesting line of thought (if you look closely you could imagine a small green Muppet saying the words).
So by that logic – perhaps if we can further empower the mainstream to share their unedited stories it might actually broaden our understanding and acceptance of each other - even those scary people over there (that place that is different from ours). Perhaps if we are able to connect in new and powerful ways governments will be forced to listen to the will of their people in a way never before experienced. Perhaps transparency in government will improve.
If this were to occur to a sufficient scale, would ignorance not begin to dissipate and interconnectedness grow? Would fear begin to give way to understanding of commonalities. Would wars and injustice based on fear become extinct?
Apathy may still be a problem – anyone got any suggestions?
It is probably far too idealistic and naive - Maybe wars are not based on fear but rather on energy crisis’s - I just thought that it was a fun piece musing late on a Saturday night.
We got to talking about how the latest wave of social software might help improve the world. I almost alluded to it in a recent post about Web 3.0 (*cringe*).
We came up with this interesting line of thought (if you look closely you could imagine a small green Muppet saying the words).
War is based on fear, fear is based on ignorance, ignorance is based on a lack of information, lack of information is based on bad/biased editorializing and/or audience apathy
So by that logic – perhaps if we can further empower the mainstream to share their unedited stories it might actually broaden our understanding and acceptance of each other - even those scary people over there (that place that is different from ours). Perhaps if we are able to connect in new and powerful ways governments will be forced to listen to the will of their people in a way never before experienced. Perhaps transparency in government will improve.
If this were to occur to a sufficient scale, would ignorance not begin to dissipate and interconnectedness grow? Would fear begin to give way to understanding of commonalities. Would wars and injustice based on fear become extinct?
Apathy may still be a problem – anyone got any suggestions?
It is probably far too idealistic and naive - Maybe wars are not based on fear but rather on energy crisis’s - I just thought that it was a fun piece musing late on a Saturday night.
Labels: apathy, blogging, government, justice, social software, world peace
5 Comments:
I'm all for world peace, but yes, you're definitely being too idealistic and naive. :-)
War may be based on extremely legitimate fears that come from accurate information rather than ignorance. Such as when a country publicly threatens to annihilate another country over and over (such as Iran is doing to Israel and the US). It's not a matter of Ahmanidejad (or others like him) being scary because he is too "different" from us but because he openly states what he wants to do. And we had a lot of accurate information about what Saddam was doing to his own people, and what he threatened to do to us.
But I do agree that the more accurate information we can get out there, via bloggers and MSM, the better to help us make decisions about war or not based on facts, not ignorance.
I agree that it is not as simple as stated - the post was mainly just a bit of fun - but I disagree with your grounds for disagreeing with me (if that makes any sense).
I think you will find that if Iran's leadership was not fearful of the US then there would be no reason for it to be beating it's chest.
A reoccurring mistake that occurs in wars when the enemy is vilified is to overlook reasons. Why does he want to destroy Israel and the US?
I suspect if you look deeper you will find that all actions lead back to fear – and the fear is due to miss-information, uncertainty or past actions that provoked the current climate (those past actions were probably based on fear or miss-information too and so on.)
"Someday we'll find it
The rainbow connection
The lovers, the dreamers and me"
I'll be more blunt: the above poster - intelligent enough to be typing on a computer, said:
"Such as when a country publicly threatens to annihilate another country over and over (such as Iran is doing to Israel and the US). "
and yet NEVER has there EVER been any such pronouncement by Ahmadinejad! Even the "Wipe Israel off the map" was never ever said, if you check the original recordings and transcripts in Persian (available on Mathaba but from my memory): "The Zionist regime will disappear from the pages of history" was translated by Zionist-owned American media as "wipe Israel off the map".
I'll really upset you now and state another fact: Anyone who QUESTIONS ANY ASPECT OF THE HOLOCAUST is called not a Holocaust Questioner, or someone trying to correct or find true history or facts research, but a HOLOCAUST DENIER. This to show the power of the Zionist lobby.
But if you are still here, back to topic. The above Iran example, and the absolutely crazy plans of the US to attack Iran (which even the hawks in US government have come out to condemn and see the help of others to avoid), and the incredible idiocy (yes I call you idiots to believe what you hear in the media when it is repeated time and again, throw enough shit at the wall, some of it, a lot of it, or all of it sticks), of the American people is exactly what allows such wars to go ahead. So yes, I do agree that a very different media would prevent wars.
I also posit that wrong reports in media fuels politicians who in turn fuel the media and a vicious cycle of lies and in fact little based on facts emerges and assists going to war. It was EXACTLY that in the US media (have you seriously forgotten already?) that enabled the US to begin its own destruction and to all but annihilate Iraq, and at conservative estimates kill 600,000 innocent Iraqi's. Count from one to 600,000 please, and each time you count, think of a life. Those were just the innocent bystanders, who happen to be born and live there. But no, I guess you may be able (but won't, too lazy) count to 3,000 and think of an American life each time, since that is much easier.
If you do come back three years from now to say you counted from one to 603,000 and each time thought of a life lost and all those affected by that life lost now and in the future, then extrapolate and think of a further two million lost to sanctions previous to that which were also based on lies but which were also made possible by apathy and misinformation by media of the western public in those countries that enforced the sanctions - the usual culprits.
An observation: speak to any person on the street in Africa, Asia or Latin America, and they know more about what is going on and more about the world than the average "Brit" or "American" or "Australian" (all misnomers by the way, hence in quotation marks") yet they read far less, and do not have access to the Internet. Therefore this whole Internet thing is not so clear that it is the solution Chris and others who hope so, because it is quite possible that with everyone in the "developed" world being able to blog, all are speaking, few are listening, and the noise from all sides simply cancels itself out. Tools like Touchstone that allow people to filter based on their interests, possibly only further contribute to the "individualistic selfish bubbles" that "westerners" live in whereby we can hear and see only that which we want to hear and see, and nothing else.
I should add a comment here: this is a quote from The Green Book - and although it should not make a bloody difference who wrote the book, I'll tell you, because it is no doubt someone who you have been led to believe is evil through and through - Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader. Yep, if you're still here, here is the quote:
"Ignorance will come to an end when everything is presented as it actually is and when knowledge about everything is available to each person in the manner that suits him or her."
That is exactly what we should all be aiming for. Perhaps TouchStone will indeed facilitate that second half of the statement, the problem lies in the first half. It is a theory of course, but wouldn't it be nice.
The Green Book: Education
Post a Comment
<< Home