Alexander Gillespie: Shallowness keeps us from Utopia

Opinion

Economic self-interest makes it difficult to progress, writes Alexander Gillespie, professor of law at Waikato University.

The idea that the human community is rapidly declining in a downward spiral is a view many people subscribe to.

The excitement of the idea can help people simplistically fathom difficult situations.

It can also help fill in the gaps with religious visions of the world, whereby the promised doom for unbelievers and Utopia for believers will collide at the same point.

Although most common within religious worldviews, the idea that there is a Utopia that can be reached - or disaster if a prescribed pathway is not followed - is equally addictive within many secular worldviews.

We in the West have a particular fascination with this idea, that ever since the Garden of Eden it is only a matter of time until we end up in a smouldering mess because we have left behind the values that once held us together in a harmonious mix in the land of milk and honey.

This view is a mistake for two reasons. The first is that although some of the values of the Judeo-Christian worldview provided the seeds for some of the foremost beauty in the modern world, they also provided sustenance for some of its most extreme ugliness. History is littered with the use of scripture as justification for racism, sexism, slavery and war.

The second is that when the evidence is viewed over the 5000-year history that we possess written records for, then humanity is making progress.

In terms of material progress, as opposed to the elusive goal of spiritual progress, when examined with a rational eye over the collective and longer time period, it is obvious that humanity is not on a downward spiral.

Compared to the past we, as a species, fight less, we have more and we have the capacity to reach unparalleled excellence.

This is not to suggest that we are not facing massive problems ahead. Without doubt, we have many difficulties to overcome.

From global environmental calamities through to local social unrest, the challenges are large. Poverty, starvation, exploitation, oppression and economic collapse continue to haunt us but the truth of the matter is they always have.

Legislators in ancient Babylonia were seeking to achieve equity in their societies and stop the exploitation of the poor by the rich, well before the current President of the United States was trying to broker deals with a recalcitrant Senate.

Some problems are perennial, such as riots and the madness of frenzied crowds.

There are, however, some differences from the past. The most notable is that the percentages of those in extreme poverty or starvation are smaller and we now have the tools and social options to solve most - if not all - of the problems that bedevil us. As a species, we can feed the world. Alternately, we can destroy it.

This mastery of science and technology means that we now have the power of the gods. Earlier generations did not have this capacity or this responsibility.

The other difference of note from the past concerns the reasons communities challenge authority.

Every generation likes to riot or react against the status quo. It almost seems an innate human characteristic.

The question is why do they revolt?

The peoples of Egypt, Libya and Syria are fighting to throw off tyrants.

These are revolutions based upon identity as citizens, under the mantra of freedom.

The temptation will be for those who are currently wearing the mask of liberators, once they have achieved regime change, not to seize the reigns of power for themselves.

To align the principle of freedom with the values of equality, liberty and the rule of law is a process which took the Western world 200 years to achieve since the onset of our Enlightenment.

Yet from this point in history, as we watch England burn, it is clear that Utopia has not been reached. Once again, young generations are unhappy.

The difference now is that the riots in the West are more about identity as consumers than the riots and revolutions of the past, which were about identity as citizens.

While the uprisings in the Middle East were aimed at securing the right to vote, the riots in the West appear to have been aimed at securing the latest consumer products.

The shallowness of those who already possess the rights and liberties that others are fighting for is even displayed in New Zealand where we prefer to give more of our attention to our identity as consumers and the price of a rugby jersey than our identity as citizens and the fact that many of the children in this country, which provides food for the world, are too hungry to function in schools.

This type of Stone Age emotional intelligence is the weakest point in our ability to navigate the future.

There is no easy answer to these dilemmas. The only certainties we have are examples of what has not succeeded. Societies governed by monarchs, tyrants, communists or religious authorities are the antithesis of progress, if human freedom and prosperity are the goals.

It may also appear that societies of citizens who have already won their freedom but cannot raise their vision beyond their immediate economic self-interest, are about to be challenged by those who want to mirror this behaviour in the streets.