Competition
-- it's a contest --
One wins, the other loses. Coming out ahead means someone is left behind. Troublesome?... for territory, for wealth and status and power. And it's a centerpiece of our culture.
It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.
At risk, the lives of people. In the ancient age of empire, conquest was the norm. Masses were slaughtered and lands were taken. Competition was understood to be murderous, but is was thought at the time to be justified somehow. Superiority of race and ethnicity, such excuses were the norm.
The idea of racial or ethnic superiority is ancient and persistent, as is the concept of an elite within a culture, but Darwin was the first to offer a scientific rationale. The sub-title to The Origin of Species was The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Darwin wrote about "favored races," and speculated somewhat wildly in The Descent of Man, lending support to the Nazis' belief in the superiority of the Aryan race. The British thought similarly about Anglo-Saxons. To make it even more troublesome, Darwin's description of natural selection spoke of a fight to the death, a "law of the jungle." Applying it to humanity suggests that conflict and war are inevitable, perhaps appropriate or even necessary. Not the best of legacies, justifying the slaughter of tribes and nations. Was Darwin off the mark?
Survival
Today, we know that humanity is comprised of one species. We're stuck with the established science and the realization that we're all precisely the same, all equally valuable, all equally deserving of a fair chance. We find it awkward to continue excusing our selfishness and our economic comfort at the expense of others. The GAP between the rich and poor, however, is progressively more deadly. Today's trade and finance industries are where mega-corporations compete at the expense of nations and peoples. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the latest in that campaign. NAFTA drove more than a million farmers in Mexico out of business and off their land. Critics of TPP suggest it will be similarly troublesome. Well intended perhaps in part, such agreements favor the wealthy and the largest corporations, some of which are bigger than countries.
What lies ahead?
Times have changed; others have caught up and passed us by. Samantha Powers, before she was nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., asserted that "we're neither the shining example, or even competent meddlers. It's going to take a generation or so to reclaim American exceptionalism..." A generation ... or do we perhaps need a better goal.
So, on the macro side of humanity's story, how can nations be noble and virtuous without being destructive at the same time? Can a nation thrive without oppression and corruption being part of the equation? Can an economy provide some measure of equity for all without exhausting the resources others need to survive? Of course.
It's perhaps worth a reminder that our nation was founded on justice, equality, and inalienable rights. National superiority and financial dominance are not only alien to our heritage but are the very things against which we rebelled. The empire which wielded such against us became loathsome to us all. We paid a high price to break that yoke.
People have handled these issues rather well in years past, interestingly enough.
Civilization along the Niger river was not a garden of Eden, perhaps, but for more than a thousand years, not a single monarch ... We all still have much yet to learn, I suspect.
So what are the ethical issues we face as a nation and as citizens?