So in the spirit of the slew of films, past, present and future, that play with the idea that we as a race can be exterminated in just a minute, let's discuss the actual possibility of specicide, which differs from genocide in the following way: Genocide is the extermination of one particular segment of the human race, whether the filter is racial, ethnic, religious, or something else. By contrast, specicide (root: species) is the complete and utter extermination of the entire human race.
The chances of specicide for most people, I think, is pretty low. Though Hitler was the most notorious individual to successfully launch a campaign of genocide, he has been followed by a bevy of equally deranged people dedicated to their cause. But no one has yet to attempt the ultimate coup -- specicide. And with good reason:
The opportunity for any one individual or nation or even group of countries to conduct a full-scale specicidal campaign has never really been possible. The technology and delivery vehicles needed to wipe out over six billion people almost simultaneously isn't there. The only way it could happen is as a result of some natural, cataclysmic, near-apocalyptic natural disaster. This is precisely the premise of 2012.
"But wait a second, Rizwan," some of you might be saying. "What about nuclear weapons?"
To which I respond, perfect. That's exactly the thing. Here's a quote from Tad Daley, writing today both in the Huffington Post and on the IPPNW blog:
A quarter century before the voyages of Apollo, the invention of the nuclear weapon gave life on Earth, for the first time, [to] the capacity [of humankind] to bring about its own extinction by its own hands ... This period, where we hold this capability to destroy ourselves but before we have found a way to save ourselves, might be called the human race’s ultimate “window of vulnerability.”
So in the 1940s, for the very first time in the history of the human race, which stretches back for millennia, we developed the destructive power to potentially decimate all of humankind. And the entire world witnessed that destructive power on August 6th and August 9th, 1945.
For the next forty-four years, the human race held its breath as, with each day, the number of these terrifying devices seemed to interbreed, spawning larger and larger litters. Of course, there were numerous official attempts to reduce the size of the litters, while many popular movements called for a complete neutering, so that no more offspring could be produced.
Then in 1989, seemingly overnight, it was all over. The Wall came down, the USSR gave back its annexed territories, and the world breathed a collective sigh of relief. Finally, the terror would end and things would go back to normal. The status quo would be reinstated and we wouldn't have to worry about blinding white flashes of light, fallout shelters or Duck and Cover drills.But it's now 2009. Twenty full years -- two decades -- and these instruments of slaughter are still here. They haven't gone away. I applaud the more recent, renewed efforts of public leaders calling for complete and total disarmament. Of course, it takes chutzpah to make this a central policy position, especially when the issue has been largely ignored, like dust under the rug, for nearly a quarter century. (At least I feel this way; I don't think the issue has received the proper political, social and media attention it rightfully deserves.)
But while the road ahead will be rocky and full of potholes, what we need more than anything else right now is true popular support. There are so many organizations and groups working to mobilize laypersons just like you and me, so that we can continue pressuring our leaders to take further action on what is has very quickly become a hot-button issue.
If we can't do this much, there is no light and no hope. If we cannot change things now, I'm afraid we won't have to wait until 2012 for the world to end -- that moment will come much sooner.
3 comments:
How can we consider disarming ourselves when these weapons continue to exist anywhere in the world? As much as we would like to remove these weapons from the world, the simple fact is that the technology exists, and will always exist. Even if we destroyed all of our nukes, do you really think that would stop others from building weapons of their own? We have to acknowledge that there will always be people in the world who will seek the most destructive weapons available (be it nuclear or some new form of destruction yet to be discovered). Shouldn't the good guys be just as well armed as the bad? If someone is going to have the most advanced weapons on the planet, wouldn't you rather it be us?
North Korea has proven that even a country that lacks the basic infrastructure to provide electricity to its people can still produce a nuclear weapon. Iran has proven that asking nicely won't stop people from producing a nuclear weapon. As time goes on and technology advances, it will only become easier to design and build these weapons. If we consider that the means to produce and the desire to produce will always exist, how do you propose that we will ever completely remove nuclear weapons from the world?
Just to add something - there's a great mockumentary called "Last Best Chance" that's well worth watching.
And the best part is that it's free! Here's the website, the form for the free DVD is on the right:
http://lastbestchance.org/nti/index.html
Matt: thanks so much for providing a counter-point. You bring up some very salient arguments, and we should examine those in detail. Look for a response in my next post!
Rafael: thanks for the link. I'll be sure to check it out!
Post a Comment