Chasing the Rabbit (around and around and around....)
To begin with my current “philosophical state,” last week I was pummeled with questions (or rather, I pummeled others with the questions that came at a tremendously vicious pace). Most were dichotomous: I want it to be that nobody on earth is starving, but the people with the means don’t seem to. And what if there were 25,000 more people surviving every day? In 10 years, that would be another 600 million people on earth (not factoring in the potential for more reproduction). Would Earth survive that strain? Would everyone be happy?
There’s also the tiny little part where I couldn’t do it alone. I couldn’t even do it with my group of friends, or with the extensive network of people I’ve known over the years. There is no power as an individual until there are people of means supporting it. And even then, there’s the problem of getting other people of means in on the cause too. It ultimately becomes the fox-hunt situation that everyone has been blogging about – I want to think that everyone will go along with it, but part of me thinks that the biggest supporter will just grab the rabbit. People of means seem to be used to getting the easiest, most efficient end.
This (quite obviously and surprisingly as I read) relates to Waltz’s images. As an individuals, humans are flawed and don’t trust each other until there is some pervasive reason to do so (Image 1) (ahem, a big stick). The rich guy will always make sure he will survive before he considers collaboration (and on airplanes, you are always instructed to put the oxygen mask on yourself before helping someone else).
What of this humanitarian dilemma? Well, there is the next level, this Image 2. Internally good states do good things (unless they don’t) and internally bad states do bad things. Generally, being a socialist democracy is best, but attaining this without considering Image 1 and it’s problems is too idealistic to ever be possible. Note that this is all internal – the problems are not with necessarily trying to collaborate with other nations, rather the international difficulties (disunities? Problems?) stem from the internal problems of the state itself.
Image 3, as Marisa mentions, is most important to Waltz. It is that of the way nations relate to each other. Some work towards unity (for economic reasons, but again, the same stag hunt analogy rings true), some don’t. This is dependent on the various nations’ willingness to use force to get what they want. The overall state, then, is not determined by the “nature of things” but by the behavior of the relationships between states.
Holly was explaining to me the various schools of thought (because most everything beyond realism and idealism was kind of over my head). Waltz seems to me not too much of a realist – yes, he acknowledges the problems he observes in society (real!), but he notes that all of this changes because of what the states (/coalitions) see as the end or perceive as the actions of other states/the world as a whole (p. 205 – “If some states act on this rule, or are expected to act on it, other states must adjust their theories accordingly”).
He suggests that by using force to make parties change, the idea of peace can be more readily accepted as a real goal. This reminded me in many ways of a strategy Prof, Rossiter brought up in SIS-600, that one general would make sure his men were fighting with their backs to a deep, rushing river or a cliff so that they could not physically retreat at all (in order to get them to keep to the order “don’t retreat”). If the option of the rabbit was removed from the stag equation, everyone would either have to work together and divide evenly, but that is not saying that if one man was injured in the chase and lost his value to the others before the division occurred that he would get his share.
Again, to the hunger problem – where best to focus efforts? Is it just a lot of game theory? Should we wait to find out whether life is sustainable with SO much potential population growth? Is it worth it? Should it be worth it?
There’s also the tiny little part where I couldn’t do it alone. I couldn’t even do it with my group of friends, or with the extensive network of people I’ve known over the years. There is no power as an individual until there are people of means supporting it. And even then, there’s the problem of getting other people of means in on the cause too. It ultimately becomes the fox-hunt situation that everyone has been blogging about – I want to think that everyone will go along with it, but part of me thinks that the biggest supporter will just grab the rabbit. People of means seem to be used to getting the easiest, most efficient end.
This (quite obviously and surprisingly as I read) relates to Waltz’s images. As an individuals, humans are flawed and don’t trust each other until there is some pervasive reason to do so (Image 1) (ahem, a big stick). The rich guy will always make sure he will survive before he considers collaboration (and on airplanes, you are always instructed to put the oxygen mask on yourself before helping someone else).
What of this humanitarian dilemma? Well, there is the next level, this Image 2. Internally good states do good things (unless they don’t) and internally bad states do bad things. Generally, being a socialist democracy is best, but attaining this without considering Image 1 and it’s problems is too idealistic to ever be possible. Note that this is all internal – the problems are not with necessarily trying to collaborate with other nations, rather the international difficulties (disunities? Problems?) stem from the internal problems of the state itself.
Image 3, as Marisa mentions, is most important to Waltz. It is that of the way nations relate to each other. Some work towards unity (for economic reasons, but again, the same stag hunt analogy rings true), some don’t. This is dependent on the various nations’ willingness to use force to get what they want. The overall state, then, is not determined by the “nature of things” but by the behavior of the relationships between states.
Holly was explaining to me the various schools of thought (because most everything beyond realism and idealism was kind of over my head). Waltz seems to me not too much of a realist – yes, he acknowledges the problems he observes in society (real!), but he notes that all of this changes because of what the states (/coalitions) see as the end or perceive as the actions of other states/the world as a whole (p. 205 – “If some states act on this rule, or are expected to act on it, other states must adjust their theories accordingly”).
He suggests that by using force to make parties change, the idea of peace can be more readily accepted as a real goal. This reminded me in many ways of a strategy Prof, Rossiter brought up in SIS-600, that one general would make sure his men were fighting with their backs to a deep, rushing river or a cliff so that they could not physically retreat at all (in order to get them to keep to the order “don’t retreat”). If the option of the rabbit was removed from the stag equation, everyone would either have to work together and divide evenly, but that is not saying that if one man was injured in the chase and lost his value to the others before the division occurred that he would get his share.
Again, to the hunger problem – where best to focus efforts? Is it just a lot of game theory? Should we wait to find out whether life is sustainable with SO much potential population growth? Is it worth it? Should it be worth it?
posted by Rebecca at 4:44 PM
<< Home