Evolutionary sciences such as
sociobiology have shown us that "universalism" has limits
related to real human nature. Individuals legitimately and naturally
"sacrifice'" themselves, not to the nothingness of an airy
unrealistic idea of the universal, but to the genetic pool which
realistically relates the individual to kin and group. That is the
origin and natural extent of real altruism, which quickly disappears
in any universalism defined much beyond that relatedness---we have
enough problems feeling or showing selfless concern for the
well-being of even related gene pools. We can keep the idea of the
"universal," if we must, as long as it is adjusted back to
its natural circumference and limitation.
This also applies to those fantasies of
universalist religions and philosophies which actually deceive and
even block the natural flow of evolution toward real
Godhood, which is evolved to in the material world. So
religion is not lost when universalism is adjusted back to realistic
levels. When universalism is naturalistically understood we can
spend more time trying to figure out how we can actually all "get
along" as we evolve.
That is when the political
configuration of an ethnopluralism of ethnostates occurs to us, which
adjusts universalism to its natural limits. In the U. S. the
constitutional separation of powers, states, and regions can be
adapted to an ethnopluralism of ethnostates. This will not be easy,
of course, but it is a far more realistic goal than the present goal
of global universalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates can be
secured from marauding states or empires by a light protecting form
of federalism.
Who is against this realistic
adjustment of universalism? Not counting those who are simply
ignorant of real human nature, usually it is related individuals and
groups who benefit, at least in the short term, from promoting a
universalism unhinged from real life and real human behavior, which
weakens their competition.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment