Η επόμενη μεγάλη αντίθεση. Μετά την αντίθεση Αριστεράς-Δεξιάς (Μια έρευνα του περιοδικού Prospect).

Το βρετανικό περιοδικό Prospect ζήτησε από 100 διανοούμενους και ακαδημαϊκούς να ορίσουν από την δική τους προσωπική σκοπιά την (τις) νέα (νέες) μεγάλη (μεγάλες) αντίθεση (αντιθέσεις) του 21ου αιώνα. Η εκκίνηση για το ξεδίπλωμα της σκέψης των συμμετεχόντων ήταν η ερώτηση της διευθυντικής ομάδας του Prospect : «Αν η αντίθεση Αριστεράς – Δεξιάς καθόρισε τον 20ο αιώνα. Ποια θεωρείται ότι θα είναι η επόμενη;». Οι απαντήσεις δημοσιεύονται στο τεύχος Μαρτίου και αποτελούν ήδη μια ξεχωριστή δεξαμενή τροφοδότησης…

Δεν ξέρω γιατί –μάλλον το γιατί αξίζει και ένα δεύτερο ή και τρίτο post για τη συνέχεια…- αλλά επέλεξα να μείνω και να σταθώ λίγο περισσότερο στην απάντηση του Brian Eno. Ισως, γιατί πολύ περισσότερο από ένα τυπικό πολιτικό ή ακαδημαϊκό λόγο θέλησα να «ακουμπήσω» τη προσέγγιση ενός musician για τις νέες αντιθέσεις του αιώνα μας…

Η απάντηση του Εno έχει ως εξής:

Interventionists vs laissez-faireists

One of the big divisions of the future will be between those who believe in intervention as a moral duty and those who don't. This issue cuts across the left/right divide, as we saw in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It asks us to consider whether we believe our way of doing things to be so superior that we must persuade others to follow it, or whether, on the other hand, we are prepared to watch as other countries pursue their own, often apparently flawed, paths. It will be a discussion between pluralists, who are prepared to tolerate the discomfort of diversity, and those who feel they know what the best system is and feel it is their moral duty to encourage it.

Globalists vs nationalists

How prepared are we to allow national governments the freedom to make decisions which may not be in the interests of the rest of the world? With issues such as climate change becoming increasingly urgent, many people will begin arguing for a global system of government with the power to overrule specific national interests.

Communities of geography vs communities of choice

At the same time, some people will feel less and less allegiance to “the nation,” which will become an increasingly nebulous act of faith, and more allegiance to “communities of choice” which exist outside national identities and geographical restraints. We see the beginnings of this in transnational pressure groups such as Greenpeace, MoveOn and Amnesty International, but also in the choices that people now make about where they live, bank their money, get their healthcare and go on holiday.

Real life vs virtual life

Some people will spend more and more of their time in virtual communities such as Second Life. They will claim that their communities represent the logical extension of citizen democracy. They will be ridiculed and opposed by “First Lifers,” who will insist that reality with all its complications always trumps virtual reality, but the second-lifers in turn will insist that they live in a world of their own design and therefore are by definition more creative and free. This division will deepen and intensify, and will develop from just a cultural preference into a choice about how and where people spend their lives.

Life extension for all vs for some

There will be an increasingly agonised division between those who feel that new life-extension technologies should be either available to those who can afford them or available to everyone. Life itself will be the resource over which wars will be fought: the “have nots” will feel that there is a fundamental injustice in the possibility for some people to enjoy conspicuously longer and healthier lives because they happen to be richer.