They are killing each other again in the Middle East. I hear people talking about how many people are killed by the other side compared to their side as a measure of who is worse. But is there really a difference between one unnecessary death or two unnecessary deaths? Doubles your grief if you see four family members die in front of you instead of two?
Maybe only a nonbeliever in any system, nation-state, or religion wonders about these questions. Can you imagine what the world would be like if everybody lived where they are without the feeling that they have a right to live there, that they own the land? I guess mankind is still in the phase of a child, one that screams if you take away the toy they grab on to.
Well, in my view what would ultimately be necessary would be a breakdown of the nation-state system―because I think that’s not a viable system. It’s not necessarily the natural form of human organization; in fact, it’s a European invention pretty much. The modern nation-state system basically developed in Europe since the medieval period, and it was extremely difficult for it to develop: Europe has a very bloody history, an extremely savage and bloody history, with constant massive wars and so on, and that was all part of an effort to establish the nation-state system. It has virtually no relation to the way people live, or to their associations, or anything else particularly, so it had to be established by force. And it was established by centuries of bloody warfare. That warfare ended in 1945―and the only reason it ended is because the next war was going to destroy everything. So it ended in 1945―we hope; if it didn’t, it will destroy everything.
Religious wars are not caused by the fact that there is more than one religion, but by the spirit of intolerance… the spread of which can only be regarded as the total eclipse of human reason. Montesquieu
Nochrisis 