It is pretty obvious that pacifism is an unstable condition. If one imagines a world full of different government units, all pacifist, one sees a peaceful world.
However, it is unstable. Let’s define stability and its opposite. Stability means that a small change will disappear with time. Instability means a small change grows and creates a major change over time. A stick balanced on its end is unstable, as a small change in its angle will cause it to fall over. A stick laying on its side is stable, as a small change in its orientation doesn’t lead to any further large changes, except perhaps a roll back so the maximum weight is lowest.
When one pacifist state become non-pacifist, and prepares for war and then attacks a neighbor, and conquers it, it becomes stronger by absorbing the resources of the conquered state. Now we have a state which is non-pacifist, stronger than before, and ready to conquer another. So the series on conquests grows until some other factors intervene, such as another non-pacifist state grows strong enough to deter it. Thus, pacifism, if it involves non-preparation for serious war, is unstable.
If the system of nations were capable of rapid response, and every one of them would notice when one of them had become non-pacifist and was arming itself for war, and they could respond just as fast, the system would be much more stable. But there is inertia and delay involved. That means the non-pacifist state can get to a war state before others are ready for it, and accomplish its conquest. If there is no agreement to overturn this by using the combined resources of the system of nations, the instability can grow. Thus, to have a pacifist world, it is almost inevitable to have some automated response system to conquest. Since this is costly, it may be difficult to maintain over a long time of peace.
This means that mankind is condemned to a future of continual war and conquest. It also means that Buddhism, a pacifist religion, cannot be maintained as a state religion. Since it is such a well-designed and well-intentioned religion, someone might ask, why isn’t it universal? The answer is clearly that the process of instability will wipe out any Buddhist states through conquest by nations which do not adhere to Buddhism or another equally pacifist religion. Perhaps if Buddhists thought more about stability, they could come up with a more practical plan for peace than converting everyone to Buddhism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Very interesting writing indeed. It has definetely spurred some thoughts. However, I am not entirely sure that buddhism is unable to heal the ailments of our world-view. It is evident that war is not in any way a positive force for our world. None the less, some people are still using war as a tool for satisfying their greed in some way or another, and this problem you point out very clearly, by showing how a non-pacifist nation would be able to quickly conquer pacifist nations, before action could be taken.
I think this whole problem is not only a problem of pacifism versus non-pacifism, and in that sense, i completely agree that pacifism, applied to our world in it's current form, would be extremely fragile. I think the problem is actually rooted much deeper, in the way we have structured our society. In it's current form, society still makes it possible for people in high positions to take unjust actions such as waging wars. As Nichiren said: "There are not two lands, pure or impure in themselves. The difference lies solely in the good or evil of our minds". The real problem, i think, is that in our present day, a very small number of "evil-minded" people is necessary to tilt the nation to an "impure" one. It is therefore wrong to just try to convert everybody to Buddhists. That would rid buddhism of it's integrity, and in no way solve any problems. The challenge i think, is creating a society with a more flat structure, where there is no select few with the power to do just about anything. This is a tremendous challenge. Probably much bigger than any undertaking the human civilization has ever endeavoured into. I believe strongly that this is possible, though i am quite uncertain i will live to see it.
My deepest respect for the way you share your thoughts here. It is most valuable.
Mark
Post a Comment