Recent Ideas: From the Whims of a Nation, Part Three

From the Urantia Book: (804.17) 71:4.17 Idealism can never survive on an evolving planet if the idealists in each generation permit themselves to be exterminated by the baser orders of humanity. And here is the great test of idealism: Can an advanced society maintain that military preparedness which renders it secure from all attack by its war-loving neighbors without yielding to the temptation to employ this military strength in offensive operations against other peoples for purposes of selfish gain or national aggrandizement? National survival demands preparedness, and religious idealism alone can prevent the prostitution of preparedness into aggression. Only love, brotherhood, can prevent the strong from oppressing the weak.


I vehemently despise totalitarianism. The best government coordinates most and governs least, but this is only sustainable when human behavior allows for it. Until then, such a government would not be established. Remember that this is not a case of one country taking over the world, but the world’s powers giving up individual sovereignty to create peace between nations. In most cases, local people would solve local problems. I am not a nationalist, and I do not value others based on where they were born or live. I value the principles supported by a country more than the country itself. That does not mean I dislike the United States. I generally like living here, and I believe the Founding Fathers did an excellent job in starting this nation. However, I am not going to hold everlasting allegiance to a temporal group of people.

One reason for nationalism is the feeling of belonging which comes from belonging to a group, but humans should be able to feel this through their connection with all others of the human race. Separate nations only increase division between people. Instead of being accepted and loved by your countrymen or those in your immediate area, one should be loved by all. Social acceptance is a big motivational factor for behavior. People see themselves as being more valuable when others show that the individual is needed. Most are driven to be sociable.

However, I know how much I am valued by God, so being accepted by my peers is not as important as it used to be. The value I hold for myself is more important than what others see in me, and this is because I know that these people cannot fully judge my potential. It’s nice to experience agreement and camaraderie, but it would not be impossible for me to live as a hermit either. Life on this planet is rather short, so I do not need to get worked up over short-term social woes. I believe I am patient enough to get through such problems.

I would say that it is generally true that war can drive positive change in society, as it has done in early human development, but the line will have to be drawn before humans destroy themselves. We are no longer at the point where war improves the cultural development of mankind. Ideas can now be shared globally with the click of a mouse.

Now what is it that we love most about the country we live in? Is it the people? The culture? The history? The laws? The geography? Or is it the founding principles? For the United States, it seems like those who join the military are especially attached to the values this country was founded on, and fight to uphold these values. And while any honorable person would defend the values they support, these principles exist to serve humans, not countries. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – this country was created to uphold these values (among other things). These values exist so that those living in this country can have a meaningful life.

If you love others, you would want the laws of the nation to help the greatest number of people. It is the role of the government to uphold the values of its citizens, and a government that did this would be worth defending. But these values can be supported by other nations. If all countries agreed on a universal set of values, which granted equality and freedom to all, I cannot see how any particular country could remain special because of its founding principles. Only forward-looking and progressive attitudes are personally real. Ethics and morals become truly human when they are dynamic. Do you fight to protect these ethics, or do you fight to protect a country that is supposed to uphold these ethics? What happens when you no longer need to (or should) fight for that country? These are just general questions.

I have a theory that when people defend or work for an organization which exists for a cause they support, those people are likely to focus more on the said organization than the cause itself (I am currently calling this associated value). This would create a form of dependency, where people feel required to follow old constructs out of habit. They feel the need to stick with something, even to a problematic degree. My thought is that this is simply easier, as there is less thinking involved. An example would be a non-profit that is not very productive, but is still supported because of its important goals and the loyalty of older donors. Another example would be a soldier protecting a country because it at one point supported the values the soldier still believes in. One more could simply be the Microsoft vs. Apple debate. Now, I know that human behavior is not so easily categorized, but I would like to know how this form of loyalty forms in the human psyche and how prevalent it is. The problem is I don’t possess much loyalty myself, at least not to any country or business, so I have to analyze the behavior of others who do.


The last paragraph which originally belonged in this section was one of the foundations for developing the Equation of Human Choice, as part of the Unified Theory of Human Experience. Since I was questioning the very fundamentals of a model which I later created, including such a thing in a blog where the developed model is already mentioned would look quite silly.