Mini-Project #5

At the end of Cairncross' guide to new communications, he makes a bold and somewhat unattainable prediction about the future of global morality and politics. Cairncross predicted that future communication technology would connect nations together and that bond would foster peace between all the nations of the world. He coined his prediction "global peace," and I think that in some ways he is accurate in his assumption; however, ultimately I believe that his prediction is too far fetched and is an incorrect description of the camaraderie between nations today. I think that he is right about the fact that global trade has given a lot of third world countries the chance to expand their economies and connect with other countries. I also think he was correct in believing that new technology, such as video cameras on phones and websites like Youtube, would give people from all over the world a chance to share videos about their own lives and cultures. The interconnectivity would allow people to start understanding other people's traditions and cultures and connect with them even though they live across the world from each other. There has definitely been an increase in connectivity between different nations because of new communication technology; however, I don't think it is enough to create global peace. The fact is, although everyone loves the idea of global peace, the imbalance of wealth in the world is still too vast for nations to be peaceful with each other. A lot of the time, impoverished countries are violent because they are unhappy with their economy and global status. There is an online article that explains the complex relationship between poverty and peace and it's authors states that, "[i]n today's increasingly interconnected world, the 'haves' cannot ignore the suffering of the 'have-nots',"(Chollet and Brainard 1). The authors are conveying that people in wealthy countries can no longer ignore the misfortunate people of impoverished countries because they are made aware of them on the news and the internet. However, the authors also state that people who want to help have a hard time doing so because impoverished countries tend to be violent. The authors expressed that, "[p]oor, fragile states can explode into violence or implode into collapse, imperiling their citizens, regional neighbors, and the wider world as livelihoods are crushed, investors flee, and ungoverned territories become a spawning ground for global threats like terrorism, trafficking, environmental devastation, and disease,"(Chollet and Brainard 1). As long as there is poverty in the world, there will most likely be violence as well because those nations are typically too unstable to hold a successful government. Although nations are more connected now than they ever were before, global trade and communications cannot create total economical success in impoverished countries. Therefore, Cairncross was right about new communication technology promoting the idea of global peace within the world; however, he was not correct in believing that future communication would be successful in eradicating war and violence from the Earth. 

References:

Chollet, D. H., & Brainard, L. (2007). Too Poor for Peace? : Global Poverty, Conflict, and Security in the 21st Century. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.