Argumentative on Dr. Michio Kaku his question:” What is the likelihood mankind will destroy itself?” Essay

The YouTube clip by dr. Michio Kaku starts with a rather interesting question. He asks the audience whether mankind might be likely to destroy itself. He elaborates on elements in favour of self destruction, but also states elements that claim self destruction will be overcome. Self destruction, in fact, will not occur but instead the opposite might be achieved; cultural immortality. He tries to submerge into the brain of the audience and let it think about what will happen to us. This specific question is the fund of this essay. To increase readability of this small essay it is divided into 3 main areas.

Firstly, I shall summarize the important aspects of his monologue. These aspects are 2 trends; the first trend concerns the upcoming of a planetary society*. The second trend focuses on a contradicting phenomenon, namely the need to maintain culture at any cost and segregation from other cultures(the words society, culture and civilization are used as synonyms in this essay). Secondly I will state whether I agree with dr. Kakus’beliefs, and why I (dis) agree. Thirdly and finally I will relate my answer to dr. Michio Kaku’s question ” What is the likelihood mankind will destroy itself?

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

1. Important aspects of his monologue During his monologue dr. Michio Kaku elaborates on 2 important trends. The first one concerns the upcoming of a multi-cultural civilization. The other trend is about the incontrollable desire to preserve and maintain a culture. Unification of civilizations, commonly known as globalization, means different cultures get in touch with each other. How does a culture react to another? Bluntly said cultures will eventually react either hostile or in a friendly manner, depending on cultural similarities.

Multi-cultural means cultures have a multilateral influence on each other, which they accept, to understand and expand each other. These kinds of civilizations are having mutual elements in which civilians recognize one another. Cultures will look for complementarity. Complementarity reassures a culture of its values, and is at the base of a friendly interaction. It implies many cultural similarities. We can speak of cultural overlap and cultural synergy; civilizations have a positive influence on each other. In such a case cultures can merge, and thus expand.

This act of expanding is the beginning of globalization. Dr. Michio Kaku calls the current state of mankind a trend towards a ‘type 1 civilization’, the evolution towards a planetary civilization. The opposing aspect is the lack of complementarity and the necessity to maintain culture. That specific lack doesn’t necessarily mean hostility towards another culture. The sole fact of maintaining a culture leads towards segregation; a civilization wishes to remain completely separate from one other. In the condition of segregation cultures live next to each other and without each other.

This makes globalization impossible. The worst condition segregation has, is the fear towards the presence of a different culture. Even though cultures remain static next to one other, the presence evokes a primal defence system to preserve the geographical environment from which the present culture has evolved. 2. Whether I agree and why History has countless cases of acts attempts toward globalization; all of them failed. Ancient Greece developed into the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, under leader ship Alexander the Great controlled Europe and seized parts of Asia.

But the Roman Empire crumbled, changed, and developed into a Christian European empire. Christianity fought Muslim invaders, succeeded, but is currently losing territory to atheism and yet again Muslim tendencies. They last two great forces in this continent were the Third Reich and the abolition of that attempt towards continental power, which made the foundation for current European Union. Above paragraph just contains a handful of civilizations which I can think of, in a split second, that wished to globalize. All of them failed, and all of them, except the latter, have 3 main elements in common.

The main elements are: Europe – all mentioned forces began and ended in this specific continent. The other element is the uncontrollable force of mankind to expand, gain more power, by means of ideology. Ideology implements a combined cultural background into humans. The ideology is implemented with force of arms. Many extinct cultures within the geographical area wished to expand by submission of others. Civilizations could not co-exist on even foot; to expand one culture had to rule over the other. Ergo, just as dr. Michio Kaku states in his monologue, monocultures preserve their own culture and abolish another. Thankfully European lost these foolish acts of war. Instead , they the set of on finding complementarity towards a common ideology. Fortunately, mankind in the European continent manages to change towards a political and technological ideology. The European Union, the continent latest threat seizing power over civilizations, has no benefit of arms. This fact is also stated by dr. Michio Kaku and it actually might have been the kick kick-off towards a type 1 civilization.

Does that mean we can expect a planetary government within a century? 3. M y answer to dr. Michio Kaku’s question This essay started out with the introduction of a question” What is the likelihood mankind will destroy itself? ” with 2 possible outcomes according to him. The likelihood mankind will destroy is omnipresent. Although mankind is able to destroy pretty anything on earth, its ability to persevere is far greater. I believe mankind exists in so many different places from far below the level of oceans, which the Dutch have a gift for, to just below the highest peaks of planet earth, in Nepal.

There is no possible way that mankind can change every single place liveable to an inhabitable place. What can happen is that (horrible) history repeats itself; may it be a biological threat such as the Plague, may it be another World War. These events triggered a decrease of civilization, but mankind was still far away from extinction. So, mankind will not be destroyed. Will mankind develop a planetary civilization? One can simply not tell. What I expect is that it for a planetary government many complementarities have to be sought. Within just the European continent this took over a century with two World Wars.

Applying these numbers to realize continental complementarity, say for example, to Latin America, this will take at least a century. Now I think of it, definitely more than two. The discrepancy between humanitarian conditions is so astonishingly huge! While I type this essay in Costa Rica, somewhere in the Amazone, which is also part of Latin America, people are still living of hunting and gathering; a way of life which took place millennia ago in Europe. Having a handful of continental monocultures, these need to find, once more, complementarities to progress to a multi-cultural, planetary government. Will this take yet another century? Yes.