Lesson: Many people around the world are finding comfort in the identity and community of their nations and faith—but nationalism and religion create an “us” and “them” mentality, which makes it difficult to come together as a global civilization to address collective problems.
Despite the undeniable existence of a global civilization, many countries are increasingly leaning into nationalism. People have returned to nationalism in recent years in response to modern challenges, but nationalism has deep roots in human society.
For millions of years, humans lived in smaller communities and tribes, but, over time, they merged to take on challenges that were too big for one group to handle. For example, ancient tribes near the Nile River relied on the water to grow their crops, but they constantly had to deal with years of drought and years of flooding. Each tribe had limited manpower and claimed a small section of the river, so, eventually, many tribes banded together to build dams and canals that benefited everyone.
Over time, nation-states formed, and people used culture as a tool to achieve cooperation among a mass of people. The nationalism that resulted has two distinct ingredients:
Mild nationalism enables you to value your country as unique and valuable, and it motivates you to contribute to the well-being of all of your fellow citizens. On the other hand, extreme nationalism leads you to think your country is superior to all other nations, and it easily snowballs to war and violence toward foreigners.
To a point, people tolerate the negatives of nationalism, such as war, because of the benefits of nationalism, such as an education system. However, in the 1960s, the threat of nuclear annihilation caused Americans to step back from the nationalism that drove the country into wars; by the end of the Cold War, many people leaned heavily toward globalization. But, in recent years, feelings of disconnection from global economic forces and fears that globalization would disintegrate national systems of education and healthcare have revived a sense of nationalism.
Proponents of nationalism see immigration, multiculturalism, and globalization as threats to national traditions and identities. They’re in favor of closing borders and slowing the exchange of people, products, money, and knowledge. Instead, nationalists envision a world in which independent nations peacefully trade and coexist without sharing common values, cultures, or laws.
The problem with the nationalist view is that it doesn’t offer any realistic strategy for keeping peace in the world. Each nation will naturally have its own interests (such as expanding its borders to annex desirable land), and some of those interests will inevitably conflict with other nations’ goals. Without shared values, political principles, and international laws, there are no peaceful means of solving these disputes among countries, and they almost certainly lead to war and genocide.
A nationalist in a powerful nation—such as Russia or the U.S.—may assume that her country is strong enough to stand on its own, regardless of whether the rest of the world falls into chaos. However, this view underestimates the need for international trade and global laws governing that trade. Without international trade:
While many people are focusing on the issues and interests of their own nations, the biggest challenges of the 21st century are global, and they require an international response. They are:
1) The nuclear challenge: Once nuclear power became a tool of war, the threat of war meant the possibility of massive destruction. This threat was front-of-mind during the Cold War, so America, Europe, China, and the Soviet Union significantly changed geopolitical dynamics in order to avoid massive killing and nuclear annihilation. As a result, all war has declined—but with Brexit, the United Kingdom threatens this balance by abandoning the European Union and isolating itself in nationalism. The loss of multinational cooperation and the rise in nationalism could lead to war and nuclear devastation.
2) The ecological challenge: In recent decades, humans have accelerated the pace of environmental degradation. As a result, climate change threatens to make many plants and animals extinct, destroy ecological systems, cause more severe weather, hurt agricultural production, and make large areas of the globe uninhabitable. If humans don’t significantly change their behavior soon, environmental decline will reach a tipping point from which there’s no return.
While individual nations can overhaul environmental practices, raise taxes on emissions, and develop eco-friendly technologies, the effort won’t be enough unless the whole world participates. Further complicating the matter is the fact that some countries have more incentive to reform than others: Some nations’ economies rely on exporting fossil fuels, while others would gladly stop importing those fuels if a more affordable alternative existed. Additionally, climate change threatens to flood some nations with rising sea levels, while geological changes could actually benefit other nations. And since the effects of climate change are long-term (though looming increasingly imminently), it’s difficult for some countries to prioritize green policies over the short-term economic pains of reform.
Each of these three challenges individually threatens devastation—and, taken together, each one exacerbates the others, creating a vicious cycle. As climate change increases the frequency of severe weather, leads to food shortages, and puts people out of their homes, technological development is likely to accelerate in a desperate search for solutions. As technological development progresses, increasing tension and competition among nations could raise the likelihood of nuclear war. Growing tensions or an all-out war will make it all but impossible to work together to combat climate change or create guidelines for limiting the development of AI.
Since these three massive challenges facing humans in the 21st century are all global in nature, it makes no sense to address them with nationalist politics. Just as tribes merged into nations in order to tackle issues that were too big for a single tribe, nations now need to merge to tackle these problems that are too big for any individual country to solve. This doesn’t mean that you can’t be patriotic, maintain cultural traditions, and uphold your national identity. However, in doing so, you must also consider the best interest of the global community—because the global nature of these problems means that whatever is in the best interest of the world is also in the best interest of each nation.
You probably already maintain multiple simultaneous loyalties: You’re loyal to your family, your school, your company, your neighborhood, your city, and your country. Add to that a loyalty to your global civilization. Occasional conflicts among your loyalties are inevitable—for example, your city may propose a change that benefits the city as a whole but creates more traffic in your neighborhood. These conflicts are not insurmountable: If municipal, state, and national politics address issues with consideration for the global impact, people can take care of their compatriots by working in the best interest of the entire globe.
If political models, governments, and scientists have failed to provide answers for how to navigate the immense challenges of the 21st century, could religion hold the answers? In order to explore this, we’ll look at three areas where religion falls short:
Religious leaders aren’t experts in agriculture, medicine, and other technical fields—they are experts of interpretation, which makes them adept at offering explanations for droughts and illness, rather than solutions. By contrast, scientists hone in on a single subject and use trial and error to find solutions that work. This is why science has not only replaced religion as an authority for technical problems, but also why it has been adopted across different religions and cultures throughout the global civilization.
Policy problems, such as how governments should prevent climate change to begin with. As is the case with technical problems, religion doesn’t offer expertise in solving policy problems. From the Bible to the Quran, the wisdom in ancient texts doesn’t apply directly to the context of modern times, at least as far as policy goes. Instead, religious and political leaders typically look for answers from modern sources, and then find a passage from a religious text that can be interpreted to justify the decision. In other words, religion is used to justify solutions, but it does not provide solutions to policy problems. This becomes clear when followers of the same religious text reach two different conclusions on the same issue—for example, American evangelicals cite the Bible in their opposition to environmental regulations, while Pope Francis declares that fighting climate change is a religious duty.
Identity problems, such as whether Americans should even worry about the plight of African farmers. Whereas religion is irrelevant to technical and policy problems, it contributes greatly to identity problems—but it serves to divide rather than to unite. Despite overwhelming similarities among different faiths, religions use ceremonies, rites, and rituals to reinforce followers’ connection to a particular religion, which inherently sets them apart from other religions. For example, regular worship is a cornerstone of many faiths, but its distinct forms make the practices look more different than alike: Muslims kneel in prayer five times a day, Jews gather for a meal and prayers on Friday nights, and Christians go to church on Sunday mornings.
Through creating ways for followers to distinguish themselves from others, religions create cultures and mass identities with which followers can align. Mass identities make mass cooperation possible, and mass cooperation is necessary to harness human power to tackle large issues. The same principles easily translate to nationalism. However, whether through nationalism or religion, narrowly defined identities and loyalties work against the global cooperation needed to take on the nuclear, ecological, and technological problems of the 21st century.