Bertrand Russell, (born May 18, 1872, Trelleck, Monmouthshire, Wales—

died February 2, 1970, Penrhyndeudraeth, Merioneth), British philosopher,

logician, and social reformer, founding figure in the analytic movement in
Anglo-American philosophy, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature
in 1950. Russell’s contributions to logic, epistemology, and the philosophy of
mathematics established him as one of the foremost philosophers of the
20th century. To the general public, however, he was best known as a
campaigner for peace and as a popular writer on social, political,
and moral subjects. During a long, productive, and often turbulent life, he
published more than 70 books and about 2,000 articles, married four times,
became involved in innumerable public controversies, and was honoured
and reviled in almost equal measure throughout the world.

The Future of Mankind

By Bertrand Russell

Q. Russell seldom takes refuge in fantasies yet his idea of the world government
seems to be quite farfetched. Elaborate from his works, especially ‘Unpopular
Essays’. (2010)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russell’s advocacy of World Government in his ‘Unpopular
Essays’, especially in view of the turn history' has recently taken. (2005)
OR
Q. Do you think Bertrand Russell’s proposal for the establishment of a world
government is desirable, or even tenable? (P.U.
2004)
OR
Q. Uphold or refute Russell’s advocacy of ‘world Government’ in his ‘Unpopular
Essays’, especially in view of the turn history has recently taken.
(P.U. 2005)

Ans: Russell surely disproves the common established notion about philosophers, that, they
are absent-minded and always busy their heads in making speculations, when he meditates on
the possibilities regarding “The Future of Mankind”. He has done so, because of his high
sensitivity and deep concern towards human beings. He was called as a traitor to his country
because of his anti-war stand during the First World War. But his only concern was towards
‘humanity’. Later he was awarded a Noble Prize for his contribution towards peace. In the
words of Erich From:
“Bertrand Russell fights against the threatening slaughter- because he is a man who
loves life.”
 Russell discuses three possibilities about “The Future of Mankind.” According to
him, one is the complete extinction of human life on earth, the second is that human life will
be reduced to barbarism and the final is that there will be a world government that will
control all nations and countries. Among these the first possibility, which he describes, is
the complete extinction of all human beings. This might happen after the Second World War
in which the atomic weapons will be used. Russell deals it logically, for he says, if still there
will be some life after the end of that war, there would soon be another war, for there would
such “diehards” in the super powers, who would prefer the extermination of life, than
surrendering to the victory of the other power.
And if any man would miraculously be able to escape from death, he may consider
himself to be the emperor of the whole world, but his reign would not be long and his
subjects would be only dead bodies and Russell says:
“With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve
unchanged, until the sun explodes.”
The second possibility, which Russell discusses, is the reversal of civilization to its
primitive conditions. Russell suggests if the Second World War fails to eliminate all signs of
life, still that destruction would take world to the age of “barbarism”. For in the war, the
major cities and industrial areas would be destroyed and the bacteriological warfare would
destroy crops and cause famine. Russell says there may be a few libraries and laboratories
and scientists. But the people might kill the remaining few scientists, in hope of some
“Golden Age”, for:
“Extreme hopes are born of extreme misery and in such a world hopes could only be
irrational.”
The third possibility, according to Russell, is the establishment of a universal
government all over the world. He discusses this idea in more than one ways in which it could
occur. The one is the victory of America, in the Second World War. Other is the victory of
Russia, or the world government, would emerge as a result of mutual agreement. The best
among these ways is the idea of mutual agreement.
Russell’s view of the world government has been criticized greatly. People have
raised arguments considering it as a “Utopian ideal”. Most of the people think that such an
alliance cannot be brought peacefully, for no nation would surrender her liberty. Russell also
admits that the chances of world government in a formal ways are extremely remote. He
thinks that a world government would not be formed voluntarily, but it would have to be
brought about by force.
Some object that there is no need of a ‘world government’, because the wars are a part
of human history and civilization but still humanity has survived from them. Wars create
heroism and are necessity of life, without which human beings would feel frustrated. To
refute this argument, Russell has given his logical reasoning, that the present condition of
cold war would certainly lead to a dreadful atomic war and eventually it would bring a
complete devastation. And now modern wars are very different from the wars in the past.
Russell says;
“There lies before us, if we choose continual progress in happiness, knowledge and
wisdom. Shall we instead choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?
Then he visualizes the “new world” after the emergence of either of the two super
powers i.e. Russia and America, as a victor of the war. Russell perceives a secure peace
prevailing in the long run. Though there would be occasional murders and minor revolts but
in such a state, any large scale rebellion would be out of question.
Russell prefers America to control the world government and he has given many
reasons for his preference to America but his preference has no political or ideological basis,
but it totally depends on the probable condition of people under these states. The major
reason to prefer America is that, she respects the values of civilized life like freedom of
thought, freedom of inquiry and humaneness. But on the other hand, in communistic
countries like Russia, there is not liberty for individuals and the government has a strict hold
on the common masses. Thus Russell says:
“It’s only aim is to promote the mindless repetition of party slogans and to have the
ability of shifting sides rapidly, so as to be always on the side {of received opinions.”
Moreover, there is considerably less orthodoxy in America than in Russia. There,
scientist, authors and philosophers can choose any subject regardless of state interest. While
in Russia such things are also influenced by official views.
Russell suggests yet another way to prevent a horrible war. In his opinion, America
would make an alliance with the British common wealth nations and with other European
nations who want to join them. All the military power, of these countries, and weapons
should be united and then they should declare war on the nation. In this way Russia might
also be agreed to join the alliance just by the threat of war. But still he does not leave the
possibility of Russian refusal.
In such an alliance, there should also be a legal check on the power of the leader, by
other nations, so there would not be a “chance of corruption”, which is sure to
accompany Tower”. In other cases, it would be such a combination of states...
“Where force is not a prerogative of private individuals or nations, but is exercised only
by a neutral authority in accordance with rules laid down in advance”.
Among the many advantages, of a single world government is that the defence
expenditures of every nation would diminish and by this way human beings would be more
happy than before.
But a little earlier than this, Russell’s suggestions did not seem to be implemented to
the world. For, China has emerged, as a world power with nuclear weapons and it would
certainly not like America as the only dominant nation to control both, East and West.
But now, after, nine-eleven, once again Russell’s idea of the world government seems
to be possible, for, America and Britain has started to dominate the poor nations of the world,
only in order to establish their hold on the world.
However, Russell’s chief concern in all this discussion was his good will and sincere concern
towards peace and survival of mankind. We can surely conclude that he was a true optimist,
pacifist and humanist.

Points to remember:
1. The effects of Second World War.
2. Three possibilities.
3. Complete extinction of all human beings.
4. The reversal of civilization to its primitive conditions.
5. Establishment of a universal government.
6. World government an utopian idea.
7. Two super powers of Russia and America.
8. Russell’s preference for American domination.
9. Alliance with British common wealth
10. Defence expenditures will be diminished.
Unpopular Essays, Chapter 3
Chapter 3 (pages 45-55),
“The Future of Mankind”

Barring major unforeseen events, there are three possible fates for the earth by the
end of the 20th Century: (1) human life, and possibly all life, exterminated; (2) return
to the stone age after a massive depopulation; (3) a single world government
controlling weapons of mass destruction.

The next world war won’t finish off humanity, but the post-war arms race and further
instability might, through radioactivity. “Although the last survivor may proclaim
himself universal Emperor, his reign will be brief and his subjects will all be corpses.
With his death the uneasy episode of life will end, and the peaceful rocks will revolve
unchanged until the sun explodes [pages 45-46].” Maybe this is not such a bad turn
of events, but people don’t really believe that – even if they say they would rather see
the world end than communism (or capitalism) take over. Such spoken sentiments
are harmful, as they lessen our commitment to working to avoid the apocalypse.

A single world government might arise if either the US or Russia wins the next war,
or if nations voluntarily agree to such a government. A common argument against a
world government is that the prospect is utopian, but those commentators are only
considering the voluntary means of achieving one. Russell concurs that as things now
stand, the hopes for agreement between the two main sides are negligible; therefore,
it would have to be “imposed by force [p. 47].”

Why can’t the world continue as before, with the occasional war? Technological
development in weaponry has brought a level of destruction such that soon, any
major world war would result in either extermination or depopulation and
barbarism. (Russell foresees that the USSR will soon have lots of nuclear weapons.)
Nor can it be hoped that for some reason, within the existing nation-state structure,
war itself will become history.

Russell claims that a poll indicates that a majority of Americans support world
government – but they do not understand the need for it to be established via force
or the threat of force. The side that prevails in an armed struggle will have an
irresistible monopoly of force, leading to a “secure peace [p. 49].” The leaders of that
society will be rich and secure, allowing them to be generous to others. So a world
government, of American or Soviet origin, will be preferable to the current
“international anarchy [p. 50].” But an American-constructed world government will
be better, because of the freedoms that are valued in America. We can see what sort
of civilisation the Soviets would install by looking at what happened to the education
system and the middle class in Poland once it fell under Soviet domination. Within a
generation, all independent thought in Poland could be replaced with jejune
communist orthodoxy, and this will also be the global fate within a Soviet uni-polar
world – so a Russian victory in the bi-polar struggle would be “an appalling disaster
[p. 51].” If America emerges as the victor, European cultures will not be crushed, nor
will be freedom of expression. Soviet control of the press allows the ruling oligarchy
to oppress the masses much more severely than in the US, so Soviet social
inequalities worsen and harden.

The third alternative future outlined above, that of world government, can almost be
as bad as the first two if it involves Soviet domination. The next step is for Britain
and the US to start a military unification, with invitations and inducements to other
nations to join. Once the alliance is large enough, any country that refused to join
should be given an ultimatum: either join or be named an outlaw. Presumably Russia
would receive such an ultimatum, and the war to follow – provided it happens
quickly enough – should still leave US power intact, and then the military unification
can be completed. We could hope that the ultimatum alone would work, that war
would not be necessary – but we cannot rely upon that.

This all sounds gloomy, and it is, but the prospect of a world without wars also holds
great promise; for the first time in 6000 years: “a weight will be lifted from the
human spirit, deep collective fears will be exorcised, and as fear diminishes we may
hope that cruelty also will grow less [p. 54].” Without war, poverty could be ended on
a global scale “within a generation [p. 55].”

The global monopolization of force is a means, not an end; the end is to set up a
system of laws to govern international relations. If we succeed in establishing such a
system, we will enter a golden age; if we fail, “we face utter disaster [p. 55].”