Ans: Bertrand Russell in his famous essay ‘The Future of Mankind’ is discussing the dreadful results of the expected third world war. He is unsure either it will happen sooner or later, but nuclear warfare vanishes the whole world in a glimpse. He warns the world and suggests some ways to save the future of mankind. He discusses three possibilities, two are directly related to horrific outcomes and one is a Utopian ideal suggestion. Let’s take a brief look at all the possibilities to reach if he is justifiable or not.
1. The elimination and destruction of the entire world, if the third world war happened. Augmenting this possibility he is not sure about when it will happen, but due to the ongoing cold tussle between the Soviet Union and America, the point seems somehow valid. Russell prophesizes that if it happened it wiped out all the world, all the nation, and all the countries. Now the warfare tactics and weapons have been advanced than the traditional ways of fighting.
In Russell’s words; “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?”
2. Barbarism will prevail all over the world. After the third world war, very few people will remain alive who reshape the world after cruelty. The few people who hardly escaped were fought again to control the monopoly.
3. Single government is a solution to be saved from the third world war According to Russell, a single unified government is the only way to be saved from the aggression of the USSR. It can be brought by mutual agreements. Discussion: Bertrand Russell is right in writing the first two possibilities due to many reasons according to me. Science advanced, new tactics of warfare practicing, powerful bombs experiment, and advanced jet fighters can make the entire world into dust in a short moment if the third war broke out. A Hadith also stressing the same theme that there will be very few people who remain alive and the world go back to the period of the Stone Age.
The question may be asked!
“Bertrand Russell is often criticized for being too pessimistic in his essay The future of mankind, as he discussed the horrifying outcomes of a third world war”. Critically evaluate the statement and provide logical justifications to support your stance.
So I am agreeing with Russell in this way too. Observers also
believe that “This war will end all wars.” The tussle between America and
Russia, China and America, Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, and North
Korea vs. America at any time leads to the mega-disaster of the whole world if not
tackle skilfully. The third point of single government seems awkward and
impossible because many of the military powerful countries will never accept
it. The overall discussion can be summed up that Bertrand Russell, though
describes the horrific predicted scenes of the third world war but he was not
pessimistic. He 6 | P a g e M u h a m m a d Y a q o o b keeps hope that one day
through a mutual agreement the world join one another and there will be
happiness everywhere.
Further explanation is done by SOL.
