[mistermann]

Some interesting ideas, worthy of consideration but not blind acceptance (they're ideas after all, not facts).

> This destructive process can even be considered a necessary prerequisite for ultimate understanding between men of all cultures, civilizations, races, and nations.

It can be considered a pre-requisite, but it can also be not considered that. The fact of the matter is, no one knows what path may yield greater harmony. There could be many that will do the trick, or none.

> This, of course, is a delusion; if the dimension of depth out of which modern science and technology have developed ever were destroyed, the probability is that the new unity of mankind could not even technically survive.

I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

> Everything then seems to depend upon the possibility of bringing the national pasts, in their original disparateness, into communication with each other as the only way to catch up with the global system of communication which covers the surface of the earth.

I very much prefer this approach, it would be nice to at least try it and see what happens.

> So, there's this tiny sliver of common ground we have, at least.

I suspect most people have much more common ground than it appears, that this isn't apparent may be due to the major shortcomings in our modes of thinking and communication.

[PavlovsCat]

> I don't see the logic in this, even though it seems to be supportive of my concerns.

The way I interpret it is that if you remove everything but the lowest common denominator, to achieve the "ultimate unity" of everybody being the same, picking their ideas from small selection on the same shelves, if you will, we'll be faced with ever growing problems we don't have the means to handle, not even the language to adequately describe. We won't physically die, of course, but what makes human agency and spontaneity possible, very well might.

But I can't speak for her, I found the passage interesting but nothing before or after it elaborates on it, and so far I haven't read any other elaboration by her on that (or I did but didn't realize it was connected).