A large percentage of the human race increasingly appears to eschew any form of communalism in favour of what is currently perceived as fashionable independence: this misguided rebuttal of the matrix of sustainable existence is especially visible in urban settings where to be even on speaking terms with one’s neighbour, let alone to have any meaningful interaction or dialogue with them, is no longer accepted as being the ‘way’.
This dangerous trend towards personal isolation is a massive negative in terms of both current and future human development as, like it or not and believe it or not, the human race is heavily dependent on community interaction in bad times as well as good - as history, for those who take the time to study and consider it, proves time and time again. Electing to interact with others via the extremely useful, if wisely used, communication bridge of internet social networking sites is a major step in the world of disseminating and debating invaluable information: information which, in many instances, would otherwise remain uncirculated and therefore unknown. Yet the global, borderless freedom, of life online is not viable in the long term, unless it is accompanied by communal interaction in ‘real’ life.
As it stands, online addicts have developed a tendency to believe that sharing a post, which expresses deep concern about any given subject, climate change, war, child abuse et al, acts as a personal step towards solving the issue when, in the real world, this is certainly not the case. Sharing issues and concerns online is simply another version of ‘armchair travelling’ as no matter how informed on a particular subject a person happens to be, unless they physically get out ‘there’ and actively do something to change things absolutely nothing is going to happen - participating in what is basically ‘electric drawing room gossip’ is simply an addictively dangerous, illusionary panacea, rather than a cure for global societal ills.
Players participating in the electronic world of internet solutions can, and are, so easily led into believing that they are working towards the good of humanity when, in the harsh terms of reality, they can, not in all cases it must be acknowledged, be easily manipulated towards doing nothing other than further entrenching themselves in a delusionary world where nothing is as it may seem. Starting an online group or page to exchange ideas with likeminded people for example, does not resolve issues unless, and until, actual physical action is undertaken by the group as a whole or by dedicated individuals operating out ‘there’ in the offline world of actual reality in whatever country, city, town or rural locality they happen to be.
For the unwary, individual online life can quickly replace personal interaction in real terms and when for whatever reason, the chips are down and online life is temporarily or permanently interrupted, they find themselves dangerously isolated indeed.
Human beings are not ‘designed’ to survive in complete isolation from other members of the human race, although a small number do choose such a path for religious or other personal reasons, but are, in a manner of speaking, all individual threads of a whole and whom must, each according to individual ‘design’, interact, work and pull together for the communal good of humanity in its collective entirety. Communal not individual humanism is the natural means by which the human race has developed since it first appeared on planet earth and to actively deny this now is to take a giant step towards unsustainability and, eventually, complete disintegration and destruction.
One only has to hark back to what is, by any terms, recent history when interactive communities, whether an urban or rural level, pulled together to get localised issues resolved and, by doing so, contributed to what can be called global cohesion as good deeds generate happiness, transforming community action into community strength and love and so on, in ever travelling ripples, to global peace and tranquillity. That, unfortunately though tends, human nature being what it is, to stop short of the global love which would, if ‘allowed’ to develop, result in heaven right here on earth and the writer apologises if the aforesaid description is perceived to be offensive by some readers as this is most certainly not the intention.
Communal humanism is the necessary, very basic ingredient of a survival recipe for all: a family of individuals who genuinely care for each other, through thick and through thin, pull together as a cohesive unit for the benefit of all its members and yes, there is no denying that some form of strife will erupt from time to time. But this can, with understanding and ‘family’ input, be resolved without resorting to violence or other means of force - much in the way of a traditional jirga in this part of the world during which all concerned have the right to speak, a collective resolution to the problem evolves and, all going as it should, equilibrium is peacefully restored. This face to face, mouth to mouth, hand to hand, eye to eye, physical presence to physical presence - this ‘pure’ human interaction cannot, in any sustainable way, be replaced by - as already mentioned above - the complex electrical world of online social networking which while, again mentioned above, definitely has its uses and dwellers in the parallel universe of the internet must be brought to understand that online ‘sharing’ cannot replace communal humanism in the world of reality.
    The writer is author of The Gun Tree: One Woman’s War (Oxford University Press, 2001) and lives in Bhurban.
    Email: zahrahnasir@hotmail.com