What is the summary of Bertrand Russell's essay "The Future Of Mankind?"

Russell begins his essay, "The Future of Mankind," with three possible scenarios for the future. Note that Russell wrote this essay after World War II and during the rise of the Cold War. (The Cold War defined the antagonism between the Soviet Union, and their allies, and the United States, and their allies. The Cold War followed World War II - 1947 - and lasted until 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union.) 

Given that a third world war, erupting from the Cold War, was one of Russell's greatest concerns, his prospects for the future dealt with the possibility of such a war (atomic, no less) or some way to avoid such a war. If such a war were to occur, Russell supposed the destruction of human life, and possibly all life, on the planet. Atomic bombs and their after-effects (radiation clouds, disease, etc.) would decimate and/or eliminate all life. 

Russell's second scenario is that the world would revert to a state of barbarism. This too could result from a widespread atomic world war. The only solace is that such outcome leaves open the possibility that humans could return to a civilized state. Russell compares this possibility to the fall of Rome which was followed by a relatively more barbaric time (notably the Dark Ages) but was followed by a Renaissance and eventually a more technological and organized world. 

Russell's third scenario is the unification of the world under one united power. Russell adds that such a united power is the most preferable outcome (a more powerful and all-encompassing authority than, say, the United Nations). Russell notes that as long as there at least two supremely powerful states (Soviet Union and United States), the threat of an atomic world war is always possible. And as technology increases, the destructive power of such a war increases. In other words, the more technologically advanced the world becomes, the more destructive our wars become; therefore, Russell believed that a unified world state becomes more and more necessary in order to avoid such a catastrophic war. 

Russell hoped that a united world state could be achieved by negotiation and/or the threat of force but he feared that force would be necessary. He also clearly preferred an American victory rather than a Russian victory - whether that be the result of diplomatic relations or the result of a war. He even added that if America were communist and Russia were capitalist, he would still prefer an American victory because there was more intellectual and social freedom in America. 

Although a united world state does have problems, Russell believes that under such a state, the threat of war will be lessened or eliminated, leaving humans to put more attention on human happiness. Although Russell presents gloomy potentials for the future, he believes that an immeasurably good outcome can emerge from the third scenario: 

What the world most needs is effective laws to control international relations. The first and most difficult step in the creation of such law is the establishment of adequate sanctions, and this is only possible through the creation of a single armed force in control of the whole world. 

Analyze Bertrand Russell's "The Future of Mankind."

Russell's article assesses where the world stands in the 1950s.  He outlines three distinct possibilities for the world. The first is total nuclear obliteration, while the second is a devolution into barbarism. The third option would be a dominance of one form of government. Given the Cold War paradigm in which Russell operated, this would mean a United States victory or a triumph of the Soviet Union.

In Russell's mind, "The Future of Mankind" results in forging diplomatic and military alliances with nations in a cooperative manner.  Russell believes that if nations are able to form broad based alliances through both diplomatic and financial inducements, there is a decreased likelihood of rogue nations threatening the fragile balance of life on the planet.  Russell believes in this collaborative venture as the first phase of ensuring a healthy future. The second step is being able to use the power of transformation to manipulate endeavors that make life better for all.  In Russell's mind, the forging of alliances and the reduction in war can lead to a transformative vision where all of the world's problems can be actively combated:

Unless we can cope with the problem of abolishing- war, there is no reason whatever to rejoice in laborsaving technique, but quite the reverse. On the other hand, if the danger of war were removed, scientific technique could at last be used to promote human happiness. There is no longer any technical reason for the persistence of poverty, even in such densely populated countries as India and China. If war no longer occupied men's thoughts and energies, we could, within a generation, put an end to all serious poverty throughout the world.

If "law, rather than private force" can ensure that liberty is protected and individuals are able to enjoy the maximum pursuit of liberty in their own worlds, there is a greater chance for the future of mankind to find happiness and be free from destruction.

Russell's writing in the speech puts him in a uniquely different position amongst other philosophers.  His humanism distinguishes him from the leftist Marxist philosophers who found that social and material conditions precluded any hope of collaboration.  His pacifism distinguished him from the nationalist thinkers who felt that exceptionalism should guide thought and action.  Russell's ideas in the essay put him as the skeptic of absolutist dogma and one whose embrace of progressivism and social justice embodied the essence of hopeful transformation.

What ideas does Bertrand Russell express in his essay "The Future of Mankind"?

In "The Future of Mankind," Russell contemplates the future with respect to two developments: the rise of technology and its role in the future of warfare. Russell proposes that one of three scenarios may occur: 1) The end of human life and perhaps all life on the planet, 2) A reversion to barbarism after a dramatic decrease in the world's population, and 3) The unification of the world under a single government. 

Russell writes the essay in the early stages of the Cold War and the nuclear arms race. He suppose, as many did and still do, that the use of nuclear weapons in a world war (perhaps instigated by a war between Russia and the United States, then the two most powerful countries in the world) could lead to any of the three scenarios he listed. And while each is not desirable, Russell proposes that a unified state, preferably under the guidance of the United States, could be the most propitious option and might avoid another world war. At least with a unification, peace could be enforced by law and if necessary by armed force. What Russell seems to be arguing for here is a more powerful and efficient United Nations type of institution. He asks for "effective laws to control international relations." He believes this is the best way to avoid future "great" wars. 

This essay sparks a lot of controversy because the very idea of a large world state seems too powerful and too oppressive. However, Russell prefers this to allowing wars to continue, thinking that a unified world state is simply in a better position to encourage and, if necessary, to enforce peaceful relations. He believes the main goal of this world state will be to repress war. And with war not being a threat, humans will be more able to focus on solving other problems such as ending poverty.