It feels like a lot of attempted global social policy of the past 50 or so years has been trying to create a stronger consciousness of "humanity" as a thing, with our new enemies being abstract issues like poverty, hunger, climate change, drugs, inequality, etc. The "War on [...]" branding is part of that. Doesn't seem like it really gets the blood going as much. We'll probably have to have conquering aliens to fight against before that happens.
Everything is unfathomably far away.
There are lots of obstacles, near light speed travel is a necessity and we are nowhere near this ability, or that ability with a human undergoing the acceleration to light speed.
EDIT: So I suppose I'm suggesting putting our resources toward those beneficial causes on earth is better use.
You see this in political parties too. When one fights hard enough to take power, infighting usually divides it and weakens it enough for the next party to take power
His fall removed the common enemy, and the discourse devolved to identity/race/class politics as the country polarises around the "land issue."[0] Non-white South Africans previously united around the common desire to liberate themselves from apartheid. With that enemy removed, society finds itself fracturing as the cracks in a democratic rainbow nation are strained.
Obama gave a great speech where he touched on what it means to be a democrat (among other things) at the Nelson Mandela Centenary Lecture.[1] His analysis of the current state of affairs was sufficiently general that it applied both in the South African and Global contexts. Definitely a sober note in the political narrative after the ousting of the former pres.
[0] https://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/breaking-anc-will-su...
> It's a sad state of human nature but apparently works.
I don't think that's sad at all. In fact, it's brilliant that function is built in to us.
When aliens attack, do you really want the world powers to be wasting time with their chess game they've been playing since WWII? If aliens did attack, 99% of that nonsense would be put on hold overnight. Yeah, you'll probably still get some small groups who aren't going to play by those rules, but on the grand scheme of things, the human race still manages to make the whole group a priority even if it's out of convenience.
However, I don't think your assessment that the mediator is made an enemy is correct. In fact, it's the exact opposite. If the mediator was an enemy, the path of least resistance is to ignore the mediator and for both negotiators to continue to rationalize and cement their positions. But if the mediator isn't an enemy, but simply a disappointed helper, it would follow that the negotiators are more likely to resolve their differences in order to correct the group imbalance, which is a natural tendency.
However, it appears as in this study that conflict and competition are far better drivers.
(And on the smaller scale, I think that the perceived decay and ennui in western countries stems from the fact that there's no unifying goal for the nation; everyone just fends for themselves.)
There's some quote about each country needing a reasonably strong enemy. Without one, the country starts trying to find enemies and conflict within.
Same thing might be happening in these mediations. By adding a bigger "enemy", the two parties probably quickly back down from trying to defend against to enemies and compromise with each other.
It's a sad state of human nature but apparently works.