Is world peace possible?

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by fryke
That's an interesting concept, you have there. Take the root of all evil and put it on top of everything else. Kind of like Satanism, in a way.

Sorry, couldn't resist, either.

I was kidding, you know, a topical joke, ha ha, one that could have been delivered by either camp, oh never mind.

Back on topic. I don't see how anyone can seriously believe that a concept like "world peace" can be achieved. When you look at international agressors, how are their actions any different than the corner thug? They're not, it's just that because of their position, their "thuggery" can be applied at a much larger scope than the guy on the street corner. People do some truely aweful things to each other all over the planet (regardless of demographics, natives in the middle of nowhere, the chic rich in the most expensive of places), so it's hard to say that any specific socio-economic conditions that can be "cured" to prevent these types of things from happening. If it can't be stopped at the micro level, it most definitely can't be stopped at the macro level. It's basic human nature to be aggressive (obviously some more/less than others), and those who are more and who also happen to have the means, will continue to create global "issues".

It would seem that one would have to start looking at scifi-esque measures to prevent such things from occuring ("I'm sorry Mr and Mrs Johnson, but your child's dna profile indicates that there is a high probability that they will be above the state mandated maximum Heinrich/Fronds Aggression Level, we will have to either abort the child or lobotimize it after birth").

[Androo]

no

[slur]

I believe that world peace is possible. Without this belief I would tend towards fatalism and I wouldn't even try. The barriers to world peace are daunting, but I don't think they are insurmountable. Humans are good problem-solvers, and in fact I believe that this is the central driving force that both causes and solves conflicts.

The thing is, what does a person see as the problem? How do people understand the meaning of "better"? How do people frame their reality?

First, every living creature most desires the same thing: To achieve happiness!

But consider this: When you believe that obtaining X will give you happiness then how do you feel when Y intervenes? That is the crux of hate! Y becomes the object of hatred, because it thwarts your desire for X.

As problem-solvers people will think that eliminating Y will lead them to X - and the happiness they seek.

But in the process of destroying Y to gain X they change the nature of X. X becomes a reminder of their hate for Y. Moreover, having obtained X the happiness begins to wane. X becomes an ordinary thing, and this conditioned happiness slowly dies away. Or - perhaps worse - X decays or dies or disappears. The happiness brought on by X turns into disappointment and suffering.

It's very sad.

It happens all day every day everywhere.

Powerless people - people without wealth - alienated people... all these kinds of people lose hope for achieving happiness through material things. They reach for happiness beyond this life.

They become very attached to it.

They become maddened by it.

They begin to resent the world - especially those who have things or wealth or freedoms.

It is a plague of ignorance. The helpless, disenfranchised, and alienated are as materialistic as the apathetic, domesticated, media-fed materialists who take their fortune for granted.

Hunter S. Thompson is fond of saying there are two kinds of people: The Screwheads and the Doomed. But they're just the same. We're all Screwheads. We're all Doomed.

World Peace. It's an ideal. It's one possible X. What happens when Y gets in the way of this ideal X, World Peace? What does Heaven seem like if your enemies are there? Hell, baby, hell.

It's a question of attitude. It's a question of values. It's a question of what's real. It's a question of cause-and-effect.

How do we get around the very real cause-and-effect problem of Love-for-X leading to Hate-for-Y?

If you ask me, it must not be Real Love.

In fact, it's the crux of Ignorance. Ignorance of cause-and-effect. Ignorance of Personal Responsibility.

Everyone is wholly responsible for their own Reality.

We create our enemies. Out of Ignorance.

There are real, practical problems to solve here on earth. If we focused on those real problems I believe we would have world peace.

Here's an essential factoid:

All (practical) problems concern the reality of limited resources. Limited food, limited water, limited time... limited patience? ...limited love? I'm not so sure about the last two.

Another useful factoid:

Without life the concept of resources is meaningless.

The existence of Life creates the concept of Resources which leads to Practical Problems.

I believe strongly that we already have everything we need in the world to overcome practical problems.

But damn there is so much ignorance. So many people scrambling to abdicate their personal responsibility. So many people scrambling to give up their power to warlords, despots, priests, politicians.

It is a pathetic reality that terrorists must exist as champions of the powerless.

But it's a vicious cycle, isn't it?

People want a heaven.
Despots exploit this weakness with syrupy words and promises.
Passionate heaven-seekers selflessly hand over their destiny to the exploiters.
The helpless unconsciously cling to their worldly suffering.
The exploiters prop up an outside enemy.
Lust for Heaven is transformed into Hatred for Enemy.
A very big X. A very big Y. Such is the recipe for Armageddon.

The same drama plays itself out from the Far East to the Near-West.

We are all being exploited this very moment. Can you name your X? What is the Y that thwarts your desire? If you want world peace this is the place to start.

Right Here!
Right Now!

The solution for each and every one of us is the same. We have to transcend the whole ignorant notion that there is any X - any Heaven - to strive for. It's not an X. It's not a material objective. It is, purely and simply, an acceptance. We each have to find the absolute perfection that is here now, and retain that perfect state of being.

Yes, you can pursue your goal. But the here and now is already here now. And we can stop at any point, realize we are at the beginning and be content.

Many people suffer. Many people lack the freedom in themselves to do this stopping, this realizing, this transcending of this moment of suffering. They are caught up in a momentum, swept up beyond their power to will it away.

So I believe that before acceptance and tolerance and healing can begin we have to do as much as we can to overcome the very practical problem at hand. We have to do as much as we can to end physical suffering and to calm mental anguish.

This can only happen if people make an extra effort to reach out. Our affluent country has a lot of people with that kind of freedom. But we are so apathetic. Most of us don't make the effort.

The obstacles are great, but I believe world peace is possible.

[toast]

slur, you take the problem under a mostly philosophical angle, which is honourable. However, your central XY explanation hardly builds, IMO, to your conclusion that world peace is a possible option.

By the way:
I believe strongly that we already have everything we need in the world to overcome practical problems.

We may not have for long: water, oil, oxygen are perishable resources.

Limited resources means forced regulation, which also means redistribution of resources and hence, redistribution of satisfaction (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations - if anyone wants it, tell me, I may have it in PDF). Dissatisfaction knows a natural exutory in war, when a certain point of moral and material misery is reached.

Hence, a NWO is conceivable, but it'll have to include forms of conflict, incl. physical conflicts because physical conflicts have a role in human relations.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by slur
...But consider this: When you believe that obtaining X will give you happiness then how do you feel when Y intervenes? That is the crux of hate! Y becomes the object of hatred, because it thwarts your desire for X.

You're forgetting one of the troublesome scenerio's, when attaining X is detremental to Y. This isn't a simple matter of something directly intervening, it's when the desire of one comes at the detrement to the other. It's this drive for "happiness" that _causes_ the problems.

As problem-solvers people will think that eliminating Y will lead them to X - and the happiness they seek.

Actually it is often X that becomes Y (different X's and Y's or else it becomes cyclical).

...
But damn there is so much ignorance. So many people scrambling to abdicate their personal responsibility. So many people scrambling to give up their power to warlords, despots, priests, politicians.

It is a pathetic reality that terrorists must exist as champions of the powerless.

People don't abdicate their personal responsibility or power through ignorance, they do it out of human nature (of which ignorance is only a part). And what's up with this "terrorist as champions of the powerless" stuff? Osama bin Laden, the rich college grad, gives a crap about the "powerless"? Nope, he only cares about pushing his ideals. Very few terrorists do what they do to help the powerless, keep in mind that the victims of most of their actions _are_ the powerless. They are thugs with an agenda, nothing more, to romanticize them as anything else is just wrong.

...
The obstacles are great, but I believe world peace is possible.

But from what I read, the gist of your statements are that world peace will be attainable when people stop acting like people. A nice thought, but not something you can really run with. You say to be satisfied with the here and now, and not to hope/try to achieve something higher? Don't try to come up with a reason for our existence (whether scientific or religious), just be happy you exist?

And lastly, and most importantly, aren't you falling victim to your own argument? Haven't you now foisted "world peace" as your X, and a major X at that. And you mentioned that having such a big X and a correspondingly big Y leads to armageddon. By your argument, we shouldn't strive for world peace, we should not want to attain it, for it is this desire to attain it that will cause us not to have it?

[doemel]

No. This doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards it.

[fryke]

Let's for a moment assume that world peace is possible. Just assume. Let's further assume that it would take an incredible amount of time, energy and last but not least: Money. Let's assume that the UN (or another world-spawning organisation) manages to HAVE the time, energy and money to achieve world peace. Let's now assume that everything has been done. We now have world peace. It takes ONE country or power only to destroy world peace. One invasion only. One war only.

So, is it possible? Maybe. The question is rather: For how long and at what cost (time, energy, money).

The really, really, really sad truth is that the financial interest in peace is quite low quite often. America has used many a war to get rid of old weaponry.

[toast]

... But war is costly, too. The argument is double-bladed, fryke, and noboddy knows on what side the blade is sharpest. War can cost a lot to some countries, a lot more than expected.

I was reading a manual of mathematical logics this morning when I realized the term 'peace' makes very little sense if it does not coexist next to its opposite, 'conflict'.

That's my 1.5¢ for today, I'll have to complete this a next time