Is world peace possible?

[habilis]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and the quick answer might be yes, but as we see over and over, history loves to repeat itself.

And history repeats itself because humanity has the same strengths and weaknesses over time; we have the same basic unchanged brain, make the same choices, and mistakes. For me, human genetics bring into question the realistic attainability of this goal called world peace.

Evolution favors the strong; we got here today by being "tough". In the early times of man, our ancestors such as cro-magnon and neanderthal lived by Darwins rule "Survival of the Fittest". In other words, the more testosterone, strength and aggression you had, the more females you could procreate with, thereby passing on the genes of aggression. This pattern is still repeating in primates today - and some would argue with mankind as well.

No matter how civilized we get, our primitive genes would seem to be inescapable, and civilization is, as they say, "only skin deep". I don't pretend to know the answers to this mindbendingly complex question, I just have some conflicting ideas rolling about in my head.

I'm not at all saying world peace is unattainable. Genetic engineering may one day far in the future help to create a more intelliegent, compassionate humanity. Human genetic enhancing and engineering might seem like science fiction now, but mankind has evidently reached the end of his natural evolutionary path, and what this generation rejects, the next will accept, and the next after that will embrace.

Whats your take?

[Perseus]

We need good and evil to create a balance. Unfortunately there is too much evil. World peace is nearly impossible to achieve because of all of the various cultural backgrounds that create differences among us. Maybe it would be possible if there was such thing as a global religion that everyone followed that could not even potentially create extremists. I believe most evil is religious based.

When you say peaceful, do you mean a utopia of eternall happiness or a proper balance where everyone gets enough food etc, and there is enough political balance to prevent major wars?

-Perseus

[adambyte]

I think "world peace" is something to strive for, but not something that's attainable. Except, of course, unless you engineer a species of people who really just.... well, to be honest, lack personality.

The reason this planet is so interesting is because it is full of extremes, and differing opinions. As much as I like me, it would be a boring place if everybody wore jeans, white t-shirts, and were the kind of "nice guys" that women like as friends, but not as boyfriends..... uh..... I'm sorry, do I sound bitter? lol. Anyway, my point is, this worls is only interesting because we have conflict.

And, hey, as long as we're waxing philosophical, if we lived in a perfect world..... where everybody was happy.... then would we be really happy? Isn't it necessary to experience pain to know happiness? You know... Yin, Yang, all that stuff?

[habilis]

Originally posted by Perseus
When you say peaceful, do you mean a utopia of eternall happiness or a proper balance where everyone gets enough food etc, and there is enough political balance to prevent major wars?

Definately not a utopia. What I mean is an exsistance where we could all belong to some common value system, use the same currency, achive a global equilibrium of sorts and yes, most importantly prevent not just major wars, but all war. And I do agree, religion is a MAJOR obstacle.

[habilis]

Originally posted by adambyte
And, hey, as long as we're waxing philosophical, if we lived in a perfect world..... where everybody was happy.... then would we be really happy? Isn't it necessary to experience pain to know happiness? You know... Yin, Yang, all that stuff?

Thats why I'm much more afraid to go to heaven when I die, then hell (if they exist)

[BoneFill]

Oh, sure there have been a lot of people thru history trying to create ONE big common nation, religion, value system... the ones that i remember right now are Hitler, Romans, Genghis Khan, some others ... and oh yeah, right George W. Bush....

As i see, the only way right now to achieve world pace is if all countries were America, with American standards, American way to be religious and we all have to follow american commandments....

It's really a shame but that's the path history is taking... I can tell you for sure how the story ends...

Edited because i forgot to say that the only way to achieve world peace is by respecting differences.... that's plain and simple...

[toast]

Originally posted by Perseus
We need good and evil to create a balance. (...) I believe most evil is religious based.

Hm... This might have been true three centuries ago. It is not any more. Flawed nationalism has killed more than religion since the XVIIIth century, but this kind of tragic statistics do not mean much anyway.

In my own humble opinion, I do not think world peace can be achieved because it seems that wars are a normal regulation of human activities. There are the means human beings turn to when they feel no other means will help.

Even though world peace may not be possible, world order is a more achievable goal. To some, NWO is, by default, equivalent to world peace.

I strongly recommend the following source to interested people. It defends a very different thesis (the fact that the nation-state is reponsible for the world to be such a mess).

"War Making and State Making as Organized Crime", by Charles Tilly, 1985, in "Bringing the State Back In", by P.B. Evans, D. Rueschemeyer, T. Sckocpol (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 169-191.

[Cat]

I think a limited form of world peace is possible, technically.

We have not got this far by being tough, the naturalistic Darwinian setting of survival of the fittest (for survival) is simply a case of competition of all against all. Civilization itself is only a by product of socialization: we agree to not kill, rob or rape each other, but to collaborate. This tendency has evolved from families to clans to towns to ultimately the nation state by appeal to ever more abstract values and principles. Right now, each one of us, lives in relative peace with his fellow citizens, within a nation or federal state. However, the realtions between states are still at the level of primal competition for limited resources, which is the No. 1 cause of conflict. If and when a collabaration between states is instituted, they collaborate more and more until they become a nation themselves (maybe not in name but in fact). Examples include but are not limited to Italy and Germany. If and when an experiment like the European Union or the United Nations could be succesfully applied world-wide, we would all be living within the relative peace of a quasi nation state.

Obviously this is quite Utopian, but IMHO better than the totalitaristic "one faith to rule them all" ... Of course, the main enemy of this kind of vision is patriottism, or better, chauvinism.

Social systems have been insituted to protect one human gainst the other. This obviously means that the strong protect the weak. In contemporary politics this is primarily a financial aid. Again obviously the rich mutter and object. As well within nations as between.

Barring simplistic sloagans, if rich nations would collaborate more to reduce thirst, hunger and poverty, spreading the wealth, then weaker nations would feel less threatened or less propense to use threats to protect themselves against the strong and the world would become a safer and better place to live in and thus lead to world peace. One little baby step at a time.

Utopian for now, but feasible in a hundred years work.