Is world peace possible?

habilis

habilis

Ministry of Re-Education
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?
 
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
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Thats why I'm much more afraid to go to heaven when I die, then hell (if they exist)
 
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...
 
Originally posted by Perseus
We need good and evil to create a balance. (...) I believe most evil is religious based.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Originally posted by 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....
Click to expand...
It's true. Agression and war often comes the guise of peace. At this moment however, I don't think GW is of this kind of totalitarian thinking. Give America 2 or 3 more 9/11's and we might be. Cut the guy a little slack, I don't envy having his job right now; he inherited the post dot-com crash economy and the incredible responsibilty of trying to keep us safe.


Originally posted by toast
In my own humble opinion, I do not think world peace can be achieved...
Click to expand...
If we know we can't fly, should man run around flapping his arms trying? - just a devil's advocate comment really.
 
A limited form of world peace? Please... Either yes or no. :p

And: When talking about evolution, never forget that evolution needs time. 'Survival of the fittest' does not necessarily mean that the one with the hammer kills the one without a hammer. Don't try and be egocentric with evolution.

Evolution is at work. Constantly. But it takes centuries or millennia to 'naturally' erase or change a race...

World peace is possible and will come. The short version: Someone starts erasing mankind. The long version: Too many people will get fed up with war.

habilis: "I don't think GW is of this kind of totalitarian thinking. Give America 2 or 3 more 9/11's and we might be."

You mean that the US don't learn? I mean, not at all? 9/11 should have shown that the totalitarian thinking is wrong and that the US should behave a bit better in the world. The reaction? The US go to war. The reaction? More 9/11s, probably. Sure that's not a way to world peace...
 
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.
 
Originally posted by fryke
9/11 should have shown that the totalitarian thinking is wrong and that the US should behave a bit better in the world.
Click to expand...
So would you like it it we didn't build any more big scary buildings and tore down the existing ones because somebody, somwhere, in some extremist religious state found them offensive??? Would you like it if we put up a memorial to the terrorists at ground zero for teaching us a lesson?

Lets all just have some cake and relax. I really didn't want this thread to concentrate too much on current events or to degenerate into mudslinging, but apparently, all roads lead to Baghdad.
 
Wow, this must be the first constructive political discussion I've seen in a long time. It seems like we all agree on what to archive - but there are so many different opinions on how it should be done. What we actually see is the world becoming more and more free, more anarchistic actually. And at the same time more peaceful.
 
Originally posted by habilis
If we know we can't fly, should man run around flapping his arms trying? - just a devil's advocate comment really.
Click to expand...

It's a good comment indeed. Many theoricians (realists, anti-marxists) have based their approach on the same remark you pointed out: why follow objective x if objective x is unreachable ?

That's also why I prefer to talk of world order rather than world peace.

I agree with you, ksv, that's a good thread that has been started here. It builds itself on the still hot ashes of the "GW Bush hero" thread, which also is a good thing. I hope I'll have the time to develop some points, but I'm going to have much work in the upcoming weeks - I just had very good news from my institute :)
 
Good thread!

Hmm, my gut reaction is that no, the world can never experience peace but, who knows?

World population is expected to level out sometime this century. This continual pressure on the limited resources of the planet and their inequal distribution has been a major factor in world conflict. I think that once the population levels out things will begin to change.

What happens when that population pressure eases? Nobody really knows the answer but one would think that there would be less conflict.

Personally I think that peace is something we all must strive towards. During the 20th century we've seen only too well the devastation that the lack of peace causes.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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").
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top