|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is 'world peace' impossible?
Is world peace impossible?
Throughout human history, the periods that were free of any war whatsoever have been short and rare, and many of them are caused not by peace, but by missing historical record.
So; is world peace even possible?
What would be the price? Cooperation and goodwill? Limitation of freedoms? Group mind? Total Annihilation?
(Cooperation and goodwill would mean that everyone would have to put the needs of others above their own.)
(Limitation of freedoms would mean that what you do would be strictly monitored and controlled to keep you from making trouble)
(A group mind would mean that all humans would, by technological means, share the same thoughts and basically be one single entity.)
(Total annihilation would mean that mankind would be extinct.)
Throughout human history, the periods that were free of any war whatsoever have been short and rare, and many of them are caused not by peace, but by missing historical record.
So; is world peace even possible?
What would be the price? Cooperation and goodwill? Limitation of freedoms? Group mind? Total Annihilation?
(Cooperation and goodwill would mean that everyone would have to put the needs of others above their own.)
(Limitation of freedoms would mean that what you do would be strictly monitored and controlled to keep you from making trouble)
(A group mind would mean that all humans would, by technological means, share the same thoughts and basically be one single entity.)
(Total annihilation would mean that mankind would be extinct.)
There will be peace if:
Everyone converts to Radical Islam.
or
The USA is destroyed and everyone is forced to convert to Radical Islam.
Everyone converts to Radical Islam.
or
The USA is destroyed and everyone is forced to convert to Radical Islam.
Or you didn't exist.
Um.. I don't know, really. Maybe. It's a possiblity we can never rule out. We can't just assume war.
Um.. I don't know, really. Maybe. It's a possiblity we can never rule out. We can't just assume war.
I think world peace is somewhat of a paradox. Even if we do achieve it, people will quickly get bored and looks for stuff to do.
Also, world peace isnt a definite finish line that we can definitely say we've crossed. It is a fleeting sense of satisfaction that everyone in the world might one day enjoy. That IS freakin hard.
Also, world peace isnt a definite finish line that we can definitely say we've crossed. It is a fleeting sense of satisfaction that everyone in the world might one day enjoy. That IS freakin hard.
| dragonflame wrote: |
| It is a fleeting sense of satisfaction that everyone in the world might one day enjoy. That IS freakin hard. |
To some people, "satisifaction" is the complete and utter removal of Western Civilization.
As long as there is poverty, oppression and inequality there will be conflict. Which mean there will always be conflict cause even if those things don't exist there will be people who feel impoverished, oppressed or feel like there being treated worse than others.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| As long as there is poverty, oppression and inequality there will be conflict. Which mean there will always be conflict cause even if those things don't exist there will be people who feel impoverished, oppressed or feel like there being treated worse than others. |
While you're correct that there will always be people being treated worse than others, you're mistaken in that being the root of war. Keep in mind that there is war in the animal and insect worlds as well.
Always has been, always will be. It's a way of life, like it or not. Hell, it's even in the plant worlds.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: | ||
To some people, "satisifaction" is the complete and utter removal of Western Civilization. |
The key to world peace... the only possible way for worl peace.. is total destruction... people are wrong.. peace will come from war. A war that wipes all humans from the face of this earth.. potentially all life. Then the earth will know peace.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| So; is world peace even possible? |
Certainly. Why not?
Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense. Humans are inherently amoral, just like any other animal, but we can use our intellect to be either moral or immoral. We're perfectly capable of living in societies without wanting to kill everyone else. We're doing just fine in most modern nation-states, aren't we?
How are you defining "peace"? Perfect bliss and harmony without any conflict at all? Well then no, of course that's not possible.
Real world peace will probably be a teeming sea of minor conflicts and disagreements - the only difference is now they won't be resolved by violence, but by various diplomatic deals. That's not that hard, really. It doesn't even require that we all get along. Canada bristles at most American foreign policy, but we deal with them every day and have no real interest in fighting them.
There are only two real causes of war, exclusionist ideologies and limited resources.
The first is the most problematic, because the only way we can solve that problem is by eliminating or changing the problematic ideologies. Any ideology that requires imposing rules on another group, or eliminating them altogether, is incompatible with world peace. Radical Islam has to go (but not regular Islam). Fascism has to go. We can't have world peace while those kinds of philosophies exist in any real quantity. We can try to eliminate those ideologies by overruning them by force, by culture or simply by buying/starving them out, but however it's done, world peace can't exist with those ideologies still in play.
The second is also difficult, but technology will play a large part in alleviating that. That means that we probably can't have world peace tomorrow, even if all of the troublesome ideologies were eliminated. But that's changing.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| What would be the price? Cooperation and goodwill? Limitation of freedoms? Group mind? Total Annihilation?
(Cooperation and goodwill would mean that everyone would have to put the needs of others above their own.) (Limitation of freedoms would mean that what you do would be strictly monitored and controlled to keep you from making trouble) (A group mind would mean that all humans would, by technological means, share the same thoughts and basically be one single entity.) (Total annihilation would mean that mankind would be extinct.) |
None of the above. World peace really isn't that hard, you know. Once upon a time, they probably thought they couldn't get all the villages in an area to stop fighting each other. Then the villages all came together under a lord, and they probably thought they couldn't get the various fiefdoms to stop fighting each other. Then the fiefdoms came together as a state, and they probably thought they couldn't get the states to stop fighting each other. Then the states came together as a nation, and now they think they can't get the nations to stop fighting each other. Only now the nations are beginning the process of coming together as unions, under such titles as the EU, NAFTA and CARICOM.
And in time, the various economic unions will probably stop fighting too.
Peace isn't that hard. All you have to do is not fight a war. Given that wars are expensive and dangerous and destroy resources and ruin economies - it's really not that hard to imagine a time when people say that war is simply not worth it. Even now, the general feeling in the developed world is that war is a very last resort, and only done when no other option is feasible. Usually that means they only go to war when someone else is already threatening them militarily. i imagine that if there were a problem with resources, they'd go to war for that too. But not for much else. Why bother? If they're not threatening you, and if there is no limited resource that you're competing over, what's the point of fighting?
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| As long as there is poverty, oppression and inequality there will be conflict. Which mean there will always be conflict cause even if those things don't exist there will be people who feel impoverished, oppressed or feel like there being treated worse than others. |
Absolutely true.
However, if there really is no poverty or oppression, then there won't be many who feel that way - and those that do will probably not feel particularly justified in taking up arms, particularly if there are other options.
Take a look at the US for example. Sure, there are plenty of people who feel oppressed and/or disadvantaged, or who think the government is out to get them, etc. etc. But do you really see any likelihood of civil war?
Like i said, if you define world peace as perfect harmony and flowers falling from heaven and so on, you're waiting for a fantasy. Real world peace will have conflict - probably lots of it - but that conflict will be expressed and resolved in a non-violent fashion. And when there is violence, they will be terrorists and criminals, not the norm.
We already have nations of millions and millions of diverse people who can live in peace. Why is it totally impossible that the whole world can be the same way?
World peace is probably impossible as long as their are units of nationalism within the globe, whether that be countries, states, even continents.
In one sense this is exactly right and proper. When you vote for a representative, you generally expect him/her to look after your interests, even if this is at the expense of someone else who they do not represent.
This is the nature of representative 'democracy'. If everyone were getting along fine and had no arguments then you could argue that the representatives were not doing their job and do away with them since they would not be bringing you anything special or specific.
This sounds a bit cynical I know, but it is reality. People have some very naeive ideas about the behaviour of nations - particularly the US. I have heard numerous times phrases like :
'We don't act like that'
'We are trying to help'
'The US is trying to bring peace/demoracy'
'Our troops are dying to help these people'
and so on....all complete baloney and offensive baloney at that.
Nations act in their own interest. Sometimes this can coincide with the interests of another group or nation, in which case fine. This should not be confused, however, with altruism or selfless behaviour because it isn't. Ever. Not ever. Not a single time. Never happened. Doesn't occur.....
If anyone can point to an example to disprove this I will be very interested. Bear in mind that things like treaty committments are not altruism and any country aiding another because of a treaty, alliance or prior agreement is not acting altruistically since presumably the agreement is for the benefit of the signaturies to start with.
Anyone care to make the counter case and show that I am just a deeply cynical mistaken englishman ?
Regards
Chris
In one sense this is exactly right and proper. When you vote for a representative, you generally expect him/her to look after your interests, even if this is at the expense of someone else who they do not represent.
This is the nature of representative 'democracy'. If everyone were getting along fine and had no arguments then you could argue that the representatives were not doing their job and do away with them since they would not be bringing you anything special or specific.
This sounds a bit cynical I know, but it is reality. People have some very naeive ideas about the behaviour of nations - particularly the US. I have heard numerous times phrases like :
'We don't act like that'
'We are trying to help'
'The US is trying to bring peace/demoracy'
'Our troops are dying to help these people'
and so on....all complete baloney and offensive baloney at that.
Nations act in their own interest. Sometimes this can coincide with the interests of another group or nation, in which case fine. This should not be confused, however, with altruism or selfless behaviour because it isn't. Ever. Not ever. Not a single time. Never happened. Doesn't occur.....
If anyone can point to an example to disprove this I will be very interested. Bear in mind that things like treaty committments are not altruism and any country aiding another because of a treaty, alliance or prior agreement is not acting altruistically since presumably the agreement is for the benefit of the signaturies to start with.
Anyone care to make the counter case and show that I am just a deeply cynical mistaken englishman ?
Regards
Chris
| Indi wrote: | ||
Certainly. Why not? |
I agree whole heartedly, and I think you presented an excellent analysis of how it can be so as well as the obstacles that stand in the way (exclusionist ideologies and limited resources).
As you pointed out, social anthropology has been evolving in this direction since the dawn of man. Communities come together for common interests, whether ancient tribes or modern nation-states. History illustrates that as civilization and technology advances, larger and larger states tend to be formed. I do not think this pattern will change. (However there are some theories that the world is in some ways “devolving” politically, where sub-national entities will gain greater influence and power as nation-states weaken, where war will become the norm rather than the exception. I personally don’t hold to this idea, but we shall see.)
It wasn’t that long ago that the nations of Europe were almost constantly fighting or preparing for a fight with one another. I cannot foresee a day when the United States would once again raise arms against Mexico, Japan, or any of the nations of Europe.
But does this mean there is not conflict? Of course not. But as Indi pointed out, they are resolved without warfare.
| Indi wrote: |
| Peace isn't that hard. All you have to do is not fight a war. Given that wars are expensive and dangerous and destroy resources and ruin economies - it's really not that hard to imagine a time when people say that war is simply not worth it. |
Absolutely. As I mentioned before, communities coalesce for common interests. Eliminating war as a means of settling disputes is in the best interest of all nations. It is the reason behind the United Nations and its forerunner, the League of Nations.
I do not see a world government as necessary for world peace, as some do. Getting the entire globe to agree on a single governmental system may prove difficult!
However I see no reason why world peace could not be achieved at some point in the future when the historic causes of war themselves are eliminated.
Respectfully,
M
Indi,
I must have posted my cynical response whilst yours was processing or en-route because I missed it. OK....here's a rational view opposite to mine I can test....
Hmm, but individuals are almost never the cause of war anyway. Englishman and Germans get on fine when their leaders refrain from declaring war and I'm sure that the same is true fairly generally, so to that extent I agree.
I think it is a less rosy picture than this indicates. Whilst the US might not declare war on, or invade a Western deomcratic country, it shows little sign of wanting to exercise the same restraint globally.
US National Security policy is now to strike first if it feels threatened in a policy of 'pre-emption' (that it a complete twisting of the word in my view since Iraq is not a pre-emptive war, it is, at best, a predictive war, and even that is stretching a point). Basically it simplifies to - if we think you are/or might become a threat then we reserve the right to destroy you any time we choose. The example of Iraq shows how minor the threat can be before this 'right' is triggered.
There are two ways this could pan out. The 'bad guys' could be scared into line and do what they are told or they could become increasingly isolated and beligerent, seeking to forestall any US intervention with the threat of WMD (as in N Korea). This will serve to increase rather than calm the threat of major violence and war. Any sensible head of state of a muslim, communist, socialist country should be looking to acquire some nuclear deterrence at the moment. Iran, China, India, Pakistan etc.
Since about 1930, the US has been engaged in taking over the UK role as primary empire builder, controller and beneficiary. The US no longer has sufficient economic superiority to achieve this in a fiscal/financial/economic system of control as England did in the 17th and 18th sentury, but it has a huge military superiority globally, so that is the preferred method. The US has intervened militarily in over 70 countries over the last half-century and shows every sign of maintaining this but more openly than previously without the denials and disinformation that previously accompanied such actions. The US has been steadily and increasingy buiding control globally since before WWII.
When Bush recently stated that:
He was quite simply lying. The US now has more than 1 million troops based on foreign soil, it has battle aircraft carrier strike groups in every Ocean, it is the guarantor of many regimes globally, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, and it controls the wheels of global trade. The word empire is entirely correct and appropriate to this situation.
The danger that I can see now is that the US is perhaps falling into the trap which is fatal to all empires ultimately. As Gibbon says in 'Decline and Fall..' -
Power is not the same as domination and whilst the US has the former, any attempt to increase the latter will ultimately be disasterous. The more the US tries to increase it's reach, the more hatred&resistance will build up and the more it will over-reach itself, just as most historical empires ultimately did. This is the central danger with the new Bush doctrine of premption and maintenance of supremancy via militarism. When this is also coupled to refusing to be bound by economic, financial, legal and environmental norms and protocols, is a dangerous strategy.
If we assume that the majority of the world is not going to fall in line with US expectations (which are, broadly, don't block trade, don't arm yourself heavily, stay away from left wing ideology and associates and don't interfere with US strategic interests) then I think we could be in for a more, not less, dangerous and violent era for the medium term.
I'll finish by quoting another US president on the issue of preemptive war.
Abraham Lincoln
Regards
Chris
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
I must have posted my cynical response whilst yours was processing or en-route because I missed it. OK....here's a rational view opposite to mine I can test....
| Quote: |
|
Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense. Humans are inherently amoral, just like any other animal, but we can use our intellect to be either moral or immoral. We're perfectly capable of living in societies without wanting to kill everyone else. We're doing just fine in most modern nation-states, aren't we? |
Hmm, but individuals are almost never the cause of war anyway. Englishman and Germans get on fine when their leaders refrain from declaring war and I'm sure that the same is true fairly generally, so to that extent I agree.
| Quote: |
|
How are you defining "peace"? Perfect bliss and harmony without any conflict at all? Well then no, of course that's not possible. Real world peace will probably be a teeming sea of minor conflicts and disagreements - the only difference is now they won't be resolved by violence, but by various diplomatic deals. That's not that hard, really. It doesn't even require that we all get along. Canada bristles at most American foreign policy, but we deal with them every day and have no real interest in fighting them. |
I think it is a less rosy picture than this indicates. Whilst the US might not declare war on, or invade a Western deomcratic country, it shows little sign of wanting to exercise the same restraint globally.
US National Security policy is now to strike first if it feels threatened in a policy of 'pre-emption' (that it a complete twisting of the word in my view since Iraq is not a pre-emptive war, it is, at best, a predictive war, and even that is stretching a point). Basically it simplifies to - if we think you are/or might become a threat then we reserve the right to destroy you any time we choose. The example of Iraq shows how minor the threat can be before this 'right' is triggered.
There are two ways this could pan out. The 'bad guys' could be scared into line and do what they are told or they could become increasingly isolated and beligerent, seeking to forestall any US intervention with the threat of WMD (as in N Korea). This will serve to increase rather than calm the threat of major violence and war. Any sensible head of state of a muslim, communist, socialist country should be looking to acquire some nuclear deterrence at the moment. Iran, China, India, Pakistan etc.
Since about 1930, the US has been engaged in taking over the UK role as primary empire builder, controller and beneficiary. The US no longer has sufficient economic superiority to achieve this in a fiscal/financial/economic system of control as England did in the 17th and 18th sentury, but it has a huge military superiority globally, so that is the preferred method. The US has intervened militarily in over 70 countries over the last half-century and shows every sign of maintaining this but more openly than previously without the denials and disinformation that previously accompanied such actions. The US has been steadily and increasingy buiding control globally since before WWII.
When Bush recently stated that:
| Quote: |
| We don't seek an empire. Our nation is committed to freedom for ourselves and for others. |
He was quite simply lying. The US now has more than 1 million troops based on foreign soil, it has battle aircraft carrier strike groups in every Ocean, it is the guarantor of many regimes globally, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, and it controls the wheels of global trade. The word empire is entirely correct and appropriate to this situation.
The danger that I can see now is that the US is perhaps falling into the trap which is fatal to all empires ultimately. As Gibbon says in 'Decline and Fall..' -
| Quote: |
| empires endure only so long as their rulers take care not to overextend their borders. |
Power is not the same as domination and whilst the US has the former, any attempt to increase the latter will ultimately be disasterous. The more the US tries to increase it's reach, the more hatred&resistance will build up and the more it will over-reach itself, just as most historical empires ultimately did. This is the central danger with the new Bush doctrine of premption and maintenance of supremancy via militarism. When this is also coupled to refusing to be bound by economic, financial, legal and environmental norms and protocols, is a dangerous strategy.
If we assume that the majority of the world is not going to fall in line with US expectations (which are, broadly, don't block trade, don't arm yourself heavily, stay away from left wing ideology and associates and don't interfere with US strategic interests) then I think we could be in for a more, not less, dangerous and violent era for the medium term.
I'll finish by quoting another US president on the issue of preemptive war.
| Quote: |
| Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure.... If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, "I see no probability of the British invading us," but he will say to you, "Be silent; I see it, if you don't." |
Abraham Lincoln
Regards
Chris
Last edited by Bikerman on Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:05 pm; edited 1 time in total
| Indi wrote: |
|
Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense. |
That's funny. I admire your optimism, but do me a favor and show me one time in recorded human history that we were not at each other's throats.
^Exactly; I would say that humans are inherently evil. (or at least inherently disposed to evil.)
Do you have children?
Did you ever teach them to lie? steal? be greedy? Do they do these things anyway?
Nobody teaches children these things; they invent them on their own. That's not to say people can't overcome these impulses, but I don't believe that you'll ever get everyone in the world to do so, not without modifying them in some way (weather genetically, technologically, et cetera).
Do you have children?
Did you ever teach them to lie? steal? be greedy? Do they do these things anyway?
Nobody teaches children these things; they invent them on their own. That's not to say people can't overcome these impulses, but I don't believe that you'll ever get everyone in the world to do so, not without modifying them in some way (weather genetically, technologically, et cetera).
Those who defy world peace will perish, those who are in good spirit will survive. World peace is inevitable, with or without humans.
| bluedragon wrote: |
| Those who defy world peace will perish, those who are in good spirit will survive. |
Tell that to Jews in Nazi concentration camps...
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Exactly; I would say that humans are inherently evil. (or at least inherently disposed to evil.)
Do you have children? Did you ever teach them to lie? steal? be greedy? Do they do these things anyway? Nobody teaches children these things; they invent them on their own. That's not to say people can't overcome these impulses, but I don't believe that you'll ever get everyone in the world to do so, not without modifying them in some way (weather genetically, technologically, et cetera). |
I guess this would be a good argument for a lousy parent with rotten children.
Children are inherently curious and act on basic human impulses that allows it to survive, like feeling hungry, sleepy and so forth. They will take something that does not belong to them because it appeals to them and because nobody has set that child proper boundaries. If a childs parent does not encourage sharing with others, than chances are that child will be greedy.
A child will steal his brother's sandwich because it allows it to survive.
Neglected children normally have a hard time fitting into society.
There are two giant road blocks in the way of world peace, ignorance and apathy. If people don't know, they can't act. If people are too caught up in their own thing, they won't act. Understanding and compassion are the two keys to world peace. I know people who think all muslims are terrorists, and I don't know a person who, atleast to some extent, doesn't put their luxeries before the necessities of others. While you buy a new computer and get high speed internet, there are millions of people who go hungry, not our "I havn't eaten in a few hours" hungry, but the type that makes you delirious because you havn't had food in a week. We are all to blame in some way, it is in our nature to look after our own needs before others' needs, it's how we survived up to this point, taking what we can, when we can. It's all a matter of evolution, the one with the most resources has a better chance to reproduce.
Last edited by Mannix on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:29 am; edited 1 time in total
Last edited by Mannix on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:29 am; edited 1 time in total
^Only two?
*edit your post on me! why you...*
*counts to 10*
*forgives and forgets*
Last edited by ocalhoun on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total
*edit your post on me! why you...*
*counts to 10*
*forgives and forgets*
Last edited by ocalhoun on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:25 am; edited 1 time in total
The two main ones as I see it. One is not knowing anything about another culture, exept racist stereotypes, or just not knowing about something period. The mainstream media gives way more air time to a celebrity wedding or divorce then the starving masses in 3rd world countries. That's because making the public feel guilty is a good way to lose viewers, they just want to live in their own perfect little world, where they are number one, followed by their families, their god, their country, and damn the rest.
To overcome this we have to have compassion and empathy towards our fellow human beings, and get away from the individualist attitudes that are so common now. Recently I was sitting in my social studies class, talking about world issues, and out of no where, some girl blurts out, "Who cares anyway? Not like some dead people in Africa affect me.". Not to say I'm any better than many when it comes down to practicing what I say, after all, we're all human. Someone, somewhere, will always act on the want for more, even when others have nothing. War and killing will always be part of that. Realistically I think there will always be violent conflict. We as a race(refering to the human race), as with any other species, are greedy, and care first for ourselves.
Last edited by Mannix on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:51 am; edited 1 time in total
To overcome this we have to have compassion and empathy towards our fellow human beings, and get away from the individualist attitudes that are so common now. Recently I was sitting in my social studies class, talking about world issues, and out of no where, some girl blurts out, "Who cares anyway? Not like some dead people in Africa affect me.". Not to say I'm any better than many when it comes down to practicing what I say, after all, we're all human. Someone, somewhere, will always act on the want for more, even when others have nothing. War and killing will always be part of that. Realistically I think there will always be violent conflict. We as a race(refering to the human race), as with any other species, are greedy, and care first for ourselves.
Last edited by Mannix on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:51 am; edited 1 time in total
I'm not too optimistic about it - I mean, we are a very diverse world, and as long as that diversity continues, so will the problems that accompany it. With nobody willing to compromise, I feel it's safe to say world peace is down the road quite a ways.
peace is possible, but it will be forced upon people. And in a perfect communist state, peace would flourish
Also, you could have a totally peaceful 1984 or fahrenhit 451 socitey.
Also, you could have a totally peaceful 1984 or fahrenhit 451 socitey.
I wouldn't call the society portrayed in 1984 peaceful, as I remember there were 3 nearly identical tolatarian states fighting wars against each other for power and publishing propaganda to "prove" they were right, aswell as claim that they invented everything.
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
|
I'll finish by quoting another US president on the issue of preemptive war.
Abraham Lincoln Regards Chris |
I think some cynical U.S. Southerners would think Lincoln's words here hypocritical since he invaded the Confederacy.
Yeah, the United States and Brtain came very close to war during the American Civil War (since Britain supported the Confederate States of America). There was great fear that the British would invade the United States from Canada. (If the southern states had freed the slaves before seceding from the Union, who knows? Britain may have.)
Respectfully,
M
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I think it is a less rosy picture than this indicates. Whilst the US might not declare war on, or invade a Western deomcratic country, it shows little sign of wanting to exercise the same restraint globally. |
To quote myself, with emphasis:
- ...we probably can't have world peace tomorrow, even if all of the troublesome ideologies were eliminated.
- Only now the nations are beginning the process of coming together as unions....
I went out of my way to point out that world peace was unlikely today, and that although it may be inevitable if we continue our development on pace, it is inevitable in time, not today.
Yes, i know US imperialism is problematic, but it can't last forever. For evidence of that, you can either look at the growing disapproval of those policies - domestically and internationally; the US is more unpopular now than they have ever been before in their history. Or you can consider it on the basis of economics alone, they US economy has been trending weaker while the rest of the world has been largey trending stronger. Or you can look for historical examples; every empire that expanded past a certain point collapsed back in on itself.
So yes, American imperialism is one of the reasons we can't have world peace today, but it can't last forever.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^Exactly; I would say that humans are inherently evil. (or at least inherently disposed to evil.)
Do you have children? Did you ever teach them to lie? steal? be greedy? Do they do these things anyway? Nobody teaches children these things; they invent them on their own. That's not to say people can't overcome these impulses, but I don't believe that you'll ever get everyone in the world to do so, not without modifying them in some way (weather genetically, technologically, et cetera). |
Again, to quote myself:
- Humans are inherently amoral, just like any other animal....
Children don't lie, steal or be selfish because they're evil. They do it because the don't understand how they're harming others. They're not even aware that others feel harm for the first few years of their life. They're not immoral, they're amoral.
Once they understand the consequence of their actions, THEN they can be judged moral or immoral, not before. And it is expected of any normally functional member of the human race that once they are capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, they should make generally moral choices. In fact, there are people who always make immoral choices - real evil people. They're called sociopaths, and they are considered exceptional, undesirable, and sick.
So essentially, people who are really inherently evil, are considered malformed human beings, and they are certainly not the norm.
In general, when considering the actual human norm and the vast majority of people, we're not evil SOB's. There is nothing fundamental about human nature that prevents world peace, although there are certainly some aspects that we will and do have to struggle against. To some extent, technology may make that struggle easier and easier - not necessarily by, for example, rewiring our brains to make us less greedy, but simply by increasing our resources to the point that greed/theft become forgotten crimes. You won't need to steal to have what you want because you can have whatever you want at the press of a button.
Of course it's possible.....if everyones dead!
lol, there will never be world peace until all hate in the world is gone. Although the fact is that we all have hate that we want to get out. People can only supress there ID for so long.....
lol, there will never be world peace until all hate in the world is gone. Although the fact is that we all have hate that we want to get out. People can only supress there ID for so long.....
World peace in the sense of goodwill between all is probably impossible. You have to realize, we humans are animals with very much animal instincts. We are selfish in the end, whatever outlook we may project. Nobody will be truly content to be ruled by another. So if there were peace, it would only be because nobody bothered to try disturbing it.
Sorry, but I'll never happen.
 |