FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Is 'world peace' impossible?






Is world peace possible?
World peace is inevitable.
9%
 9%  [ 3 ]
Only with cooperation and goodwill.
27%
 27%  [ 9 ]
Only if we limit our freedoms.
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
Only if we had a group mind.
6%
 6%  [ 2 ]
Only if there were no humans at all.
9%
 9%  [ 3 ]
World peace is impossible.
33%
 33%  [ 11 ]
What is peace? the world? possiblity?
3%
 3%  [ 1 ]
Total Votes : 33

ocalhoun
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.)
S3nd K3ys
There will be peace if:

Everyone converts to Radical Islam. Wink

or

The USA is destroyed and everyone is forced to convert to Radical Islam. Shocked
freecitizen
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.
dragonflame
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.
S3nd K3ys
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.
The Conspirator
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.
S3nd K3ys
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. Laughing
a.Bird
S3nd K3ys wrote:
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.
Which is probably why it is "freakin hard."
Rhysige
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.
Indi
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?
Bikerman
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.....Smile

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 ? Smile

Regards
Chris
Moonspider
Indi wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
So; is world peace even possible?

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! Wink 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
Bikerman
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....
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
S3nd K3ys
Indi wrote:


Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense.


Shocked
Laughing Laughing Laughing

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.
ocalhoun
^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).
bluedragon
Those who defy world peace will perish, those who are in good spirit will survive. World peace is inevitable, with or without humans.
ocalhoun
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...
sonalobramo
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.
Mannix
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.
ocalhoun
^Only two?
*edit your post on me! why you...*
*counts to 10*
*forgives and forgets*
Mannix
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.
Soulfire
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.
drdestiny
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.
Mannix
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.
Moonspider
Bikerman wrote:

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


I think some cynical U.S. Southerners would think Lincoln's words here hypocritical since he invaded the Confederacy. Wink

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
Indi
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.
Cole
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.....
the zephyrus
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.
afriot
Sorry, but I'll never happen.
DallasH
World Peace Possible? Certainly.

Now there has been pauses of peace here and there, but I expect you mean a LASTING permanent period of peace. Some would argue that war is situational. While others will argue that it is in our nature to fight and go to war. There is no evidence that it is in our nature, but there is evidence that it is caused distinctly by situation.

Change the premise and situation and you will have peace. When the costs outweigh the benefits, there will be no reason for war. Stronger economic Interdependence and globalization is a footstep in the right direction. How do we do this? Cooperatively created world organizations, understanding, technology advancement, ect.

It certainly is possible, but will take much more than talking about it.
Dennise
First you must define "peace" ..... say an ongoing period of 100 years (on Earth) without any wars involving say more than 1,000 people. I assume you're not talking about astronomical time scales.


Then world peace is possible IF:

Given enough time (say X years , AND we don't annihilate ourselves before we reach X years I think we could manage it eventually. But it wont be easy. Before nirvana time, we humans will face many obstacles, not only wars. I'll name but a few:

    disastrous consequences from global warming or other climate changes
    over population
    starvation from soil and/or water failure
    new diseases
    mega fallout from nuclear disasters
    asteroid or other Earth collision


In desperate times, some of the above could precipitate wars and compromise world peace.

On small scales, we have already achieved peace over large areas. More than a hundred years after the American Civil War, all 50 states are at peace with each other.

In spite of the waring demons within us, world peace just might be possible given enough time.
Nameless
Indi wrote:
There are only two real causes of war, exclusionist ideologies and limited resources.

Nope. People can and do lust for power regardless of ideology or resources. This is trivial to spot on an individual level - a dickhead boss getting a small thrill out of ordering his employees around, for instance. It's much rarer in the modern age for that same dickhead to order an army to invade another country just for the sake of expanding borders and control (hence you see your two 'causes' as the excuses), but I rather expect the motivations are often the same.

Even assuming the global community were able to block any wars on the basis of those or any other selfish reasons/excuses, I wouldn't consider the world at peace while there were still large criminal gangs warring with each other on a lower level, or public protests turning ugly, or nuclear weapons being stockpiled. World peace to me would imply that violence is never considered or threatened by ANY significant group of people. It's not impossible and it's an excellent goal to aim for, but I doubt we'll ever completely reach it. Selfishness and powerlust are evolutionary survival traits, after all.

(... and either of those traits being 'evil' is entirely a human construct, but that's neither here nor there.)
Hello_World
World peace will be possible when:

*religion is over
*capitalism is over

And all relating to the top 2 points:
*poverty is over
*inequality is over
*racism is over
*sexism is over
*homophobia is over
*anti-intellectualism is over
*education is valued and available
*every individual is valued for what they do
*direct democracy florishes
BigGeek
It's late, my point count is at -5.83 and I need to post to get some points. I apologize in advance because normally I take the time to read everyone's posts and respond accordingly. But I'm in Michigan on Business trip and just don't have the time tonight. So here is my 2 cents.

As long as there are global elite class of people, and religion than peace is not possible. My reasoning behind this statement is fairly basic. First off looking into the financial history behind just about every war, the money from the wealthy elite has been used to back and finance the aggressors. The reasons, such as capturing natural resources, destroying competition, gaining slaves or a work force, or righting some fictitious wrong are backed by the wealthy and powerful people that control our world. As long as they reside in power, there will always be wars and conflict.

Second is religion, brainwashing a section of the population to believe that their god is right, and using their beliefs and teachings to label another human as evil, the devil, the infidel, or similar labels, promoting hatred, anger and fear to provoke the believers into war against the evil non believers has been the basis for more blood shed and death than any other system known to man. I really don't care what religion you point at, they are pretty much all guilty of this ugly waring behavior, and as long as these archaic, cruel, bigoted belief systems exist, mankind will kill and war against each other in the name of their gods.

If people were truly able to see each other as able good people, and cooperate and work together, than world peace might be possible. As long as we divide ourselves with religion, or follow the dictates of our greedy, selfish corrupt leaders, then world peace will never be possible.

And there you have it my opinion Shocked
_AVG_
World peace is possible, but only if every human gives up violence AGAINST OTHER HUMANS. Nevertheless, this is too idealistic a requirement (and is perhaps highly improbable given the number of us on the planet). So, violence must be given up by MOST people (it depends what the proportion should be, whether 75% or 90%, etc.). In particular, non-violence must be propagated by all those in power. Since there will be exceptions, violence must be allowed to defend DIRECT violence.
And when I speak of violence, I do not mean merely physical violence. There must be a stop to psychological, emotional and verbal violence. Alas, this can only stop if everyone realizes that every being has the right to live (and this realization must come from within, it cannot be forced upon anyone).

Nonetheless, I don't know whether any of this will ever happen. It's back to the old paradox: in order to ensure that only peaceful humans remain, should we wipe out all violent humans? In other words, should we forsake non-violence to restore non-violence?
Nameless
_AVG_ wrote:
World peace is possible, but only if every human gives up violence AGAINST OTHER HUMANS. Nevertheless, this is too idealistic a requirement (and is perhaps highly improbable given the number of us on the planet). So, violence must be given up by MOST people (it depends what the proportion should be, whether 75% or 90%, etc.). In particular, non-violence must be propagated by all those in power. Since there will be exceptions, violence must be allowed to defend DIRECT violence.
And when I speak of violence, I do not mean merely physical violence. There must be a stop to psychological, emotional and verbal violence.

I like how this one post goes all the way from "every human must give up violence" down to "most people must give up violence but only against their own own people and I guess if they're not power it's still okay to punch someone in the face if their views on soccer emotionally offend you."

BigGeek wrote:
Second is religion, brainwashing a section of the population to believe that their god is right, and using their beliefs and teachings to label another human as evil, the devil, the infidel, or similar labels, promoting hatred, anger and fear to provoke the believers into war against the evil non believers has been the basis for more blood shed and death than any other system known to man. I really don't care what religion you point at, they are pretty much all guilty of this ugly waring behavior, and as long as these archaic, cruel, bigoted belief systems exist, mankind will kill and war against each other in the name of their gods.

Why does every single topic in this forum have to turn into a major hate-on for religion? (For bonus points, answer this question without a hate-on for religion.) I'm not even going to start on the all the ways this post is wrong, I'm just gonna ask BigGeek, yes or no, are you aware of the irony?
Daja
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Indi wrote:


Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense.


Shocked
Laughing Laughing Laughing

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.


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).


Humans aren't inherently evil, we're inherently selfish, then we evaluate how selfish someone is to determine whether it's a good or a bad person.

But saying that being selfish is a bad thing is outright naive. After all, we're nice to people for selfish reasons without even realizing it.
Tuvitor
Unless the machines start fighting each other, we will have world peace on the day humanity goes extinct. Even loving couples argue.
Hello_World
Quote:
Why does every single topic in this forum have to turn into a major hate-on for religion?


Don't mean to be but... this is one of the big problems to world peace. Some believes that if they follow certain rules, they will get endless rewards in the hereafter.

And those rules may include things like, "death to non-believers" or "this land belongs to us as a gift from the Almighty X" or "sodomy is an abomination" etc.

It also serves as a convenient excuse. That starving African child will have a sure place in heaven. For example.

Can you reason with them? No. Whatever cruelty it brings to themselves or others, it matters not in this life which is some kind of test for heaven.

That said, denying freedom of religion is also a barrier to world peace. (EDIT) The above examples are also examples of the lack of freedom of religion. To say and act on the idea that sodomy is an abomination is also denying that gay person the right to believe in something else, for example.

You seriously can't talk about world peace and ignore religion.
Nameless
There are undeniably specific instances of religious sects promoting violence, but there's a huge difference between "the raising of religious extremists is a social issue that need to be solved for world peace" and "the entire concept of religion is fundamentally destroying society" which is what I can't help but hear from certain posters all the time. The vast, vast majority of theists are entirely and demonstrably capable of being pleasant, peaceful and well-adjusted human beings.
Hello_World
Personally, my beef with religion ends where that person embraces freedom of religion and secularism.

Any religious person who chooses to use their reason and intellect to attempt to make the world a better place is a.ok with me. (Which of course must include freedom of religion aka not imposing your religion on others).

Trouble is, even in the major religions, using reason and intellect to determine what is best for society is in frequent conflict with the teachings of the religion.

There are many, many examples of religious people doing just that - Christians don't stone people anymore, millions choose to support gay marriage, ad infinitum examples.

That doesn't mean there are not major problems though, with billions of religious people trying to impose some part of their belief on others, and more majorly, examples such as bin Laden and his gang of fanatics.

The entire concept of (formal) religion does bother me. I'd prefer it didn't exist. It does stand in opposition to using reason and intellect to improve life in the here and the now. Fortunately, there are millions who are entirely capable of rising above the hypocrasies of their chosen religion and are a positive force in the world. Yes, pleasant, peaceful and well-adjusted.

Nevertheless, one of the major negative influences in the world as we speak is exactly those religious nutters who think they are above everything else.
menino
World peace is possible, but in toldays world it is difficult, but much less difficult than before.
People and countries have now a better tolerance of other nations and other people than in the previous centuries.

I think there is still evil in the world, and that influences a lot of people, but a lot of people keep fighting it daily.

A lot of people also find difference in religions, with each other, but a lot of other people also find harmony or at least secularism in it, such as India, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, USA, Britain, Europe, etc.
A lot of these countries have different religions within each country and each locality as well, and they seem to live fine.

Peace to all!
Vanilla
Daja wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Indi wrote:


Everyone says "humans are inherently evil". Pah, religious nonsense.


Shocked
Laughing Laughing Laughing

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.


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).


Humans aren't inherently evil, we're inherently selfish, then we evaluate how selfish someone is to determine whether it's a good or a bad person.

But saying that being selfish is a bad thing is outright naive. After all, we're nice to people for selfish reasons without even realizing it.


I think this kinda fits my theory. Here it is.

It is not that we are are inherently evil or selfish. It may be true at some point but I think our issue is ambition. We are very ambitious little animals. And I don't think this is a bad thing, not at all. I think that we want to grow and we always want more. That's why we moved out from caverns/trees. That's why we started to use fire and tools. I really don't believe in human beings that say that they do things and want nothing back. It's almost against our ambitious nature.

Also, we're very competitive beings. You see, I'm specialized in animal reproduction and we're competing even before birth. Because we want to give our best. And because we want to be the best.

Well, this is just my theory. Of course I base these in observations I made during what I saw in my life. I'm not old, but theses patterns are very easy to see. And that's exactly why I think world peace is impossible.
_AVG_
Nameless wrote:
_AVG_ wrote:
World peace is possible, but only if every human gives up violence AGAINST OTHER HUMANS. Nevertheless, this is too idealistic a requirement (and is perhaps highly improbable given the number of us on the planet). So, violence must be given up by MOST people (it depends what the proportion should be, whether 75% or 90%, etc.). In particular, non-violence must be propagated by all those in power. Since there will be exceptions, violence must be allowed to defend DIRECT violence.
And when I speak of violence, I do not mean merely physical violence. There must be a stop to psychological, emotional and verbal violence.

I like how this one post goes all the way from "every human must give up violence" down to "most people must give up violence but only against their own own people and I guess if they're not power it's still okay to punch someone in the face if their views on soccer emotionally offend you."


I never mentioned that it's OK for anybody to act violently; I realized that everyone giving up violence is impractical and idealistic so realistically, there will be some hot-headed ones who do not adhere to non-violence. In that case, you should defend yourself violently if required (I'm not saying you should invite them to come and attack you, or you should initiate an attack). Rolling Eyes

Actually, I'm not sure whether my point comes across in this post either (I'm not so good with words so forgive me)
BigGeek
Nameless wrote:
BigGeek wrote:
Second is religion, brainwashing a section of the population to believe that their god is right, and using their beliefs and teachings to label another human as evil, the devil, the infidel, or similar labels, promoting hatred, anger and fear to provoke the believers into war against the evil non believers has been the basis for more blood shed and death than any other system known to man. I really don't care what religion you point at, they are pretty much all guilty of this ugly waring behavior, and as long as these archaic, cruel, bigoted belief systems exist, mankind will kill and war against each other in the name of their gods.

Why does every single topic in this forum have to turn into a major hate-on for religion? (For bonus points, answer this question without a hate-on for religion.) I'm not even going to start on the all the ways this post is wrong, I'm just gonna ask BigGeek, yes or no, are you aware of the irony?


I don't hate religion, I'm just sticking by a historical fact, more people have died for religious reasons than than any other. Sad but true, look into history, the Crusades, Holy wars, and many more. It is not just a few religious cults or sects that are guilty of this!

Second is money, and or power.

These are the two biggest reasons for the largest loss of human life on the planet in recorded history.

Having known wealthy people, they are just as crazy as any religious fanatic I've met, in that they feel their money makes them better than any one else, and their quest for ever more justifies destroying the environment and anyone's life in order to gain as much as possible. Very sad!

If religion did not teach that their followers were chosen, special, or different and any other group lesser by some label. If they taught that all life is precious and special and just needs to be brought along with a peaceful guidance to be part of society. If they taught that all beliefs are equal, and that all beliefs are acceptable and in harmony with god. Then we would not even be having this exchange of ideas here would we?

I would have nothing to say about it, because there would be nothing to speak about.

I didn't create history, I didn't create religions, I merely made an honest assessment of their beliefs and actions throughout history.

If you call that hating religion, than so be it.

I'm not the one killing people because my beliefs dictate that they deserve to die because they are breaking one of my laws.

I'm simply pointing out that it happens on planet earth, and as long as it does there will never be peace.

How that equates to religion hating I don't know?
loremar
Nameless wrote:
The vast, vast majority of theists are entirely and demonstrably capable of being pleasant, peaceful and well-adjusted human beings.

We're talking about religion per se. Racists can be demonstrably peaceful, but we can't deny that racism is such a huge issue against peace. In fact, in some cases it gets along with religion very well, in threatening peace.

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and the reproduction of our race ... so that our people may mature for the fulfilment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. ... Peoples that bastardize themselves, or let themselves be bastardized, sin against the will of eternal Providence." - Hitler




Why do you have so much against people talking about against religion? Would you have any problem if they talk about against racism or politics? People here want to talk about against religion, so let them talk.

Quote:
Why does every single topic in this forum have to turn into a major hate-on for religion?

Well, you certainly miss the posts where people talk about things, not related to religion. But isn't this Philosophy and Religion forum? It's perfectly logical to see a vast majority of posts about religion. And not all people are pro-religion.
alekazam
we see people that make more money then us everyday.
we see people that make less money.
i dont see why life is this way.
i believe everyone is equal.
were all functioning.
we all have different traits,
but were all equal.
so one person shouldnt have to
work there ass off for a shit paycheck
to pay for thier overpriced homes,while there are
other equals making more money.
everyone is on a race to the top.
that is whats going on in life.a greed full game.
this is because of political direction.
i say of course world peace is possible.
but not while life is consisting of money,power,and class.
life is about people and who they are as people,and what they want to
succeed in with thier life.
GuidanceReader
I think the world would unite only if there were a common enemy (i.e. aliens)... but that would only be temporary.
Nameless
GuidanceReader wrote:
I think the world would unite only if there were a common enemy (i.e. aliens)... but that would only be temporary.

You're not really achieving world peace if you have to trade up for galaxy wars. Laughing
deanhills
As long as we are a species prone on survival and competing all of the time we probably would have to work at being at peace with one another. Working on peace is probably against the physical nature of our survival in a world with limited resources.
ateawonton
we just have to stop being so selfish
nickfyoung
No one has mentioned the key, I think, to world non peace and that is Israel. There are many countries near by to Israel who are intent on wiping Israel off the map. Some of them actively preach Israel hate so that it becomes an ideology and ingrained in the brains of children as they are growing up. Israel is now on the brink of a preemptive strike to prevent one of these countries developing nuclear weapons because they are sure that they will be the first target. Other countries support Israel which brings the rest of the world into constant conflict. So there will never be peace while there is this hate for Israel and Israel has to continually defend itself.
Possum
A good step towards world peace would not paying your tax as your tax is almost always used against you eventually..
Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
Which messenger do you use?
IRAN'S MILITANT STUDENTS TO SEIZE BRITISH EMBASSY
Peace through antialiasing
Weapons of peace.
[official] The Meaning of life
Friendship between men and women
Pope insults Muslims?
Threat to world peace - Bin Laben and Bush on Top
How to make peace in the world?
Tony Blair
Iran to meet with World Leaders
The matter of world peace
Football/Soccer:-Is it the most peace preserving thing?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.