1. Lemex
    Offline

    Lemex That's Lord Lemex to you. Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10,507
    Likes Received:
    3,151
    Location:
    Northeast England

    World Peace?

    Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Lemex, Jun 28, 2008.

    Is it a dream, or is it a possibility?
    Is it an end? Or an essential part of mankinds future servival?

    Your thoughts?

    Me, I always opted for a single, world goverment, but how would this goverment be ran?

    I ask you. :p
     
  2. Maxie Boi
    Offline

    Maxie Boi Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Above Heaven, but Below Hell.
    Depends on your definition of peace. Do you count just no wars between countries as peace?

    I don't think it will ever happen, there will always be fighting, it is human nature. Even if the world is under one rule, there will always be a group who think they can do it better, and will try to take over. Even if there is not, there will still be fighting, gangs will still exist, and they will still fight over 'territory.'
     
  3. Neidermeyer
    Offline

    Neidermeyer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Indiana
    Well...the noble concept of world peace. A Utopia, if you will. It is a practically inconceivable notion, and one that I do not consider to be a possibility for one fact alone; The world is populated with people. I could go on for hours talking about the many merits and flaws of humanity, but I believe we are all very familiar with them as it is.

    This does not mean that we should not strive for it, as it is the journey that strengthens our resolve to become better people. To live a good life. These terms, are however, relative. What one group of people considers good, another considers it taboo, or even flat out evil. That's why I do not believe one world government would ever work. People are inherently too different and the cultures are too established at this point.

    We see how much the U.N. is unable to accomplish on its own (although this does not go to say that it does nothing), so the only pragmatic solution is to strengthen peaceful ties between all nations of the world.

    Also, The countries that lie in the upper echelon of quality of life would have to sacrifice for the betterment of humankind, and I don't ever see that happening, sadly. I guess this questions will tell you whether or not you are a realist or an idealist.
     
  4. Kratos
    Offline

    Kratos Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    14
    Location:
    Maryland, United States
    Sadly, I don't think it's possible without a totalitarian government, and that would be ruled by violence and fear, which would not be peace at all.
     
  5. mammamaia
    Offline

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,316
    Likes Received:
    1,014
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    ...the former, sad to say, as long as mankind is in charge of things [or thinks it is]...

    ...meaning what?... how can 'world peace' be an end of anything?

    ...if it were essential, it would have either been arrived at by now or mankind would be extinct... since it's an impossible dream, as long as humans are the dominant species on the planet, the question is moot, imo...

    ...see above... bottom line: homo sapiens sapiens may be a 'knowing' species, but it's far from 'wise'... and aggression and violent behavior is too much a part of the male half, at least, to ever allow the entire species to become peace-loving/making... and as long as there are some who are not, 'world peace' will remain a dream...

    ...if there ever was one, it would no doubt be run by a ruthless dictator/junta... there would be no other way to control an entire planet's population... even if some semblance of a 'peaceful' world could be attained, any ruling entity would have to resort to some level of violence to keep it that way, wouldn't it?... which would then make it not a peaceful world... dream on!
     
  6. Banzai
    Offline

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,871
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Democracy, in my opinion, doesn't work. It has a single fatal flaw, similar to communism, except where communism assumes people are fundamentally kind and benevolent (which they aren't), democracy assumes they are smart (which they aren't).

    People selecting their own leaders is a good idea in principle, but sooner or later people lose focus on the policies, and instead focus on the character of the individual leader (look at the Brown vs. Cameron, Obama vs. Hillary examples). That, and even when they're looking at the policies, most people don't know what's good for them, and they can be manipulated very easily. Hitler did it very easily, and others have done the same.

    In my opinion, a benevolent dictatorship would be the ideal form of governence. But as Maia said, it presents it's own problems. So in conclusion, humanity is doomed, and we should give up now :D
     
  7. WAN73D
    Offline

    WAN73D Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The space between days
    When "world peace" is achieved, all the humans will be gone. Thus, it is the end of humanity that defines peace.
     
  8. Neidermeyer
    Offline

    Neidermeyer Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    Indiana
    Sadly, I believe this to be true.
     
  9. Banzai
    Offline

    Banzai One-time Mod, but on the road to recovery Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    12,871
    Likes Received:
    150
    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Right then. Genocide of the human race it is.
     
  10. Torana
    Offline

    Torana Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    9,659
    Likes Received:
    128
    I agree with maia. World Peace is unattainable. We are not a peaceful race.

    Sorry, but for this to be possible, there would be a lot of blood shed in many countries. It isn't possible. It'll never happen.

    Banzai. Genocide it is!
     
  11. adamant
    Offline

    adamant Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    The Comatorium
    There will not be world peace when humanity is gone. While we may not have penguins developing nuclear weapons against turtles, or a monkey Hitler proclaiming "Damn those dirty apes!" to a crowd of hailing uniformed onlookers, there will still be strife, there will still be competition.

    If you really want peace, find a way to get to the moon... just make sure you're at peace with yourself.


    ETA: Specicide. Genocide would just be another war. However, either would probably lead to a rapid depletion of resources, causing more fighting between the remaining life.
     
  12. WAN73D
    Offline

    WAN73D Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The space between days
    Hmm...he speaks truth. Time for a nuclear holocaust. Leave the world for the cockroaches...they seem to get along alright.
     
  13. Shadow Dragon
    Offline

    Shadow Dragon Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,483
    Likes Received:
    26
    Location:
    In the land of the gods
    Humans are naturally territorial and aggressive animals. There will always be groups of people fighting over power, wealth, resources and land. Even if there was one goverment that ruled the world, there would be resistance groups, so there would still be bloodshed.
     
  14. Vertz
    Offline

    Vertz Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM/ Greensboro, NC
    I must be the only person here who actually thinks it's possible :p

    There's no quick fix for world peace. Yes, people are violent and territorial. Yes, people are, fairly often, less than intelligent. However, we can make choices. We can chose peace in our own lives. We can chose to attempt to work things out before we declare war. We can work on our problems over time -- we won't fix everything in one monumental instant. I'm choosing to cultivate peace in my own life and try to make the world around me a little better.

    Maybe I'm too much of an idealist. If so, that doesn't really bother me. I'm leading the life I want to live, and I'm trying to spread peace as much as I can. I certainly hope things can change on a global scale -- I even hope for that in my lifetime. We'll see. If nothing else, I'll have made a choice.
     
  15. Cogito
    Offline

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    35,935
    Likes Received:
    2,043
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Conflict is a natural product of interacting beings. As long as there are resources in demand, as long as there are differing priorities, there will be conflict. The lesser of the importances of the core element of the conflict to the participance will determine the intensity of the conflict; the lesser value being what determines how readily one party will relinguish control to the other party.

    The absence of confict correlates very closely with the absence of life.
     
  16. Vertz
    Offline

    Vertz Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM/ Greensboro, NC
    True. Fair points. However, conflict does NOT equal violence. Small arguments are conflicts. We don't really smile on punching someone over a small issue. We don't always need to go to war to solve issues.
     
  17. Slippery
    Offline

    Slippery Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    237
    Likes Received:
    0
    The world was not peaceful before humans came, and it will not be peaceful after we are gone. I can't think of a single form of life on this planet that is completely peaceful.

    Bulls have horns even though they eat grass.

    Deer have razor sharp hooves.

    Even the grass in your lawn will extend its roots out to choke away other plant life if you allow it.
     
  18. adamant
    Offline

    adamant Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    The Comatorium
    Vertz,

    Assume there are 600 people on the Earth, and we only have enough food and water to support 500. Are you saying that you would voluntarily die in order for someone else to live and to avoid violent conflict? I don't believe the other 99 will go down without putting up a fight -- it's the antithesis of our nature.
     
  19. Vertz
    Offline

    Vertz Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM/ Greensboro, NC
    Notice that I said "We don't always need to go to war to solve issues." Sometimes war may be the best answer. In the case of Hitler in WWII, I say war was necessary. But not always...

    To your question, yes, I would voluntarily die if the choice were between dying or killing. That's my choice to make. However, there are other options. If we rationed food enough (leading, unfortunately, to some undernourishment in all people) we may be able to work out a way to get more food in the future. A hypothetical question such as yours denies that any other choices exist. It's like asking a pacifist whether they would run over a baby or a cow if they couldn't stop their car. They may very well choose to hit a tree instead and die in the process, but the question denies that possibility.

    Where the world stands now, I seriously think we can choose peace. I think we need to choose peace to keep going as a species. I'm not saying it's easy or that we will stop all violence in an instant. It's just a road I'm choosing to walk.
     
  20. BatCountry
    Offline

    BatCountry Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    but i would imagine there would always be someone that wouldn't agree to, and being greedy, that person might steal some of the food, leading him to being nourished and everyone else to be very undernourished, and then, after the other people find out, they would be pretty mad, leading to probably a massive fight in which people would die in.

    and i don't believe we can ever have world peace, and well, America is obviously not the most liked country right now, and many people would try to attack America. Sunnis and Shiites, you wouldn't find world peace there, and many people are racist leading them to hate Jews, African Americans, Asians, etc. That's why we're human, we have the freedom to think, even if thinking may lead to another World War.
     
  21. Domoviye
    Offline

    Domoviye Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    1,369
    Likes Received:
    21
    Location:
    Proud Canadian. Currently teaching in Nanjing, Chi
    I'm going with Adamant here. You want total world peace blaze the surface with nuclear fire until there isn't a single life form left in existence.
    The peace of the grave is still peace.
     
  22. Vertz
    Offline

    Vertz Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM/ Greensboro, NC
    Yes, someone (or several people) may choose that path. We could deal with it in better ways than trying to kill said person. Since both of you seem so hell bent on having loads of people die in this example no matter what, my hypothetical choice doesn't really matter a whole lot. I'm more concerned about dealing with current issues than dealing with "what if" scenarios where my choice doesn't mean jack.

    You're right. People do have the freedom to think and choose. That's why I'm choosing my path and you're choosing yours. Because of that, I'm not going to convince anyone that I'm right if we're all so set in our ideas. But I can disagree.

    You're putting a very static view of the world out there. Opinions, people, anything can and most likely will change. That's why I'm saying we won't solve every issue instantaneously. It will take time. I'm not looking at this as "World Peace NOW!" I see it more as a path to walk which may eventually lead to a great decrease in violent conflict. If people started that now, today, we could make a difference. If not, then we will stay on the same path of violence. Personally, I'm taking a chance on the possibility of change.

    I'm stepping out of this one for a while. I've stated what I believe, and I need to get ready to travel. I'll check back in on this when I finish working in Colorado (I'm disappearing for a month and some). This is an interesting argument, and I'd like to see where this goes.
     
  23. witch wyzwurd
    Offline

    witch wyzwurd Contributing Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Racine, Wisconsin
    Is Human peace possible? Yes
    Is it probable today? No
    Is it possible in the future? Yes

    The problem is that Human Peace is a frame of mind. The ability to conceive of oneself doing actions that do not destroy others actions and following through with them (read Finite and Infinite Games to establish a foundation of what Evil is). As is witnessed by the response of the majority of people in this thread, many people hold on to the fact that self-destruction is the most likely happening; therefore, act upon that way of thinking. Several pathways need to be taken to promote Human Peace, but these pathways are very possible, and, honestly, very easy.

    World government is not going to solve this issue. Do you usually see neighbors on your street blowing each other up? Starting wars that massacre thousands of people? No. That is governments and like-minded factions who cause these problems. Governments are gangs! For some reason, (mind-control), people cry to their governments for solutions, as if Government is some huggable, fluffly, loving beast that just can't enough of helping their citizens out. Government isn't mommy or daddy. Human Peace is achieved at the individual level, and when enough individuals harness its energy, governments will be snuffed out.

    (And I have to add: I find it amusing that, before me, the only person here making it obvious they like Heavy Metal is the one who has the loudest voice for peace. It must be the music! :p)
     
  24. adamant
    Offline

    adamant Contributing Member Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,087
    Likes Received:
    31
    Location:
    The Comatorium
    I'm not hellbent on having people die, but I'm certain it will happen. My hypothetical was simply to understand whether you would die in order to avoid conflict. The alternatives weren't important to me, which is why they were not included -- if you were willing to die, I could figure you'd be willing to live with malnourishment.

    How would those that transcend the law be dealt with in your peaceful society?

    Conditions would need to be nearly equivalent for all people, or countries will need to rely on one another so heavily that they cannot risk a war. This would occur either by enough people dying so we have adequate resources, finding more resources, or through sharing of resources to quell violent competition. In addition, each would need to have shared technology for defense systems that were each similarly capable.

    For your view of peace to work, I believe there would have to be many wars. Resources are disproportional, and I don't think most people will be willing to share their wealth of their own accord. Look at the ongoing immigration issues. How many years do you think it would take for the Middle East and Venezuela to give us petroleum?

    Business people, for example, know the laws that legally limit their actions, yet still break laws. They use practices that damage the Earth for less production costs. Since you believe you can train new generations, how would that be structured in order to avoid such occurrences?
     

Share This Page