I feel like I've just watched a snippet of an episode of Noein . Just like my earlier discussion with Wreybie I think we've reached the same conclusion but I was thrown off by some of the word usage (I tend not to use fancy words like exoteric existance) and argued the same point from a slightly different perspective. Very well written response by the way.We should have a thread for discussing reality XD (Or have we already had one of those?).
Haha yeah. Sometimes the best discussions, though, are the ones with people who actually share your logic. We should have some sort of philosophy/discussing reality section.
The way to world peace is trade. Like you have corn do you want to trade that corn for these oranges. The way to world peace is through trade.
We already have trade. Its called economics. Sure we substitute the all mighty dollar for that there orange but the concept is the same. We could get rid of "currency" but it really won't change anything. People will just judge wealth by a different standard. Example: I got more oranges than you ! A lot more. So while you're sitting there in your little shack with that one piece of corn, I've got a bigger house more corn, and plenty of oranges to spare. We have trade now and I don't think its done anything to foster peace. A great many of histories most violent conflicts have been fought for wealth or for resources. We can invade a country for all the money it brings in, or all those oranges (Personally I'd rather invade Honduras. Get a whole lot of bannanas XD). Trade is nothing more than the mutual exchange of items of value. Currency started out as nothing more than pieces of pretty metal that everyone knew was rare and was nice. So if a guy had lots of oranges and could spare a few for a nice pice of silver or so he would trade for it and that guy who mined the silver would get fed. Times goes on and eventually precious metals become the standard by which value is determined and currency is born. Eventually though someone seemed to get that stupid idea that a bar of gold might be worth 345 little pieces of paper (I think he pulled the math out of his butt though ). We have trade now. World peace isn't brought in by it.
Trade between countries does bring about more peace. Look at France and Britain. They were pretty much at war for about three hundred years. Now they are allies cause they can profit from each other.
That is more the result of social change that trade. Prior to WWI Britain and France were still at each other's throats. Then Germany and Austria start the war, France joins in to fight against them, and Britain makes a a political choice to side with France (Which i'll add screwed Germany and Austria very badly as they had thought Britain would sit back and let its biggest rival get pummeled into submission). Even after WWI, Britain and France were still to some degree at odds but were much more afraid of Germany at the time. The alliance was politically charged not economically. The current relationship is an extension of that (Ironic that a war actually brought to big rivals together now that I think of it). The EU is a much better example of trade fostering peace but again, the EU was only possible with the various social changes of Europe that happened in the later half of the 20th century. Trade can help or hurt. The South in the US Civil War was partially screwed by trade. Economic differences were why they started the war with the North. No it was not slavery (Slavery was just a rally call to get the common men to support the split from the Union, after all they were the have nots why would they care about the weathy's economic position?). Trade is a neutral factor. Trade is nothing more than the mutual exchange of items of value. Wars have started plenty of times over it and there have been plenty of times that it has helped foster peace. It depends on how its used but its hardly the way to world peace. The world lacks the necessary social change for world peace to be a possibility right now. I'd call the EU a good stepping stone though. PS: Also if it would benefet France to destroy Britain and take the whole place over (Thus gaining all their resources without having to trade for them), all they would need was the right crazy guy in power to do the job XD and vice versa.
I agree with this. I don't think things can bring about world peace, only people changing can. It's like that saying 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'. Unless a social group changes its attitude or outlook on things nothing is going to become more peaceful, no matter how much 'butter' you slab on top of it.
We live in a global economy of interdependence among industrial nations. Wars have not stopped. Following deductive reasoning, if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. The conclusion is not. Despite the fact that the United States economy is dependent on foreign oil, we have been mired in war for the last 6 years. Trade with the oil cornucopia that is this region did not dissuade America from war... War has been waged since the dawn of civilization. It is perpetual and ubiquitous. The only possibility I see for "peace" is complete submission to an omnipotent multilateral entity--a global totalitarian system of government. Even this offers no promises. Furthermore, international interdependency (a product of trade) often compels countries to seek self-sufficiency (energy independence is the battle cry of both candidates in the United States Presidential Election at current).
Which by a certain irony leads to war itself. A nation cannot become independent because no nation can produce everything it needs on its own. If said nation doesn't want to be subject to foreign trade its only option is to invade and take the resources it can't make on its own. Canada makes a lot of pharmesuticals. Guess if the US wants to meet its pharmacy needs and be trade independent we're just gonna have to invade Canada XD. Life is a vicious cycle...
Actually, the Canadians already have a plan to pre-emptively invade the U.S. and subjucate us all. They told me.
Yep. The only way for actual world peace will be a world wide social change that drastically alters the current political system the world runs on. It would also require a great deal of cultural acceptance and the abandonment of long held grudges (N and S Korea, USA and USSR, etc.). Its something that just isn't happening right now and may indeed never happen. Human beings are social creatures but we're equally anti-social and usually only associate with like minded or similar peers. Our natural ability to organize and associate that which is alike and seperate that which is not (the logical reasoning that is source of much of our technological and philisophical development) is what's maintaining the status quo that has existed since the dawn of civilization.
It would naive to suggest, in a world composed of a wide assortment of conflicting philosophies, religion, and political views, that dispute and strife will never arise. It is a simple fact that discord will often spawn from these international incongruities. Trade does not always ameliorate this situation. When interdependency and tension coalesce, the result is fear. Fear can catalyze the most rational of men into caprice. How many wars have been caused by fear? The Vietnam War was waged on the basis of the fear of the spread of communism. The Cold War burgeoned from the spore of fear. The war in Afghanistan is sustained by the fear of terror. Likewise, international differences create fear, which is often interpreted as anger or hate. International differences cannot be eradicated, so the only other option would be the destruction of fear. The most primitive of human emotions. The survival mechanism of species across the animal kingdom. The end of war necessitates morphing the very nature of man (I use "man" in an androgynous sense), or at least overcoming it...
