World Peace

[washuguy]

The never ending pursuit (What little of it is left anyway). You hear about or see essays based on the topic that get stuck on a parents refrigerator door, or a model gets these type questions in a beauty pagent... But... Is this just a pipe dream, or are we being slack in our "efforts"? Do you think world peace is a realistic goal for the future? Why or why not? And if you vote yes, or no, what will it take to get there? What's wrong, what are we missing?

[Griffin]

Oh, you mean New World Order?

[LK1721]

I don't think it is REALLY possible, simply because it is human nature to fight with one another. We are are naturally arrogant and hellbent on being right, thus there are always conflicting interests of groups which result in wars. That is what I think, anyway.

[washuguy]

Oh, you mean New World Order?

Don't get me started bro... LOL

[Griffin]

Don't get me started bro... LOL

Ok, I won't. lmao

[blace]

I don't think it is REALLY possible, simply because it is human nature to fight with one another. We are are naturally arrogant and hellbent on being right, thus there are always conflicting interests of groups which result in wars. That is what I think, anyway.

There are about 7 billion people on this planet and each one with his and her own views and opinions. There is also religion which influences others and sways ones minds. There's also the whole race factor and the ever present bully.

So a pipe dream? Most definately is.

[washuguy]

I don't think it is REALLY possible, simply because it is human nature to fight with one another. We are are naturally arrogant and hellbent on being right, thus there are always conflicting interests of groups which result in wars. That is what I think, anyway.

I agree... Even with all the differences, I think we can still live at peace, but again, it's in the human nature to fight and enter conflict, rather than reason and compromise. Even that can be corrected, but most people aren't even aware of the problem. Society is on a downward slope, and it's easier going down than up, and people because of fear, pride, hate, won't be willing to change, so I think world peace is unobtainable by human means.

[NoiseHERO]

Only voted yes because WATCHMEN!(And 9/11)

Getting people all riled up and lovey dovey with a mutual enemy works.

Just that it won't last that long.

[Neo Flint]

I don't think it is REALLY possible, simply because it is human nature to fight with one another. We are are naturally arrogant and hellbent on being right, thus there are always conflicting interests of groups which result in wars. That is what I think, anyway.

^ This.

I might sound a little psychotic but personally, "True" peace seems like it'll make everything less exiting. I'm not too down with people killing themselves over something stupid, but at the same time though, it'll giving some people a reason not to get out of bed in the morning. Some people need excitement. It's part of the reason why people became firemen or policemen, or join the army.

Besides, their are some more people out there that would rather go down fighting. Myself including... if I'm gonna die that is, lol

[Randomness]

World peace is easy. Invent FTL.

[BIG OLAF]

As long as two people are left alive in the world, "peace" will never last, even if (by some miracle) attained.

[Xefi]

i know there's a "World Peace" in the Laker's team! :cat:

[washuguy]

Only voted yes because WATCHMEN!(And 9/11)

Getting people all riled up and lovey dovey with a mutual enemy works.

Just that it won't last that long.

I like the unity going on there, but even with that if everything gets fixed, we'll still have other problems. Racism, choice in government, currency, morality, principles, food, etc. So yeah... It won't last forever. I hear there's breakdowns within that whole movement anyways.

[Akaimizu]

In true 2 frame form.

Hmph! (Taking a swig from a cigarette).

2nd frame: (blows smoke while an image of a young girl slowly zooms in)
I'll do it.......for Paz!

My real opinion on it is that it's pretty unattainable....but it is approachable. Maintaining as much peace as possible takes a lot of work to maintain...and there will be setbacks. I think the most important thing is that the attempt, in some way shape or form, is never abandoned.

[Kyrith_Ranger_Pso]

no, morals are too fickle and there'll always be an extremist, a misunderstanding, or a corrupt government to set something off

[Reksanden]

As long as two people are left alive in the world, "peace" will never last, even if (by some miracle) attained.

Depends on the two people.

[Randomness]

As long as two people are left alive in the world, "peace" will never last, even if (by some miracle) attained.

And that is why we simply need to have multiple worlds. Easy.

[BIG OLAF]

Depends on the two people.

No, it doesn't. Given a certain amount of time, any two people will combat each other somehow, be it physically or psychologically. Human nature.

[GCoffee]

No, it doesn't. Given a certain amount of time, any two people will combat each other somehow, be it physically or psychologically. Human nature.

Wrong. The human is a gregarious animal. We need at least one companion, and no human is as stupid as to intentionally push away even his or her list straw.

If it were 3 people, however, there might be room for the combat you mentioned.

[Blue-Hawk]

Eliminate these three things, in this specific order, and you MIGHT get one step slocer to world peace.
1- Religion.
2- Racism.
3- Money.

[Tetsaru]

Eliminate these three things, in this specific order, and you MIGHT get one step slocer to world peace.
1- Religion.
2- Racism.
3- Money.

This, plus maybe a government system that isn't retarded and corrupt.

As far as right now though, I think world tolerance would be a better word.

[Angelo]

Hmm.

You guys.

[washuguy]

Eliminate these three things, in this specific order, and you MIGHT get one step slocer to world peace.
1- Religion.
2- Racism.
3- Money.

Hmmmmmm... I agree... And I think you phrased it well, MIGHT get closer, but I'll say false religion is the problem rather than religion itself. Remove False religion, racism, and money and you get a STEP closer. After that you still need to deal with morality, principles, establish boundaries, deal with greed and internal human issues. Cause the things that prevent us from having world peace are internal as well as external. We have PLENTY of room on the planet, plenty of resources, and enough hands and brain power to work the land. But somebody ALWAYS has to mess stuff up.

[washuguy]

This, plus maybe a government system that isn't retarded and corrupt.

As far as right now though, I think world tolerance would be a better word.

Amen, Preach. This would help a lot. A REAL government that's really for the people and looks out for everyone well being regardless of poor or rich, bond or free. A government that's fair and upholds rights, based on truth and justice.

[washuguy]

no, morals are too fickle and there'll always be an extremist, a misunderstanding, or a corrupt government to set something off

But that's where education comes into play. If we're taught the right way to do things, and taught proper balance, then there's little to no room for extremism and misunderstanding. PLUS, we need the right people running the government, or we're in trouble. Wise, loving, caring, real individuals that don't care about money or personal gain.

[Orange_Coconut]

One question: What is "false religion"? Would you clarify and give examples? I am not entirely sure what would be considered as a "false religion" as opposed to one that is not false. Not saying that religions themselves are all false, or that none of them are, but I would like to see what it is that you are trying to say so I can get a better idea of how you suggest to theoretically mend a problem such as the lack of world peace.

[Wayu]

http://losthatsportsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/metta-world-peace.jpg

Been there, done that. :3

-Wayu

[FOkyasuta]

Eliminate these three things, in this specific order, and you MIGHT get one step closer to world peace.
1- Religion.
2- Racism.
3- Money.

Amen to that brother. But its human nature, as that one guy said. Its like a stride for power and you know what happens to people when they get it.

*cough*corruptionofthebrain*cough*

Sure some can handle it while others cant but they all get the same result, wither Male or Female.

While World Peace is obtainable, but it only takes a few to fuck it up for everyone.

-Yasu

[Split]

Why are "maybe" and "on the fence" two different options?

Edit: maybe fence

[Sinue_v2]

Eliminate these three things, in this specific order, and you MIGHT get one step slocer to world peace.
1- Religion.
2- Racism.
3- Money.

1. Religion is arbitrary. It is only one manifestation of a larger underlying phenomena which is punctuated by fundamentalism. Fundamentalism can manifest in other fields of human thought, such as political ideologies, and I think it ultimately stems from our sense of morality concerning purity and sanctity.

2. Racism is an artifact of our minds being unable to process and conceptualize more than a few dozen individuals without creating subgroups to compress generalized behavioral tendencies and associate them with sensory cues. We're still very tribal creatures which rely on small knit communities helping each other to succeed in goals. We categorize in-group and out-group based on shared characteristics... interests, physical traits, culture, language, etc. Removing race out of the equation will not stop bigotry against other cultures, sexualities, ideologies, etc.

3. Money is simply a high level abstraction for resources which gives liquidity to trade and management. We don't need money, but we do need resources in order to live. Remove money, and people will still kill and oppress others in an attempt to control and secure resources. It's inescapable.

So, if we need to eliminate those three to achieve world peace, and they are thus intractable, then world peace is also unattainable.

**Edit: Added my own thoughts on the viability of world peace, and the role globalization plays in promoting it.
[spoiler-box](To clarify, I was just playing with the premise given. I don't actually believe that world peace is, at least in a practical fashion, unobtainable. I do think that one of the key factors in obtaining it will be continued globalization. Most people see that as a dirty word, but by making our continued prosperity contingent on the prosperity of other nations we do business with... and them likewise with us... we substantially decrease the risk of major wars breaking out. Further, as industrialization spreads throughout developing nations, local governments become highly vested in continuing social order and building the infrastructure needed to support that industry. Health care, law enforcement, roads & transport, telecommunications, social welfare programs, etc. The decrease in agricultural production, in turn, forces them to rely more on imports of food and outside resources as well, which creates demand in undeveloped nations to cheaply supply resources the newly industrialized nations no longer produce as much of. Third world nations which previously had no major exports have an opportunity to fill that vacuum, and are further encouraged to stabilize their governments, create jobs, and set up steady trade relations. While there is still a major disparity in wealth distribution, it's encouraging to note that global wage indexes have been increasing at a rate of about 1.9% per year on average for the last three decades IIRC.

The downside to this, however, is that the more couplings nations and economies build between each other - we also increase the severity of a potential systemic collapse. If one market feels a jitter, it's effects will reverberate worldwide... which was made explicitly obvious to everyone after the financial meltdown a few years back. The outsourcing of US Manufacturing jobs has taken a huge toll on the lower and middle class families as well. In a truly globalized world, one would simply follow the job as one does a plant moving to the next state... albeit, having to compete with the locals on wages and working conditions. This isn't practical in a world where landmasses are still carved up into sovereign nation-states that limit the free migration of workers.

Globalization is not some boogeyman of the G20 elites, and it's done a lot of good in the world from a global perspective... and I think has done more to stop war and ease crushing poverty than any other initiative. It's a continual process, however, and it's not without it's negative ramifications, pitfalls, and injustices that must be dealt with as they arise. It won't bring world peace, but it will help smooth the road to that goal if properly managed.)[/spoiler-box]

[hbmizzle10]

ha ha ha. i like ur positivity washuguy. its rare to met someone like that now a days. although the idea of world peace is honorable in its own right, i believe its impossible to obtain forever. why you ask? well for one when there is one person doing good, there is one person doing bad. in that respect, when there is light there will always be darkness. one cannot exist without the other. however it is possible for people to obtain it albeit it temporarily......

[Randomness]

ha ha ha. i like ur positivity washuguy. its rare to met someone like that now a days. although the idea of world peace is honorable in its own right, i believe its impossible to obtain forever. why you ask? well for one when there is one person doing good, there is one person doing bad. in that respect, when there is light there will always be darkness. one cannot exist without the other. however it is possible for people to obtain it albeit it temporarily......

Actually, light exists just fine without darkness.

[Angelo]

Actually, light exists just fine without darkness.

But the concepts of light and dark themselves are entirely subjective.

I personally see the light in the passion, and even rage that human beings act on one another. It's what makes us human, and in moderation is healthy. To create the modern idea of a 'utopia' is actually very oppressive to the human psyche, in fact even now, the closer we come to that vision the more anxiety, dysfunction, and mental instability we see in our generation.

The problem isn't the quarrels themselves, it's the dishonor, exploitation, and unbalance that comes with it. Passion without honor is completely useless, but the traditional concepts of honor have been muddled and relabeled with the contexts of liberties that those in power see fit for the most gain.

I am anti-war because in this day and age they're not fought for the cause of the individual, and the true reasons are cloaked in smoke and garbed meticulously to rally favor. However, I am anti-peace, because each individual should feel strongly for what they believe in, and if it conflicts with the opposition, whether it be matters of love, family, or justice, they should be ready to fight and defend their own personal code of honor, not the concept of honor fed to them by a puppetmaster. To stifle that desire is a disgrace to what makes us human, and breeds discontentment.

I would never trade my passionate heart for utopia, and I hope others would feel the same.

[NoiseHERO]

Actually, light exists just fine without darkness.

Yeah, when there's nothing in it to make shadows.

/implies 56748935 metaphors

[johnwolf]

you want peace? go to north korea, NO REALY. no fighting, no crime, it's a paridise there as long as you don't question your ruler. seriously, dictatorship is wrong and the peace they have is false. true peace comes from people getting along even with their different opinions. if greed and pride where let go, there would a chance at peace.

[Ghost Inside]

Kill everyone → Peace

Problem solved! ^^

[AsuravonD]

It'll be easier and interesting to enact Lelouch's plan from Code Geass lol
People are different with their own plans, perceptions and goals...it hard to get someone to acknowledge that we're all one and the same...so doing that for the world is next to impossible...
So shaking the world itself seems more interesting imo

[Randomness]

Let me put it this way - Earth has finite resources. Long term world peace isn't possible if we can't get past Earth to harvest resources. The asteroid belt and Mars are logical starting points for that, but we really, really need to be able to live somewhere other than Earth or we're screwed by the Law of Large Numbers and catastrophic disasters like dinosaur killers.

[Akaimizu]

Earth? World Shaking? Hmmm. I smell a Sailor Moon episode here. :)

[Ghost Inside]

Earth? World Shaking? Hmmm. I smell a Sailor Moon episode here. :)
Ooo... Sailor Moon! ★_★
I never liked Uranus much though.

I think this one's for Hotaru-chan! ♥

*ahem*
*puts away fangirl-ness* <_<

I didn't say anything! *hides*

[Sinue_v2]

Let me put it this way - Earth has finite resources. Long term world peace isn't possible if we can't get past Earth to harvest resources. The asteroid belt and Mars are logical starting points for that, but we really, really need to be able to live somewhere other than Earth or we're screwed by the Law of Large Numbers and catastrophic disasters like dinosaur killers.

Beyond that, as agricultural innovations continue to produce increasingly higher yields per man-hour - (among other factors) the last major rural industries are going further shift more and more to processing and distribution. Reuters reports that the 2010 US census reveals rural America now makes up just 15% of the population; the lowest it's ever been. If 85% of America lives in urbanized areas, then it seems that overpopulation may still be an issue despite having "plenty of space" as suggested by someone earlier. The jobs and support programs are in the mid-to-highly dense population centers. Even though cities can expand and develop further out, it can still creates pockets of local overpopulation.

If that's the case, then what you think of John B. Calhoun "Mouse Utopia" experiments? Nearly all of the experiments he ran concluded with societal collapse marked by violence, extremes of hyper/asexual behavior, fatal neglect of offspring, disease and obesity... etc. Their population boomed and yet still imploded despite having been provided with unlimited resources. It's an interesting finding at least that suggests that simply solving our resource problems (which we have to do) may not mean all that much in the long run. Of course, mice "societies" and human societies are very different phenomena, and there may be little to no analogous mechanisms at work for us. Or perhaps we are susceptible to the same mechanisms, but in our particular expression having qualities unique to us that allow us to mitigate or avoid a similar catastrophe.

Still, It doesn't bode well for the idea of an attainable utopia.


I guess in the long run, humanity is doomed regardless. If we don't make it to the stars and colonize, we run the risk of one of those regularly occurring global catastrophes (or ourselves) taking us out. But if we do make it to the stars, then humanities population centers will be so isolated that we quickly won't be able to hold the genome together across the entire species. Humanity will proceed to diverge into multiple new species and societies mutually exclusive to one another. Darwin's finches on the galactic scale.

[Randomness]

But if we do make it to the stars, then humanities population centers will be so isolated that we quickly won't be able to hold the genome together across the entire species. Humanity will proceed to diverge into multiple new species and societies mutually exclusive to one another. Darwin's finches on the galactic scale.

I suppose that depends on how we make it to the stars. If someone does manage to cheat at relativity, we won't be horribly isolated (but we won't be close either)... but we'd certainly end up with some genetic drift... meh, hard to say.

If we don't find a way around relativity though, then yeah, absolutely - basically all interstellar travel would be by generation ship or stasis stuff at that point, so interstellar trade, etc. would be basically nonexistent.