Will World Peace Occur??

[Racoon]

Pipe Dream?

Beautiful fruition?

 

Will world peace occur?

Realistically and/or hopefully...

 

thoughts or No thoughts

[Drip Curl Magic]

I think nature is based on the balane of opposing forces. War is caused by these opposing forces. Humans have been at the top of the food chain for a very long time. Since there is no other creature to keep our population under control (with the exception of a few diseases which we have yet to come up with a cure for) We have balanced ourselves out by becoming our own worst enemy. War has got to be a form of population control. And I'm sure that if we evolve out of war, we'll end up inventing some new way to keep everything in order. The conscious being will always be bound under these laws.

 

People think of peace as a world where no one gets into any sort on conflict. Ick, how boring.

 

I think our world is already at peace. Nature is content with never being content.

 

We're just too selfish to see it.

[Queso]

peace is occuring all around,

[bpjg2fat]

VERY slowly

[Tormod]

I think not. There are, and always will be, to many differences in this world, and people will keep fighting for their agenda. Some people will always do that in a violent way, all the way up to national levels.

[Celeste]

I think not. There are, and always will be, to many differences in this world, and people will keep fighting for their agenda. Some people will always do that in a violent way, all the way up to national levels.

 

I completely agree with Tormod.

Just today I was thinking about my "day after Thanksgiving shopping."

I witnessed two physical brawls in 10 mins over something as nugacious as a small toy. As Tormod said, "people will keep fighting for their agenda."

Even when it comes to trivial things.

[Cedars]

One needs to define world peace. I assume you mean no declared war between any two (or more) governments in the world at the same time. Yes that is achievable.

 

Does this mean there will not be conflict? No. You have the factor of insurgency, civil war, politcal infighting, terrorism etc. What is going on in Dafur is an example. As I understand this conflict, there is no open declaration of war between governments, but many people are dying, and even more are fleeing from conflict. Should we allow terrorists to deny the world peace. By saying there is no world peace because of the actions of terrorists gives them a power I am not sure they should have. Should criminals have that power?

 

If you are going to expect world peace under the condition that no one anywhere worldwide is not going to be in conflict internally or externally (border, tribal, cultural, religious) fighting that results in death/displacement, then no. I do not think that will be possible as long as people have access to each other and hold an absolute idealism in any of the categories of culture, religion, politics, (and I am sure there are other idealism absolutes that can spark violence against people).

[Saitia]

Hello all,

 

If you are going to expect world peace under the condition that no one anywhere worldwide is not going to be in conflict internally or externally (border, tribal, cultural, religious) fighting that results in death/displacement, then no. I do not think that will be possible as long as people have access to each other and hold an absolute idealism in any of the categories of culture, religion, politics, (and I am sure there are other idealism absolutes that can spark violence against people).

 

It's hard to imagine a time, even in the distant future, that our world's nations can live in peace. Nevertheless, it will eventually happen, after tremendous changes occur in our collective attitudes about WAR. It would be helpful if we could begin to recognize that war is not a disease, but a symptom; a result. The real "disease" preventing world peace is the virus of national sovereignty.

 

We have proven many times over peace cannot be maintained by treaties, diplomacy, foreign policies, alliances, balances of power, or any other type of makeshift juggling with the sovereignties of nationalism. World law must come into being; and must be enforced by world government-- the sovereignty of all mankind.:eek_big:

 

Regards,

--Saitia

[pgrmdave]

World law must come into being; and must be enforced by world government-- the sovereignty of all mankind.

 

There is a conflict between what you say and what you hope to achieve - if the law must be enforced then that must mean that people are actively trying to break that law and thus the world is not peaceful.

[InfiniteNow]

If you do not believe it will occur, that will be enough to prevent it. It really is as simple as believing it to be possible and then proceeding to take steps toward that goal.

 

 

Please note, I am aware of the oversimplification of my statement, but I still stand by it's tone.

[Saitia]

Dear Dave?

 

 

QUOTE=pgrmdave]There is a conflict between what you say and what you hope to achieve - if the law must be enforced then that must mean that people are actively trying to break that law and thus the world is not peaceful.

 

It's not a wham, bam, done deal event. Nor does the advent of law make freewill disappear. World law, promulgated by world government, will not guarantee the immediate end of war or conflict.

 

The history of our own nation is a good example. We still had a civil war, despite the fact that the states surrendered their power to make war into the hands of the federal government. But when was the last time Wisconsin declared war on Illinois?

 

It does tend to work; and it will tend to work on a national level too, but it won't be perfect, and it won't happen in our lifetime; but it will eventually come to pass, and those who worked to bring it about across the generations will know it was worth it.

 

Regards,

--Saitia

[CraigD]

… if the law must be enforced then that must mean that people are actively trying to break that law and thus the world is not peaceful.

Perhaps we need to better define what we mean by “world peace”.

 

I propose that “world peace” is a state in which no sovereign state (government) sanctions violent conflict – war – with another. This definition includes conflicts over sovereignty, such as revolutions and civil wars, which in many cases include what has come to be called “terrorism”. It excludes unsanctioned violence by individuals, or violence sanctioned by groups that can’t be reasonably considered sovereign, such as family feuds and gangs “wars”, provided such violence is not officially or unofficially condoned by an actual sovereign.

 

By this definition, world peace is much more attainable. It’s wildly over-optimistic, I think, to expect that not even a few of billions of individual human beings will behave with passionate or calculated violence, but not that governments can be better behaved. It is not an a-historical state – although populations were much smaller then, prior to the 20th century, periods of years passed in which no recognized nation warred with another.

[Racoon]

Right CraigD.

 

What I meant by world peace is not that everybody hugs each other in the streets, and there is no suffering,

 

BUT that there are no International Wars or serious conflicts involving Sanctions, Force Intimidation and/or Bloodshed

 

????

Good points by everybody so far...

[Saitia]

Perhaps we need to better define what we mean by “world peace”.

 

I propose that “world peace” is a state in which no sovereign state (government) sanctions violent conflict – war – with another. This definition includes conflicts over sovereignty, such as revolutions and civil wars, which in many cases include what has come to be called “terrorism”. It excludes unsanctioned violence by individuals, or violence sanctioned by groups that can’t be reasonably considered sovereign, such as family feuds and gangs “wars”, provided such violence is not officially or unofficially condoned by an actual sovereign.

 

By this definition, world peace is much more attainable. It’s wildly over-optimistic, I think, to expect that not even a few of billions of individual human beings will behave with passionate or calculated violence, but not that governments can be better behaved. It is not an a-historical state – although populations were much smaller then, prior to the 20th century, periods of years passed in which no recognized nation warred with another.

 

Hi Craig,

 

That's a helpful distinction; "local" violence will long be dealt with by local government. But international violence will require effective global government, until all nations recognize ethically superior ways of dealing with conflict between nations.

 

Regards,

--Saitia

[InfiniteNow]

When I contemplate the term "world peace," for whatever reason it conjures up for me images of butterflies and clouds and water trickling. I sometimes wonder... :)

[Jay-qu]

I would love to think that one day everyone will see the light - but I dont see that happening, there will always be the few that want to go against the general current..

[Saitia]

I would love to think that one day everyone will see the light - but I dont see that happening, there will always be the few that want to go against the general current..

 

Jay-qu,

 

When all but those three have seen the light,

I say let'm fight the general current!

They'll soon be too exhausted to do anything

but go with the flow.:)

 

--Saitia