I want World Peace. Yes/No?

[freeztar]

You're far too kind!

 

In the context of this thread, I do not believe there is such a thing.

[DougF]

Good Call freeztar,

I think that the thought of world peace scares a lot of people, I mean think about it there are a lot of civilizations out there that have been at war for a very long time, as in it's all they know!

 

Now we've got to get them to drop there guns and grab a water hose,

 

not an easy job!

 

 

I think it all starts one word at a time.

 

"The pen is mightier then the sword"

[REASON]

The question here is not - Do you think there can, or ever will be, world peace?

 

The question is - Do you want world peace?

 

I haven't seen a good argument yet for not wanting world peace on this thread. I can't even think of a good argument for not wanting world peace.

 

If you don't want world peace, than your saying you want a world that is not at peace; that is in conflict; that is at war; that is destroying people's lives somewhere. :confused:

 

I guess it's easy to say this when your own nation or community is at peace. But I'd be interested to see if your attitude about peace would change once the battle arrived at a theater near you.

 

And I ain't talkin' 'bout no movie theater.

[freeztar]

The question here is not - Do you think there can, or ever will be, world peace?

 

The question is - Do you want world peace?

 

I haven't seen a good argument yet for not wanting world peace on this thread. I can't even think of a good argument for not wanting world peace.

 

If you don't want world peace, than your saying you want a world that is not at peace; that is in conflict; that is at war; that is destroying people's lives somewhere. :confused:

 

I guess it's easy to say this when your own nation or community is at peace. But I'd be interested to see if your attitude about peace would change once the battle arrived at a theater near you.

 

And I ain't talkin' 'bout no movie theater.

 

I agree! :P

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Do I wish for a peace filled existence? YES.

Do I believe it's possible? NO.

Am I willing to sacrifice my personal freedoms for it? No.

For world peace freedom of speech must be seriously abridged to eliminate any words that may offend.

The right to bear arms elliminated for the common citizen and given exclusively to law enforcement to prevent person on person violence.

All religions eliminated to prevent violence caused by fanatics.

etc. etc. etc.

[InfiniteNow]

The question here is not - Do you think there can, or ever will be, world peace?

 

The question is - Do you want world peace?

 

<...>

 

I guess it's easy to say [that you want a world that is not at peace] when your own nation or community is at peace. But I'd be interested to see if your attitude about peace would change once the battle arrived at a theater near you.

 

And I ain't talkin' 'bout no movie theater.

 

Bingo. Well stated, sir. :confused:

[Zythryn]

Am I willing to sacrifice my personal freedoms for it? No.

No one asked you to, and that wasn't part of the question.

 

For world peace freedom of speech must be seriously abridged to eliminate any words that may offend.

 

No, world peace does not require that freedom of speech be limited in any way. Both your statement and mine are opinions, nothing more.

 

The right to bear arms elliminated for the common citizen and given exclusively to law enforcement to prevent person on person violence.

All religions eliminated to prevent violence caused by fanatics.

etc. etc. etc.

 

Again, I disagree with both of these statements. However, your version of 'world peace' doesn't really sound like... well... World Peace:D I don't think I would want it either.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

How can you have "world peace" without eliminating those things that prevent peace at any level?

 

WORLD- 1.the things of this life and the people devoted to them.

2. all things; everything; the universe

3. all of certain parts, people, or things of the Earth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PEACE- 1. freedom from strife of any kind : a condition of quiet order and security.

2. freedomfrom war

3. agreement between enemies to end war.

4. quiet, calm, stillness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------at peace- 1. not in a state of war.

2. not quarreling.

3. in a state of quietness

[Preceeding definitions from "ThorndikeBarnhart Intermediate dictionary"]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those that want world peace must be willing to sacrifice those parts of their existence that prevent peace. If you are arguing with your neighbor you are preventing world peace. Curse at the jerk that just chipped the paint on your car door with his...you interfeer with world peace...etc. etc.

[Zythryn]

I do not consider disagreements between two people preventing world peace.

However, if you take the extreme view that it means there can be no disagreements, no hurt feelings, no envy, then I agree with you.

I would see world peace as a situation where there is no purposeful killing of our fellow humans.

Perhaps we should ask InfiniteNow for a definition for this particular question?

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps we should ask InfiniteNow for a definition for this particular question?

For you Zythryn, absolutely. B)

 

It was nearly 200 posts ago that I submitted this answer to this same question. I looked it over, and it still applies, so I will share it again. From post #20. Enjoy.

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/101706-post20.html

 

I tend to visualize billions of people sitting in the Lotus position and smiling, but I recognize that it means something different to everyone. Considering this, I'm thinking some sort of state where the overlap between everyone's personal definition and experience of peace only magnifies the peace of the world and reduces strife.

[REASON]

How can you have "world peace" without eliminating those things that prevent peace at any level?

 

The only thing that has to be eliminated in order to have world peace is that which is whithin ourselves individually or collectively that drives us to the belief that we have to kill, maim, or destroy in order to get what we want.

 

I understand that in the world we currently live, we may have to resort to killing, maiming, or destroying in self defense. But it's the offensive behavior that must be eradicated throughout the entirety of our species in order to achieve world peace.

 

Take religion (please). It isn't religion in-and-of itself that is a threat to world peace. It is the biggoted, intolerant individuals that comprise the religious sect and their manipulation of religious doctrine that are the problem. It is the inability to accept the fact that others may have a different religious point of view that creates friction, and ultimately generates a struggle for power and control.

 

Obviously, this is a human failing. But is it so far fetched to believe that we could learn to be more tolerant of those who are different than us, and to find understanding in why people are different so we don't have to fear them? There are many areas of social science and history that are dedicated to this type of understanding. Maybe we should spend more time listening to them.

 

When you think about it, it is those who push for a homogenous society that are at the root of societal conflict and a threat to world peace, not those who appreciate diversity and have a reverence for the uniqueness of individuals and culture.

[Cedars]

The only thing that has to be eliminated in order to have world peace is that which is whithin ourselves individually or collectively that drives us to the belief that we have to kill, maim, or destroy in order to get what we want.

 

I understand that in the world we currently live, we may have to resort to killing, maiming, or destroying in self defense. But it's the offensive behavior that must be eradicated throughout the entirety of our species in order to achieve world peace.

 

Take religion (please). It isn't religion in-and-of itself that is a threat to world peace. It is the biggoted, intolerant individuals that comprise the religious sect and their manipulation of religious doctrine that are the problem. It is the inability to accept the fact that others may have a different religious point of view that creates friction, and ultimately generates a struggle for power and control.

 

Obviously, this is a human failing. But is it so far fetched to believe that we could learn to be more tolerant of those who are different than us, and to find understanding in why people are different so we don't have to fear them? There are many areas of social science and history that are dedicated to this type of understanding. Maybe we should spend more time listening to them.

 

When you think about it, it is those who push for a homogenous society that are at the root of societal conflict and a threat to world peace, not those who appreciate diversity and have a reverence for the uniqueness of individuals and culture.

 

Who is the "we could learn to be more tolerant of those who are different than us" you are refering to?

[REASON]

Who is the "we could learn to be more tolerant of those who are different than us" you are refering to?

 

Generally speaking.....humanity.

 

While I'm fully aware that there are many of us who don't appear to have a problem with tolerance, I still see it as a fairly serious problem for many individuals and cultures around the world. And it tends to be perpetuated generationally. There appears to be a tendency to focus on and find fault with our differences rather than recognizing our commonalities, unless we are looking to segregate ourselves. Watch the behavior of kids in an integrated high school and you'll see them segregate on their own. It's probably just human nature. Safety in numbers. Fitting in.

 

But in many cases it has to do with upbringing and the values that are instilled in children, where they are taught not to trust people who are different. Whether it's ethnicity, nationality, economic condition, sexual orientation, or level of education, children are taught or learn from society that it is better to stick with your own, and the decision to do so is often justified or bolstered with ridicule directed at the other groups, particularly by those with the most status or power.

 

This, to me, is but one example of the seeds of societal conflict.

 

We have no chance for world peace if this is going to continue to be our way.....generally speaking, of course. Maybe if we tapped into our sense of empathy more in an effort to achieve a greater understanding of one another, we could find the kind of connections and similarities that would allow us to let go of some of our fears.

 

Unfortunately, being empathetic is often seen as weakness.

[Theory5]

world peace isnt simple. hello! havent posted in about a week.

But its not that simple. for example. how many people have won through using peaceful means?

Now take that and put it aside and think about how many wars, gang shootouts,people shooting others, and all that bad stuff has happened.

Now, How much of all that fighting has really accomplished anything?

Now, how many people have been hurt as a result of a peaceful protest? (like during the civil rights movement police dogs were set upon protesters)

Now add all those casualties and wounds and bodies up and compare it what we put aside AND compare it to how many protests were won by peaceful means.

Now, tell me, is it better to hurt people or to act peacefully when trying to promote your cause?

Now tell me, even if you use this logic to prove that killing and fighting are wrong and you show it to the world, people wont listen, or wont care, and they will keep on doing what they are doing. Becuase people are people.

Now how are you going to get "world peace"? If not everyone wants world peace you must then enforce it. how?

by fighting.

Now tell me, is world peace achievable? And as you answer think about all the sick twisted people out there who love killing or fighting or like to cause pain and suffering(or other things).

 

it just isn't possible.

We would all like world peace.

-theory

[Cedars]

Watch the behavior of kids in an integrated high school and you'll see them segregate on their own. It's probably just human nature. Safety in numbers. Fitting in.

 

But in many cases it has to do with upbringing and the values that are instilled in children, where they are taught not to trust people who are different.

 

This, to me, is but one example of the seeds of societal conflict.

 

We have no chance for world peace if this is going to continue to be our way.....generally speaking, of course.

 

And this is why there are people who voted No to world peace. The points Disturbed made are pieces of exactly what would need to occur for this imagined world peace to exist. You (generically speaking) would be forced to deny some Free Speech (as one example). This would be required to not offend those who hold to a different idealism, such as the outburst the Danish cartoons caused.

 

It is human nature to fit in, to segregate, to seek safety in numbers as you suggest in your post.

 

One of the reasons I wrote on page 2 or 3 of my decision to vote no on this poll is not because world peace wouldnt be good, but it would require my giving up my right to dissent from the status quo.

 

Isnt peace what china has been trying to provide its masses? Isnt peace what communism was trying to bring to the USSR?

 

Maybe some of us take the word "Peace" to an extreme and find ourselves unable to vote for such a thing realizing that to achieve this condition with the current state of people, it will require restrictions on freedoms we enjoy on such a level it would degrade the existence we have now to enjoy. I mean, How exactly do you bring China, Russia, Iran, N. Korea, etc to the peace table and get agreement? Dont sacrifices have to be made to come to a mutual agreement? What parts of Sharia law would Iran let go of? What parts of Sharia law would you be willing to apply to the atheists of China, or Russia, or the atheists of the USA?

 

We are hunters by nature. We are predators by nature. And all dogs bite.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

We are not all hunters by nature. You can not group us all in the same category. We are all animals, thats true. But we are animals who can control themselves in the right situation. If other people weren't so afraid of each other, then they wouldn't create reasons to have conflict. Fear of death, fear of discomfort, and fear of despair cause humans to do what they feel they must to prevent them from happening. But death will happen to us all, and rightfully so. Physical discomfort is also inevitable because we are physical creatures. Despair is relative to the person and can be controlled. All we can hope to do is come to a point in human evolution where people aren't causing the death and discomfort.

 

If one is reasoning that there can't be world peace because other people don't want it, that person is a fool and is representative of why peace isn't working. All sane humans want peace, they just don't trust each other enough to see it through. You can't blame a few entire race or country for the workings of a madman. You can blame yourself for letting your fear get the best of you.

 

Obviously, economic inequality causes most of the world conflict. Religion is a poster boy for economic causes, as is nationalism. The leaders of countries are just trying to become richer. The only benefit in capitalism is that as one person gets richer, the whole country gains wealth. If you want world peace you must disband all economic entities, which is far from plausible, although not far from possible.

[Cedars]

We are not all hunters by nature. You can not group us all in the same category. We are all animals, thats true. But we are animals who can control themselves in the right situation. If other people weren't so afraid of each other, then they wouldn't create reasons to have conflict. Fear of death, fear of discomfort, and fear of despair cause humans to do what they feel they must to prevent them from happening. But death will happen to us all, and rightfully so. Physical discomfort is also inevitable because we are physical creatures.

 

If one is reasoning that there can't be world peace because other people don't want it, that person is a fool and is representative of why peace isn't working. All sane humans want peace, they just don't trust each other enough to see it through. You can't blame a few entire race or country for the workings of a madman. You can blame yourself for letting your fear get the best of you.

 

Obviously, economic inequality causes most of the world conflict. Religion is a poster boy for economic causes, as is nationalism. The leaders of countries are just trying to become richer. The only benefit in capitalism is that as one person gets richer, the whole country gains wealth. If you want world peace you must disband all economic entities, which is far from plausible, although not far from possible.

 

 

"Very interestingly, while Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens were distinguished from one another by a suite of obvious anatomical features, archaeologically they were very similar.

*hunting was usually limited to less dangerous species and evidence for fishing is absent

 

In the Upper Paleolithic of Eurasia, or the Late Stone Age as it is called in Africa, the archaeological signature stands in strong contrast to that of the Middle Paleolithic/Middle Stone Age. It was characterized by significant innovation:

 

* hunting of dangerous animal species and fishing occurred regularly

higher population densities "

 

Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa by Donald Johanson, Ph.D.

 

Hunter-gatherer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"The Paleolithic is a prehistoric era distinguished by the development of stone tools. It covers virtually all of humanity's time on Earth, extending from 2.5 million years ago, with the introduction of stone tools by hominids such as Homo habilis, to the introduction of agriculture in around 10,000 BCE.

 

The Paleolithic is characterized by the utilization of knapped stone tools, although humans at the time also used wood and bone tools. Other organic commodities were synthesized as tools, including leather and vegetable fibers; however these have not been preserved to any great degree.

 

Paleolithic diets consisted primarily of animal flesh, fruits, and vegetables."

 

Paleolithic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Its not about fear. Its about the hunt for resources for self.

 

As far as disbanding economic entities, theres a thread on that in Alternative Theories.