I want World Peace. Yes/No?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

As a member of a scientific community, as well as being an intellectual being, i do not support willful taking of lives of any living things (except for script kiddies).

So what do you eat?????????:phones:

[Cedars]

Fear is the cause, not the hunt for the resources itself. The hunt for the resource is a direct effect of survival. Survival is fight or flight, both being the effect of fear.

 

Cedar,

Your history lesson was nice, but you missed my point completely. Of course we are hunters in the sense that we hunt for resources. That is a characteristic of any living thing, it must consume. The point I was trying to make is that although we are animals, we have the ability to think beyond of our own desires and fears. We have the ability to be civilized and not give into our incontinence. Its the idea that humans are not able to break away from our animalistic side that breeds conflict.

 

It may be logical to say that you don't believe world peace is possible, but its disgusting to hear another human being say they don't want world peace. Of course war creates things. Destruction creates, creation destroyes. Its a natural law. That doesn't make it right. Its not ok to kill other people so we can be more comfortable.

 

Peace will come one way or the other.

 

And I quote from an earlier post I made:

 

The more I thought about the big picture and what world peace implys the more I decided there is no way I can support world peace with my understanding of human nature. I am not willing to give up the right of dissent. Even if that dissent results in war.

 

And its statements such as this that reinforce my opinion:

 

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are not a right. They're a gift, and that gift can be taken at any time. All we can do is try to protect those ideals for everyone on earth, and not mourn when those gifts are taken away."

 

I am not going to let you cash in the freedoms the USA has (eroded as they have become) so you can negociate world peace with China, with Iran, with any number of nations whos values repress these very things you suggest we should not mourn.

 

I dont find the opinion that world peace must come about disgusting so much as I find it delusional. We are animals. We are hunters. We are predators. That is the reality of the evolutionary path that put us on the top of the food chain. And I am always amazed at those who support these far-fetched ideas always... ALWAYS point out that to achieve this, humans have to change. Change into what? And who exactly has to change?

 

I have asked several times, just how exactly are you going to bring these peoples to the table in agreement on 'world peace'? Just what are you willing to give away to bring this about?

 

Or is it a conditional world peace your imagining?

[Cedars]

As a member of a scientific community, as well as being an intellectual being, i do not support willful taking of lives of any living things (except for script kiddies).

 

script kiddies :phones:

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

I'm not imagining anything. I'm arguing against arguing against world peace. I think its good to lay out the obstacles in our path. But what is the point of arguing why world peace won't work if not to figure out how it will?

 

I say people are always changing. We are obviously changing all the time. just like you said, that is how we came to the top of the food chain. But we don't have to be that predatorial anymore. That is what I am saying. We are well enough along technologically that we don't have to fear losing our place on this planet. But human conflict creates the real possibility that we will destroy ourselves. We are obviously animals, but we are obviously different. We already changed. Why not change more?

 

And remember, those freedoms you cherish so much will not hold forever. They allow for the very destruction of themselves. Too much of anything is bad, whether that be freedom or control. We must find a middle road.

 

Also, who's to say that America does everything the best? Who's to say that other countries couldn't offer something of value to the rest of us? Why can't we help them out? If we weren't afraid of someone attacking us, we wouldn't be attacking others. And when we attack others, we give them a reason to attack us again. It is a never ending cycle that can and should be stopped, and the only way to do that is to sacrifice. Nothing is without sacrifice.

[Cedars]

I'm not imagining anything. I'm arguing against arguing against world peace. I think its good to lay out the obstacles in our path. But what is the point of arguing why world peace won't work if not to figure out how it will?

Once again the questions I ask are ignored.

 

Change into what? And who exactly has to change?

 

I have asked several times, just how exactly are you going to bring these peoples to the table in agreement on 'world peace'? Just what are you willing to give away to bring this about?

 

Or is it a conditional world peace your imagining?

I say people are always changing. We are obviously changing all the time. just like you said, that is how we came to the top of the food chain. But we don't have to be that predatorial anymore. That is what I am saying. We are well enough along technologically that we don't have to fear losing our place on this planet. But human conflict creates the real possibility that we will destroy ourselves. We are obviously animals, but we are obviously different. We already changed. Why not change more?

And I disagree. I dont think we have changed since the last evolution into what we are now, 200k years or so ago.

It is a never ending cycle that can and should be stopped, and the only way to do that is to sacrifice. Nothing is without sacrifice.

 

See questions unanswered above.

 

What we are, animals with predatory behavior is exactly why I dont support expansion into space. I dont think it would be more than 3 generations on a different world before we achieved our 1st outworldy murder of another human being. Maybe... Maybe 5 generations...

 

Cripes how long ago was it when that lady astronaut drove from texas to florida to confront her competition. This is what people are. These are the best of the best and its not easy to qualify to become an astronaut. But there you have it. Around 3 generations of astronauts (maybe 5). :hyper:

 

And I think within 5 generations (definately 10) there would be a split within the group with one heading off to form its own culture, whether it being the original group driving out members or members leaving on their own because of disagreement on cultural issues (for lack of a better term).

 

I am not going to bobble my head up and down to appease anyones idealisms, when I think their goal is unachievable, unrealistic, and contrary to what I understand of human behavior and the reality of the situation.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Its not unachievable. It isn't realistic, its idealistic. And if living is peace is contrary to your beliefs, you are sad person.

 

And don't be ignorant. If the answer to world peace was out there, we would have it. Just because we don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done.

 

What will we change into? That is an odd question. I don't say will change into anything, our society will. Humans have to make a conscious decision to move forward.

 

How will I bring everyone to table? Again I thought I answered this question in part. If they think you are here to help them, they will have no need to cause conflict. If humans realised what we could be, there would be motivation.

 

I am willing to give my life for world peace. There is no greater honor. And the ends do not justify the means, so peace should only be brought through peace only.

 

The point is to show that there isn't an answer yet, and there should be. As I said earlier, your resistance doesn't do any good. It only breeds contempt.

 

Get over your idea of world peace. Think outside the box, it isn't unimaginable.

[REASON]

Once again the questions I ask are ignored.

 

Change into what? And who exactly has to change?

 

I have asked several times, just how exactly are you going to bring these peoples to the table in agreement on 'world peace'? Just what are you willing to give away to bring this about?

 

Or is it a conditional world peace your imagining?

 

I'll try an answer.

 

First of all, I'm not exactly sure why it would be necessary to bring governments to a table to come to some compromise that we are not in conflict with. It is not necessary for you to have a sit down with your neighbor that has a different lifestyle than you unless there is a problem.

 

At the point a problem arises with your neighbor, your first response is likely to be peaceful because a peaceful resolution is preferable. Achieving a resolution is likely to involve some sort of mutual compromise which may be nothing more than agreeing to leave each other alone. It doesn't require that you compromise your freedom. Resolving conflict peasefully is beneficial to both parties involved, and it sets an example for how to resolve future conflicts. This example can be shared among others laying a foundation for behavior.

 

Now you may find that you have to defend yourself, your family, or your property, at some point. There are still other means within the law to try and resolve the issue that will likely involve some sort of sacrifice by one or both parties, whether voluntary or imposed. But most likey, you will not resort to killing your neighbor unless lives depended on it. How likely will the conflict be resolved if you get pissed off and go set his house on fire? Even if you get rid of your irritating neighbor you're still likely to have to deal with the law, his family, and now your other neighbors don't trust or respect you either.

 

This philosophy can be applied at a national scale as well when dealing with other countries that you may find yourself in conflict with. Why does a successful and peaceful relationship with another country that has different values or systems of government require sacrifice? Maybe you develop some sort of compromise regarding trade relations or something, but our policy should be to either find a way to be of assitance and engender positive feedback, or just choose to not deal with them. But taking a threatening posture, or launching military strikes for the sake of imposing your will only serves to escalate conflict and resentment.

 

Vietnam was a real melee until we chose to leave them alone, and we've had peacefull relations since, even though we don't approve of their system of government. They haven't proven to be the national threat that was forecasted and used to justify our involvement, and the only sacrifices that ended up being made were associated with the fighting. What an enormous waste of lives and tax dollars, and it devided two countries in the process.

 

In many ways, democracy is taking hold in China and Russia, and that has happened through peaceful means; mostly by the Cold War, and their exposure to our way of life and commerce. By setting a peaceful example with them, we are likely to see their old communist sytems erode away in time as each new generation gets a bigger taste of the benefits of a democratic society.

 

I would think a good world peace mantra would be Live an let live, and, Let's set an example and strive for good relations with others. Pick the social scale you would like to apply that to. It should start at the grass-roots or individual level. I believe that we will have more success in this endeavor by changing our own behavior than by trying to change others'. It may take generations take hold, and it may be difficult to achieve, but what's wrong with setting that type of goal for our society?

 

But first you have to want it.

[Cedars]

Its not unachievable. It isn't realistic, its idealistic. And if living is peace is contrary to your beliefs, you are sad person.

 

I dont appreciate the twisting of my words, its not about my beliefs.

"and contrary to what I understand of human behavior and the reality of the situation."

 

Its the same reason I dont assume other peoples dogs wont bite me, without evidence. I know all dogs bite. And my astronaut example was a further example of the potential of ANYONE to make 'war'. This astronaut was not deprived of anything attributable to that which causes war on the socio-economic level that is touted about as the answer for world peace.

 

Another example just occurred in Wisconsin leaving six people dead. Basic human drives that rear their head regardless of how much food people have in their belly, how many cars in their driveway, how educated they are, etc.

 

And you can say these examples are of criminals which our justice system will take care of. And I can post equal examples globally that reveal the same behavior. N. Korea, Iran, several countries in Africa, women in many countries.

 

Conditional world peace? Its ok if peoples elsewhere are not given the same rights as US persons so we can have this veiled, and reduced idea of world peace? NIMBY so we can celebrate the illusion of world peace?

 

And don't be ignorant. If the answer to world peace was out there, we would have it. Just because we don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done.

 

Nothing you have said has convinced me it can be done.

 

Snippet on India:

Eager to portray itself as a potential superpower [i read somewhere this is exactly Irans reasoning for seeking nukes], India began an intense phase of modernization and upgradation of its armed forces in the late 1990s.

 

India is now focusing on purchasing the technology behind the military equipment rather than the military equipment. Recent examples of the successful implementation of this Indian policy include the purchase of Sukhoi Su-30 MKI multi-role fighter aircraft and T-90 main battle tanks from Russia and diesel-powered Scorpene submarines from France. In 2004, India purchased US$ 5.7 billion worth of military equipment from other countries, making it the developing world's leading arms-purchaser.

 

Now as I grew up, India was always portrayed as a peace loving nation. But something has changed. It looks like India is traveling along the road of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

 

The reality of the situation I guess. Cant count on lasting peace. Maybe worried about China. We already know they worry about Pakistan. And I dont blame India a bit for its assessment of the situation.

 

How will I bring everyone to table? Again I thought I answered this question in part. If they think you are here to help them, they will have no need to cause conflict. If humans realised what we could be, there would be motivation.

 

Gulf 1 and bin Laden. We were there to help Kuwait and with permission of the governments involved.

 

Somalia, we were there to keep food distributions from being taken over by the warlords.

 

The point is to show that there isn't an answer yet, and there should be. As I said earlier, your resistance doesn't do any good. It only breeds contempt.

 

Get over your idea of world peace. Think outside the box, it isn't unimaginable.

 

Right, there isnt an answer. Thats because people are what they are. And I dont care if you find the reality contemptable. I got over my idea of world peace long ago.

[Zythryn]

Cedars, how about this.

Would you like to have world peace if NOTHING about the human mind/spirit/condition needed to change?

AKA, someone waves a magic wand and world peace occurs. No change to you ability to discent or have free thoughts. Just, peace on earth.

We all know that isn't going to happen, but that doesn't change your ability to have the desire of peace.

It is a general, philisophical question of 'do you want peace' not 'is peace possible'.

And Inter, please keep in mind that the two questions above are different questions. I strongly suspect Cedars answer to the first question is Yes (as long as no changes are required of human freedom), but is answering the second question which is No (for her).

[Boerseun]

Here's the problem with World Peace:

 

Humans are humans.

 

And humans are mammals.

 

And being mammals, humans are also subject to all kinds of agressions and responses hard-wired into our brains, underlying our more advanced neural pathways that might make us feel somehow divorced from the natural world.

 

In feeling divorced from the natural world, we might look for rational explanations for (sadly) everyday occurances like rape, intimidation, road-rage, temper tantrums, fits of anger, erotic fantasies, etc. We try to rationalise these things in terms of the subject's upbringing, childhood, etc., and whilst they certainly play a huge role, instinctive responses to stimuli certainly is to blame for plenty evils, seeing as our cerebral cortex overlies a part of our brains that is much, much older (evolutionary speaking) than even the human race. Any stimulis received by our sensory organs is filtered by the R-complex before its dished up to our more socially responsible cerebral cortex for further processing. The R-complex is the evolutionary remnant of our reptilian heritage. It's also the seat of agression, violence, and generally unsociable deeds.

 

World Peace is attainable if you surgically remove the R-complex from each and every human being on Planet Earth, and arrange it genetically that their offspring don't grow new ones. This might be a bit hard to achieve.

 

Therefore, hoping for World Peace is about as fruitful as hoping for breathing water. A nice fantasy, but physically impossible due to who and what we are.

[Cedars]

I appreciate the time you took to post this. I have to snip some of it for brevity, and if you feel I ignored an important point, I would be willing to go back to those.

 

The neighbor issues and burning down the house. It is the big stick of law enforcement that prevents more of these issues from acceleration into arson, murder, etc. It is not the idea of peace, its the idea of consenquence to self. I am not saying all neighbor conflict will erupt into arson/murder, or that its an automatic reaction. But there would be much more of these kinds of reactions without the big stick being used, rather than threatened or worse yet, disbanded police forces.

 

Maybe you develop some sort of compromise regarding trade relations or something, but our policy should be to either find a way to be of assitance and engender positive feedback, or just choose to not deal with them. But taking a threatening posture, or launching military strikes for the sake of imposing your will only serves to escalate conflict and resentment.

 

Vietnam was a real melee until we chose to leave them alone, and we've had peacefull relations since, even though we don't approve of their system of government. They haven't proven to be the national threat that was forecasted and used to justify our involvement, and the only sacrifices that ended up being made were associated with the fighting. What an enormous waste of lives and tax dollars, and it devided two countries in the process.

Vietnam. The debate rages to this day over what the cause and effect of various political decisions had in that region. Did we tie up our military ability to prevent the implementation of the Khmar roug idealisms? Would the Khmar have killed so many of its own should the USA allowed things to progress on its own and not become involved? I really dont know if they would have had the 're-education camps' if we had never become involved. It sure wasnt peace we left behind when we pulled out and abandoned the war.

 

How long do you think it would be before N. Korea invaded S. Korea if we pulled out and took a hands off approach? Its peace if my nation isnt involved? Conditional world peace? Its not war if it doesnt involve who?

 

There was an interesting line in the West Wing tv series. Season four I think. The discussion was trade brings peace and the State department official was talking about China and the political lines being spoken.

 

"Free trade brings peace... but thats not the whole thought. What they dont tell you is "we hope". Free trade brings peace We hope. But they dont tell you that part because no one in congress would approve these measures..." or something like that.

 

NAFTA sure hasnt helped the average mexican citizen out. But its created massive wealth for a few.

 

In many ways, democracy is taking hold in China and Russia, and that has happened through peaceful means; mostly by the Cold War, and their exposure to our way of life and commerce. By setting a peaceful example with them, we are likely to see their old communist sytems erode away in time as each new generation gets a bigger taste of the benefits of a democratic society.

 

Its not democracy thats being implemented in China, its capitalism. Free trade that enriches the communist coffers. You did see the Chinese outrage reported on the news when the Dalai Lama was given an award by the US and met with Pres. Bush? I could go on and on about what China isnt. One thing for sure. When the hunt for resources gets tougher, China isnt gonna give a damn about 'peace' if its looking for oil, food, minerals, etc.

 

Russia is a different (yet similar) example. There is validity to the reasoning that the pursuit of MAD is what broke communism with the huge investment in the military aspects of that particular regime. Its not the only piece of course.

I would think a good world peace mantra would be Live an let live, and, Let's set an example and strive for good relations with others. Pick the social scale you would like to apply that to. It should start at the grass-roots or individual level. I believe that we will have more success in this endeavor by changing our own behavior than by trying to change others'. It may take generations take hold, and it may be difficult to achieve, but what's wrong with setting that type of goal for our society?

 

But first you have to want it.

 

Live and let live? Like when globally we ignored Rwanda? Like we ignore Sudan? Like we ignore Myanmar? It wasnt our behavior that instigated any of these conditions. But the potential for this behavior exists within each human being and I like having the big stick of military and the promise of its use should taliban idealisms (as an example) inflict their agenda and 'culture' in a world theater near you.

 

I think its is and was morally abhorent that globally we ignore these instances and cling to the lets make a deal approach because "we hope that free trade brings peace."

 

Maybe my definition of World Peace is too literal.

[alexander]

So what do you eat?????????

i would be a vegan, but unfortunately i can't be due to my family being against that, so for now i have to eat dead animals, but i don't like doing it very much :rolleyes: (although i it do from time to time)...

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Cedar, I didn't mean to twist your words. I took them literally.

 

You keep giving examples of coutries and situations that already in a fit of turmoil. Being in that state, they are defensive and believe others do not have their best interest in mind. Your history lessons do not disprove the possibility of peace.

 

The difference lies in our views of the world. You say you already assume a dog will bite you withour evidence otherwise. I say that it won't bite me until it does. What is the value in this kind of thinking? Its one without fear of my environment. I KNOW that if all other humans had this view on the world, there would be peace.

 

I will concede, though, that have yet to come up with a method for this change in view to occure, making the possibility seem bleak. But again does not prove it is impossible.

 

There are obvious ways to keep world peace, but I am not willing to accept those methods.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I say that it won't bite me until it does.

You should try petting my neighbors pitbul!

 

 

As a member of a scientific community, as well as being an intellectual being, i do not support willful taking of lives of any living things (except for script kiddies).

vegan? They eat plants right? or is it bugs?

Either way they are living things!!!!!! Even delicious...tasty mud has living things in it!!!!!!!!!!

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

SSSSSssssssssh!!!! I'm stalking the celery....

[freeztar]

vegan? They eat plants right? or is it bugs?

 

I think fruitarians come closest to achieving no taking of life (minus the small amount of bacteria on the surface of an apple for instance).

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

The only way to not take life is to not be alive. If you are alive, you destroy. We should attempt to destroy as little as possible, especially human life.