I want World Peace. Yes/No?

[paigetheoracle]

'No matter how you slice it death is and will always be part of life.'

 

Deep DD...very deep. Fortunately it doesn't mean that we have to arrange mass killings prematurely and indiscriminately. War can stop without firing a shot, if the people truly want it to!

 

'Orrabest!

 

Why not jump the gun, if you know death is the end? Makes a lot of sense to me and my trigger finger! If you can never be sure of anything but death and taxes, cut out the middle man and remove the angst of having to trust things won't go wrong and other people won't disappoint you (betray you). Trust is such a little thing - in fact it is 'nothing at all' and that is the problem with a lot of people, hence they panic and shrink the gap in time that controls our actions, leading to what they fear most - their own deaths and all things negative that exist in the world - accidents, disease, other nutcases in the world, natural and man-made disaster.

[HydrogenBond]

Everyone would like world peace but it may not happen anytime soon. The social Darwinism of survival of the fittest and selective advantage helps to keep the war mode in gear. If this is the basis for evolution, than war is sort of the human way to assure fitness and advantage goes forward. I don't agree with this philosophy but a large block of science seems to push it.

 

If you want world peace that one needs to push a different philosophy that doesn't gauge evolution on some endless struggle of fitness. If you look at the heart of Christian philosophy, love your enemy, etc., this point of view is more conducive than social Darwinism to the needs of world peace. Even animals can do the Darwinism thing, so it is not all that advanced. The alternative may be too advanced, which is why the easier path is usually preferred. The problems that many religions create is due to taking the easier Darwinian path connected to selective advantage, i.e., divine selection. Once you down grade from the more advanced, then it is no different than the rest.

[InfiniteNow]

It's a simple question.

 

I want world peace. Yes or no?

 

It is not, "Is world peace possible."

 

 

It's a question of desire, not feasibility. :)

[REASON]

Everyone would like world peace but it may not happen anytime soon. The social Darwinism of survival of the fittest and selective advantage helps to keep the war mode in gear. If this is the basis for evolution, than war is sort of the human way to assure fitness and advantage goes forward. I don't agree with this philosophy but a large block of science seems to push it.

 

If you want world peace that one needs to push a different philosophy that doesn't gauge evolution on some endless struggle of fitness. If you look at the heart of Christian philosophy, love your enemy, etc., this point of view is more conducive than social Darwinism to the needs of world peace. Even animals can do the Darwinism thing, so it is not all that advanced. The alternative may be too advanced, which is why the easier path is usually preferred. The problems that many religions create is due to taking the easier Darwinian path connected to selective advantage, i.e., divine selection. Once you down grade from the more advanced, then it is no different than the rest.

 

I have to admit HB, I have some real problems with this post of yours. I believe it is very revealing of your mindset regarding Christianity and evolution.

 

In summary, you have stated the following in this post:

 

• Social Darwinism is perpetuating war.
  
• Social Darwinism is the basis for evolution.
  
• In the evolution of man, war is a way to assure fitness, and advantage goes forward.
  
• A large block of science pushes these ideas.
  
• Christian philosophy is about "love your enemy, etc., and is more conducive to world peace than Social Darwinism.
  
• Animals can do the Darwinism thing, so therefore it's not advanced.
  
• Christianity may be too advanced, so Social Darwinism is selected for by humans because it is the simpler path.
  
• Choosing the simple animalistic path of Social Darwinism, the basis of evolution, as opposed to the advanced Christian path, will unsurprisingly yield animalistic behavior and war, not world peace.
  
• Simply stated, belief in evolution is in opposition to world peace, belief in Christianity is the path to world peace.
  

 

Would you agree that I paraphrased your post correctly? I believe I did.

 

It's becoming more apparent to me why you continually dump distorted posts regarding the processes of evolution in every thread dealing with the subject. You have disdain for it.

 

In my opinion, your post is ripe [sic] with fallacy to the point of utter absurdity. Here's why:

 

Social Darwinism doesn't really have anything to do with Darwinism relating to evolution. It is actually based on concepts that predate On the Origin of Species. It is not readily accepted by the scientific community whatsoever, and is often associated with Eugenics, or social engineering through heredity manipulation. You know, more Nazi master race ****. Eugenics and Social Darwinism are not the basis of evolution. War is about social dysfunction, but has nothing to do with belief of evolution, and I would hardly say war assures human fitness. War represents social failure.

 

While there may be references to "love thy enemy" in Christianity, it has hardly been a mantra of the most vocal Christians in this country. There is an enormous distrust of people who are different that lies at the heart of many fundamentalist religions including Christianity. This is why it is so segregated into incongruent religious philosophies and interpretations of scripture, and, there is this perpetual need to convert everyone who doesn't share their message. These issues are regularly discussed in these fora. This underlying distrust has been at the core of social conflict throughout history, throughout the world. And we are still mired in it today in the Middle East. I don't believe the concept of "love thy enemy" is hard at work there, even as we BS ourselves into thinking were doing this for their own good. I believe our honorable military has, both literally and figuratively, been sent on a mission. Have you not read about increased religiosity being promoted in our armed forces these days? And don't forget about the end-timers. They almost openly cheer on the conflict while in anticipation of the second coming of Christ.

 

Meanwhile, the rhetoric here at home is about the evil scurge of Islam. Sure, it's not always stated directly that way, but the point is thoroughly made. Even our Commander in Chief has used the word "crusade" in describing our involvement over there. I think a simple review of Christianity throughout history, and most other religions for that matter including Islam, does not shed any light on the notion that they are indicative of "advanced philosophy." They're full of myths and irrational judgements, and have perpetually been at the root of societal conflict. Religion has been a threat to peace, as opposed to any efforts by scientists to understand the principles of evolution in the development of living organisms on this planet.

 

Animals don't "do the Darwinism thing." I don't think I need to make a snide comment about how ridiculous that sounds. And we, the human animal, don't choose to do the Darwinism thing as opposed to the Christian thing. We may not choose to do the Christian thing, but the Darwinism thing just is. We're not choosing to evolve or not.

 

Science has actually been a tremendous benefit to society as a whole. And it is through science that we as a species will continue to learn about ourselves and why we continually choose to engage in violence against one another. Science is a true source of enlightenment, and will continue to seek out better means of conflict resolution, probably through research in sociology and psychology.

 

Religion, on the other hand, will continue to foster guilt, resentment, distrust, shame, disillusionment, and in many instances, agression. And as long as our political structure follows this lead, we will continue to engage in relations at home and abroad that are counter to peace.

[paigetheoracle]

World peace like world war, occurs every so often. Peace is a destination - war (conflict/ disagreement) is a journey to knowledge (acquisition). Like rings around the inside ofa tree trunk, you see them alternate as bands of reality: The more we understand, the less we struggle - the less we struggle, the more certain we are of the world and our place in it (fear drives conflict and it comes from ignorance - knowledge brings peace because it removes fear of the unknown, by making it known): The only thing we ever truly fight is our own ignorance, be it as an individual or a society.

[Boerseun]

"Peace" is an abstract term. "War" isn't simply two countries whacking the bejesus out of each other. War exist on many levels, from the individual's struggle for survival on the left side of the scale to total Nuclear Holocaust on the other extreme. In between these two points, we find all other scales of warfare.

 

That being the case, with human beings what they are, and following the path of least resistance, what would a world without war of any kind that could be pinpointed on the above scale look like?

 

A bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment.

 

There will be no challenge.

 

So, be it whether World Peace is desired or even possible, I think it'll ultimately destroy our culture. There must be some challenge of some sort to let humans be humans. Peace is foreign to our culture, and even to us as a species.

 

Without sounding too Hitleresque, I don't want World Peace.

[paigetheoracle]

"Peace" is an abstract term. "War" isn't simply two countries whacking the bejesus out of each other. War exist on many levels, from the individual's struggle for survival on the left side of the scale to total Nuclear Holocaust on the other extreme. In between these two points, we find all other scales of warfare.

 

That being the case, with human beings what they are, and following the path of least resistance, what would a world without war of any kind that could be pinpointed on the above scale look like?

 

A bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment.

 

There will be no challenge.

 

So, be it whether World Peace is desired or even possible, I think it'll ultimately destroy our culture. There must be some challenge of some sort to let humans be humans. Peace is foreign to our culture, and even to us as a species.

 

Without sounding too Hitleresque, I don't want World Peace.

 

Good post! In Zen they imply the same thing, that man is never at peace unless dead and a couch potato is dead from the neck up (Could the thread by Mike under medical, be the actual truth of what is happening to us? Doesn't bear 'thinking' about, does it?;))

[DougF]

I want world peace,

I would rather spend all the monies to feed the hungry and cure the sick.

Question:

Any idea how much the world spends on war/weapons in a year? :shrug:

 

REASON

Science has actually been a tremendous benefit to society as a whole. And it is through science that we as a species will continue to learn about ourselves and why we continually choose to engage in violence against one another. Science is a true source of enlightenment' date=' and will continue to seek out better means of conflict resolution, probably through research in sociology and psychology.

 

Religion, on the other hand, will continue to foster guilt, resentment, distrust, shame, disillusionment, and in many instances, aggression. And as long as our political structure follows this lead, we will continue to engage in relations at home and abroad that are counter to peace. [/quote']

 

Good post Reason, I agree with you. ;)

 

Boerseun

 

"Peace" is an abstract term. "War" isn't simply two countries whacking the bejesus out of each other. War exist on many levels' date=' from the individual's struggle for survival on the left side of the scale to total Nuclear Holocaust on the other extreme. In between these two points, we find all other scales of warfare.

 

That being the case, with human beings what they are, and following the path of least resistance, what would a world without war of any kind that could be pinpointed on the above scale look like?

 

A bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment.

 

There will be no challenge.

 

So, be it whether World Peace is desired or even possible, I think it'll ultimately destroy our culture. There must be some challenge of some sort to let humans be humans. Peace is foreign to our culture, and even to us as a species.

 

Without sounding too Hitleresque, I don't want World Peace. [/quote']

 

I think if there was no war, we could spend our time curing disease, global worming, hunger just for a start, I think this would be a challenge don't you?

 

I agree with you that if we don't stop all this waring it will ultimately destroy our culture and yes maybe even the human species, a sad thought that we seem to be Hellbent on.

 

theres lot of money to be made in War, at the price of the Innocent. :eek:

[REASON]

...with human beings what they are, and following the path of least resistance, what would a world without war of any kind that could be pinpointed on the above scale look like?

 

A bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment.

 

There will be no challenge.

 

So, be it whether World Peace is desired or even possible, I think it'll ultimately destroy our culture. There must be some challenge of some sort to let humans be humans. Peace is foreign to our culture, and even to us as a species.

 

Without sounding too Hitleresque, I don't want World Peace.

 

You know, I hear you Bo and I truly respect and agree with most all of what you say, but I'm not sure this actually follows. I mean, we are currently in a so called "war," and yet we still have "a bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment." In fact we have so many of those types, much of this country isn't even paying any attention to the war effort anymore. It hasn't proven to be a cultural stimulant that provides the challenges we so desperately need.

 

I guess I just have a hard time giving in to the notion that as a species, if we're not engaged in a struggle somewhere where there is conflict and killing, we will lose our sense of identity and culture. What kind of culture is it anyway that can only find itself in the killing of others?

 

It seems like we ought to be wiser when it comes to finding ways to challenge ourselves while maintaining a reverence for the lives and culture of others than to resort to warring with one another. Consider the Olympics. I love watching the Olympics because it represents for me a way in which humanity can engage in competition and display national pride while having a genuine respect and interest for one another. Where else do people of so many different nations and cultures come together in the spirit of competition, under the flags of their nations, and form new bonds of friendship? I love the presentations from the host nations at the opening and closing ceremonies, that are symbolic of their unique cultures. It's educational, friendly, and it brings people together.

 

Why are we so pessimistic that we can't visualize living in a world, not devoid of conflict, but where conflict is resolved in ways that are diplomatic, in consideration of the wants and needs of those involved, and with the underlying foundation that warring and killing are undesirable and only used to defend against blatent militaristic aggression.

 

It's not very hard for me to imagine.

[OutsideTheBox]

Yes, I do.

 

More practically, though, I want progress toward brotherhood with all people on Earth. Progress is key, since so many tangible material factors conspire against world peace. Many of these are man-made though, sadly, in my view. With progress toward the transcending of fossil fuels and and other material/resource gates (like food supply, etc) we could actually be moving in the right direction.

 

I agree with those who point out how much better off we'd be with all the war resources redirected toward doing good. The global economy (and mostly the US economy in terms of being war-inspired) would just shift and not necessarily shrink. Then again, the whole premise of economic 'growth' is much of the problem. What is the sense of such growth if it makes for more suffering in terms of individuals? Unless of course you really don't care about those other individuals' suffering, in which case it makes perfect sense.

 

Frankly, I think the powers-that-be (government, corporations, industries) are hiding, suppressing, and thwarting much technology that would undermine their particular chosen economic growth paradigm and thus making world peace less possible (impossible, actually) while the danger of natural resource constraints and existing lack of technology mandates the continuing struggle contributing to war. Not that that's all of it, as power-hunger, overpopulation concerns, and other aspects also contribute mightily.

 

In short, yes. But, progress toward it would be sufficient...

:rolleyes:

[Zythryn]

...what would a world without war of any kind that could be pinpointed on the above scale look like?

 

A bunch of docile, bored, overweight tv-addicted smelly couch potatoes, demanding one thing and one thing only: Instant gratification and permanent entertainment.

 

There will be no challenge.

 

I disagree with your definition of 'war' if you define war as any type of conflict.

That said, I agree that if there is no conflict there is no challenge.

 

However, as I don't agree that war=conflict, I don't agree that there will be no challenge without war.

 

Would you define a chess game as a war?

Would you define the search for a cure to cancer as a war?

Would you define the search for rules that govern our reality war?

 

All of these things provide challenge for many people, yet I would not call war. So I can't agree with your conclusion.

[IATESOTK]

How about world peace amongst vast diversity? That's what I want.

 

World peace can mean many things-- one of which is everyone being so sheltered by society that they all look and act the same. That is not the kind of world peace I'm after. . .

[REASON]

How about world peace amongst vast diversity? That's what I want.

 

World peace can mean many things-- one of which is everyone being so sheltered by society that they all look and act the same. That is not the kind of world peace I'm after. . .

 

Agreed. :rolleyes: