I want World Peace. Yes/No?

[Boerseun]

So, do you seriously place a higher value on scientific progress, innovation, and business than you do a peaceful society? Curious. :confused:

Not trying to sound too cynical about the whole thing, but in the five years from 1939-1944 we developed technologically in five years what would've taken a hundred under normal circumstances. War is a bad thing, sure - but it seems to be the only thing big enough to unite people to the extent where these kind of developments are possible. Warfare, and especially global warfare, is an incredible dynamic - but the irony here is that the same developmental dynamic have caused weapons of such potency that the next global conflagration will probably be over in one fiery afternoon.

[TheBigDog]

InfiniteNow, what definition of "World Peace" are you using? No more armed conflict between nations? No more armed conflict between people? All disputes resolved by rule of law and honored by all parties? Ending of slander and lies as drivers of policy? If you assume that the whole population of the earth were represented by the regular suspects here at Hypography world peace by any of those definitions would be impossible. And peace through totalitarianism is not peace at all. Hypo stays peaceful because we can ban those that rock the boat in ways that are unwanted. How do you ban those who don't play ball in the game of life?

 

Bill

[InfiniteNow]

InfiniteNow, what definition of "World Peace" are you using?

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.

[TheBigDog]

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.

I can vote yes for that. :cup: I was worried you wanted to eliminate self-rightious-ranting.:rolleyes:

 

Bill

[Racoon]

World Peace? Yes. Its pretty easy to decide.

And I would like a side order of Fries with that too. :cup:

 

Lets everybody hold hands and sing "Kumbaiya" :rolleyes:

[P-man]

Hehehehe. If we lived in peace we would make so much progress, all working together...

[Buffy]

Want, yes. Believe possible? No. There's *way* too much incentive to make war by the have-nots in order to shake things up and become a have. cf. al Qaeda and Iran and North Korea and Venezuela and the Reconquistas and ... ad nauseum. There's also--as hinted at above--much incentive to incite conflict by the arbitrageurs who take a cut from both sides of every conflict.

 

Nice to work towards, worth the effort, but never completely acheivable. All we end up with is the need to be ever vigilant against the advantage-seekers...

 

Channelling Paul Krassner, :hihi:

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

Do I believe it's possible? Yes. Do I want it? No.

Why? I'm not sure. Maybe I'm just a contrarian. Maybe I'm trying to be funny. Nah. Maybe I remember the ancient advise: Be careful what you wish for--you just might get it.

 

Channeling Rod Serling, ;)

Pyro

[MagnetMan]

Would you sacrifice scientific progress, innovation, and business/jobs for peace??

Peace would inspire and magnify mankind's evolved impulse to excell at everything we do. It would take the trillions we spend on war and policing and make it avaliable for R/D on a host of ideas that currently languish for want of start-up capital. I for instance could put a billion dollars to instant use right now and build the global stewardship training institute that i have been dreaming of for the past two decades. It would take another twenty billion to harness the gravitalional pull of the moon and the sun on the Gulf of California not including the Bay of Fundy. Maybe we could pump some of the yearly preciptation of snow at the polar caps to flower some of our deserts. How about the Space Elevator for safe nuclear fuel disposal? How about giant agricultural rafts floating on the Pacific currents following the rain? How about an extreme makeover on all our crumbling infrastructures. How about vertical cities that use garvity to transpot us to work and get rid of urban sprawl and traffic grid-lock. Peace! Bring it on!

[Akw2000]

Wow, you wrote something in swedish ;) Thanks!

[Cedars]

I dont know what to vote.

 

Philosophically, of course, world peace would be wonderful for alot of reasons that have been expressed, the cost of military for example. It is possible I think and that is why I dont know what to vote.

 

To achieve world peace would require sacrifice of individuality on a level I am unsure I could support. I would guess it would require an all encompassing agreement between so many people of different idealisms that sacrifice would occur on a level that I dont think the whole would tolerate for long. I think world peace would need to destroy diversity, not encompass it.

 

For example:The strife of different religions alone I think would prevent this from occuring for any length of time. We battle this in the USA on a level that should have been overcome long ago, one would think, but alas the struggle continues. Europe is struggling with its own internal issues between new peoples and established peoples, as is the USA, Australia and many countries around the world.

 

OK. I guess I have convinced myself now. I cannot support world peace at this time, based on my understanding of human nature as it currently exists.

[MagnetMan]

I dont know what to vote.

 

To achieve world peace would require sacrifice of individuality on a level I am unsure I could support. I would guess it would require an all encompassing agreement between so many people of different idealisms that sacrifice would occur on a level that I dont think the whole would tolerate for long. I think world peace would need to destroy diversity, not encompass it.

I think your reasoning is faulty on this. Individual freedom is predecated by the degree of freedom the collective enjoys. Peace would undoubtedly bring more freedom to the world. Individual freedom would then be extended exponentially and result in far more originality of expression than we currently enjoy.

 

For example:The strife of different religions alone I think would prevent this from occuring for any length of time. We battle this in the USA on a level that should have been overcome long ago, one would think, but alas the struggle continues.

 

Religious strife is based on exclusive interpretations of religious texts. There is a general relalization that all religions refer to the same Godhead. The trick now is to define God in universally acceptable terms. I believe a hundred generations of scientific investigation has given the world a common point of both phsyical metaphsyical focus. Quantum Mechanics is already demonstrating the super-natural nature of sub-atomic behavior. The suggestion modern metaphysicians are making is that consciousness is an attribute of the atom. ie. The whole universe is atomically conscious and is (God) The Nuclear Age may well be defined by a universal spiritual agreement on an Atomic Godhead. Primitive Jihads and Holy argumnents will then end of their own accord as the next generation sees the Cosmic view.

 

Europe is struggling with its own internal issues between new peoples and established peoples, as is the USA, Australia and many countries around the world.

Ethnic bigotry is gradually becoming passe. The commonalty of scientific thought is helping that, so is international business dealings. Globalization will become increasingly more seated in the decades to come.

 

OK. I guess I have convinced myself now. I cannot support world peace at this time, based on my understanding of human nature as it currently exists.

Every vote for peace accelerates the New Age of thought. Don't sit on the fence.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Quantum Mechanics is already demonstrating the super-natural nature of sub-atomic behavior.

 

What? No it doesn't...

 

TFS

[MagnetMan]

What? No it doesn't...

 

TFS

I am no expert physicist and I stand corrected. But I would think that a force that can appear to be both particle matter or wave energy depending on the observing consciousness, or have a single particle pass through separate appertures similateneously, seems pretty much super-natural to me. Please enlighten me otherwise.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Counterintuitive and supernatural are not the same thing.

 

Supernatural implies "against the laws of physics" like turning water into wine, or breathing walls or something. Obviously, quantum behavior is not against the laws of physics. :evil:

 

TFS

[MagnetMan]

Counterintuitive and supernatural are not the same thing.

 

Supernatural implies "against the laws of physics" like turning water into wine, or breathing walls or something. Obviously, quantum behavior is not against the laws of physics. :evil:

 

TFS

What word do you recommend that I use then? Paranormal? Un-natural?

I prefer super-natural. For me that means above or greater than Nature.

[Cedars]

I think your reasoning is faulty on this. Individual freedom is predecated by the degree of freedom the collective enjoys. Peace would undoubtedly bring more freedom to the world. Individual freedom would then be extended exponentially and result in far more originality of expression than we currently enjoy.

 

My reasoning is not faulty, but maybe my explanation is:

 

I do not see how the multitude of diversity would be greater under the conditions that would be required for 'world peace'. The very term world peace implys a world in agreement on things such as religion, politics, culture, etc. That in itself is a conflict that is yet to be resolved within borders, let alone outside of them. So my conclusion is this: Either freedoms would be reduced for some to bring repressive idealisms to the table to compromise for this goal of world peace, or injustices would have to be uniformly ignored by all countries to maintain this 'world peace'.

 

Religious strife is based on exclusive interpretations of religious texts.

 

Snipped part of paragraph.

 

And what Religion isnt based on exclusive interpretations? Does this mean your vision of 'world peace' would require the altering of others freedom of/from religion? So much for individual freedom. So much for bringing China into this discussion. Or Iran.

 

Ethnic bigotry is gradually becoming passe. The commonalty of scientific thought is helping that, so is international business dealings. Globalization will become increasingly more seated in the decades to come.

 

 

Every vote for peace accelerates the New Age of thought. Don't sit on the fence.

 

I am not sitting on the fence. I voted no. 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.