World Peace

I challenge you to a test of wit and courage. All you have to do is debate/discuss with me, a strategy for lasting world peace and continual positive progression; along with solutions to issues in the world today that you believe hinder the achievement of world peace. Truthful and full-hearted comments and replys only please. I don't want to discourage the reading of this with a long intro, so I will start the discussion of with this: knowledge leads to understanding and acceptance, the building blocks of peace.

[Scott]

Interesting topic!

Please define world peace? Do you just mean no inter-nation or civil wars? Do you mean a world in which no country has a murder rate over a certain percentage? Or are we talking overall violent crime rates?

Who is the strategy hypothetically for? Is it a strategy for individual citizens to (maybe if he or she so chooses) enact on their own individually; is it a strategy for an individual government to (maybe if it so chooses) to enact; or is it a strategy for every nation or person in the world could enact?

Your own definition. Your own strategy to achieve your own definition of world peace, in whatever way you deem best.

Personally, I believe that our current situtation is about as close to world peace as we can hope to get, at this time.

The world may fluctuate between times of more or less violence, but the struggle for survival will not end for a very long time, and there's nothing wrong with that, that's life.

When we stop struggling for survival, we stop evolving. I doubt that anyone would argue that humans are at the perfect stage of evolution to realize a utopian society. Even if an infrastructure could be devised to achieve world peace, humans would be incapable of adhering to it. We need to evolve further.

When peace is within our nature, then and only then will it be within our grasp.

Not evolve further if by 'evolve' you mean that our genotype changes to a peaceful one. This cannot happen because we are predators and if we were not we would not be the lords of the Earth that we are. What we do have is unique ability to reason, which the other high predators don't have. This ability, this reason, must be fostered in every child so that nobody will be enslaved to lies, ignorance, and poverty.The change that has to come about is cultural , not genetic.

I challenge you to a test of wit and courage. All you have to do is debate/discuss with me, a strategy for lasting world peace and continual positive progression; along with solutions to issues in the world today that you believe hinder the achievement of world peace. Truthful and full-hearted comments and replys only please. I don't want to discourage the reading of this with a long intro, so I will start the discussion of with this: knowledge leads to understanding and acceptance, the building blocks of peace.

Hi SaS

Simone Weil IMO describes the conditions for the mutual respect necessary for world peace. The trouble is that our nature makes us incapable of it assuring that wars will continue.

"The combination of these two facts – the longing in the depth of the heart for absolute good, and the power, though only latent, of directing attention and love to a reality beyond the world and of receiving good from it – constitutes a link which attaches every man without exception to that other reality. Whoever recognizes that reality recognizes that link. Because of it, he holds every human being without any exception as something sacred to which he is bound to show respect. This is the only possible motive for universal respect towards all human beings." Simone Weil “Draft for A Statement of Human Obligations” SIMONE WEIL, AN ANTHOLOGY ed. Sian Miles

What we do have is unique ability to reason, which the other high predators don't have. This ability, this reason, must be fostered in every child so that nobody will be enslaved to lies, ignorance, and poverty.The change that has to come about is cultural , not genetic.

I would have to politely disagree. I don't believe that people can successfully go against their nature for very long, through sheer force of will or reason.

I think that that is like saying that gays can correct their sexual preference, by the sheer force of reason or will. I just don't think that a change based upon reason would be effective in the long run. I also do not know if we can simply evolve our way out of our predatory and territorial heritage, but if we can't, then I don't see "world peace" as being achievable.

I will say that reason may be a necessary element in the transition to a genetically peaceful species, in order to keep us from destroying ourselves before we have sufficiently evolved to attain world peace.

Violence, lust, sloth, greed and a host of other "sins" are simply genetically engrained in our nature, and I don't believe that reason can overcome this.

The neoconservative philosophy is the only chance we'll ever have at world peace. People, when given the power to decide their own future, do not collectively seek war(unless they're infringed upon by another warring faction). Simply put, democracies tend not to fight each other. While the neoconservative philosophy does require the use of force to topple tyrannical regimes, this violence is an investment in the future. The average person must have a say in his/her future or war will be an everyday reality as long as we inhabit the Earth.

There are certain factors I guess; miscommunication which may lead to misunderstanding, selfishness and conceit, poverty and people being a dictator.

When modern education and its effect on reason makes men capable of intellectual erections, then secular peace will become at least possible. Until then, the cycles between wars and fine speeches will continue.

Your own definition. Your own strategy to achieve your own definition of world peace, in whatever way you deem best.

I think fear is the reason for most if not all the worlds ills. Fear of not having enough, fear of losing what you have, fear of the unknown, fear of being unsuccessful (which is subjective), fear of dying, etc. I believe most every religious, civil and world war are founded in fear. And from fear comes violence, mistrust, desire to dominate, take over, accumulation of wealth and material things, etc. None of which you can take with you when you die. And you will die. I think understanding life is short, all we are is how we treat others the rest is in our heads. I think if we could admit to ourselves on a conscious level that death is a part of life. And that nothing we do in this life will change that. Maybe we would be able to free ourselves from material pursuits. Maybe by measuring our life's pursuits against the reality of our death would cause us to live life with passion instead of fear.

Conflict and war is an archetype, something observable at the macro and micro level. It is simply the effect of the imposition of ones unwanted will over another by force. Rather than complex governments with myriads of intricate laws that hardly anyone understands, all backed by a monopoly of force - armies, police, legal system etc... What is needed as the holy axiom of human interaction, universally, is 'thou shalt not initiate force'. Let all interactions be voluntary and mutually consensual and if a voluntary interaction is impossible, forget about it, go somewhere else.

You already use this principle in most aspects of your life like when you ask someone out on a date (I hope). The acceptance is contingent upon whether the person likes you or not. If they say no, is it possible to win them over by tying them up and locking them in your basement?

An interesting article if you believe that humans can find peace through reason, or even if you think they can't.

cracked.com/article_19468_5-logical-fal ... think.html

Way back in Post #2 , Scott asked for a definition of world peace so we could all talk about the same thing. I think he did that to ensure that there would be more scope and focus to the discussion. He wanted to avoid what usually happens in forums on basic and broad questions when they are not narrowly defined. We reply, each of us on the basis of our individual definition. These definitions tend to differ a lot; and so we talk about different things—and don’t learn as much.

Each of us naturally thinks highly of whatever thing we individually talk about. Here’s my thing. It’s about how much the physical violence in this world has declined .

I’m talking about violence in all of its physical forms it takes. Steven Pinker, a psychologist and linguist says: “The decline of (physical) violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species”. He presents a comprehensive body of evidence supporting his claim in his latest book. It’s titled “The Better Angels of Our Nature” (I have not read the entire book but have seen much of its contents. It has 800 pages of history and 100 maps and graphs.)

Brutality still exists. Our emotions are still a big problem. We cannot rest on our laurels. But we can be very proud! Not too long ago, violence was more or less a problem of every day life. We have gotten to the stage where it is considered abnormal and unnecessary. That is a remarkable accomplishment!

Way back in Post #2 , Scott asked for a definition of world peace so we could all talk about the same thing. I think he did that to ensure that there would be more scope and focus to the discussion. He wanted to avoid what usually happens in forums on basic and broad questions when they are not narrowly defined. We reply, each of us on the basis of our individual definition. These definitions tend to differ a lot; and so we talk about different things—and don’t learn as much.

Each of us naturally thinks highly of whatever thing we individually talk about. Here’s my thing. It’s about how much the physical violence in this world has declined .

I’m talking about violence in all of its physical forms it takes. Steven Pinker, a psychologist and linguist says: “The decline of (physical) violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species”. He presents a comprehensive body of evidence supporting his claim in his latest book. It’s titled “The Better Angels of Our Nature” (I have not read the entire book but have seen much of its contents. It has 800 pages of history and 100 maps and graphs.)

Brutality still exists. Our emotions are still a big problem. We cannot rest on our laurels. But we can be very proud! Not too long ago, violence was more or less a problem of every day life. We have gotten to the stage where it is considered abnormal and unnecessary. That is a remarkable accomplishment!

Steven Pinker 's implication is that US hegemon is justified. It is not. Many lives have been lose. The persistent inciting of fear to rally the public to go to war, kill Asians, and Arabs are not right. Sell other country stuff, but don 't want to buy anything from anywhere is a way to bankrupt countries. You think this is right?