Is world peace possible?

Post Reply New Topic

My opinion is yes, but I'm not sure if that's the idealist in me or not. I don't think we can ever entirely wipe out disagreement, grief and competition but I do think we can eventually eliminate all war and most crime. I mean a lot of countries, such as Iceland, are close to such a feat.

I believe it is definitely possible to have a world without war, though it would require one world government that maintains a monopoly on force and global-scale cultural assimilation.

Last edited by Abgal64 on 26 Sep 2011, 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Defiantly" possible?

Fixed.

I don't think so. IMO free trade and flow of information would be enough for that.

I know damn good and well that humans are to inherrently violent and greedy to go very long without a war.

As long as we have religions, we will have wars.

ruveyn

So you have been using my dictionary too!! !

"Peace, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting."
"The Devil's Dictionary", by Ambrose Bierce (1911).

Tadzio

No, it's like common sense....

Thomas Paine did not write "every single one of us has the devil inside!! !"

Tadzio

I'm a speed devil on legs. <.<

That aside, I wish that it were possible, but as long as everyone keeps thinking about themselves and their own (-nudges ruveyn-) and we are not allied against a common threat or peril, such as an alien or zombie invasion, I doubt it'll see the light of day.

Yes, World Peace is possible only if the causes of war are understood and addressed. I noticed an inequality of goods and services inspires violence and tension. The feeling of being "taken over" or "invaded" culturally, mentally, and emotionally can also inspire people to be violent. If people worldwide could learn to be self-sustaining with their resources and don't force their will on others, I see no reason for world peace not to exist.

Our violent tendencies are a competitive response. Remove the need for competition and you remove the violence. When you study the genome, the violence genes are usually activated in extreme hardship. It is a survival mechanism. It is the reason you get cranky when you are tired, thirsty, hungry, or in some other form of physical discomfort. It is no wonder in extended periods of hunger or thirst (like famines) that people go nuts and kill each other.

This is why you see in places of scarcer resources that people can be extremely cruel and violent. In places with affluent resources, there is more peace.

Yes if everyone had what they need things would be amazing.
Feed everyone, cloth everyone, shelter everyone.
Love everyone.

First we need to work on ourselves.
Love is the way

World peace?

Not a chance so long as the world's greatest power continues to invade weaker nations in the name of its god.

Abolish the silly nonesense of religion and we may have a chance.

I disagree. Culturally homogeneous states, like the Scandinavians, are generally more peaceful, both internally and externally to varying degrees, than heterogeneous states that practice multiculturalism, basically tolerating anything no matter how stupid it is so long as it does not threaten the government's legitimacy, as can be exemplified by Tokugawa Japan, Sweden since 1814 or, to a lesser extent, Chinese civilization at various times and the Inka Empire since the conquest of Chimor; except in the case of Sweden and to a lesser extent Tokugawa Japan, all these states lacked free trade: The Inka even had a centrally planned economy. Contrast this with the free trade-loving USA or the British Empire and their many wars or the Mercantilist Spanish Empire and its violent destruction of Mesoamerican and Andean civilization.

No, there are almost 7 billion people on this Earth. Conflicts will happen until the end of time. That doesn't mean we can't mind our own damn business and avoid said conflicts as much as possible.