How to obtain world peace?

[Atras]

So tell me...what do you think is necessary for us to have world peace?

[Darkmatters]

I'd say destroy all humans, but then the monkeys would probably develop politics...

[Seroquel]

Major depopulation combined with a one world government.

[Atras]

So theres no way to obtain peace without a bunch of people dying?

[Darkmatters]

Well, widespread lobotomies might be a step in the right direction.

[Atras]

Well, widespread lobotomies might be a step in the right direction. Um how?

[Darkmatters]

Well, I think the only way to have world peace with the entire population still intact would be if everybody was a slobbering idiot. Even then though, they'd still fight. But it wouldn't be organized enough to call war.

[Laughing Man]

So tell me...what do you think is necessary for us to have world peace? What do you define as world peace? An environment in which no one on the entire planet comes into conflict with another individual?

[Atras]

What do you define as world peace? An environment in which no one on the entire planet comes into conflict with another individual? No wars, no major violence, people doing things in the interests of others, not themselves. As a generality, obviously its impossible for EVERYONE to be peaceful.

[Laughing Man]

No wars, no major violence, people doing things in the interests of others, not themselves. As a generality, obviously its impossible for EVERYONE to be peaceful. Well every action is in the interest of one's self. That is why action is carried out, to remove a felt unease. I think a great way to start off toward something like "world peace" as you define it is to get rid of the State. It is an institution which engages in mass violence against a group or other state. The perception is that the United States is fighting Al Qaeda in the present period but that isn't true. The "United States" isn't fighting anything. A certain group of people who define themselves as "Americans" are fighting a group of individuals who call themselves "Al Qaeda." People don't exactly think in this manner. They postulate that since these "Americans" are fighting the battle and they are also apart of the institution known as the "U.S. Government" which has domain in this geographical local and since they are under perception that the "U.S. Government" is elected by on the basis of a majority, then a majority of people in this given geographical area must support & engage in this battle. Therefore it is no longer seen as a small group but a giant mass and that is essentially what war is...mass violence.

[HeavySleeper]

It's hard to say if world peace will ever really be possible. Individual conflicts will probably always exist, but maybe our society as a whole will develop and mature enough in the future to become relatively pacifist. We still seem to be a stupid and destructive species at times, but I think we've come a long way in terms of tolerance and self-control from say a few hundred years ago. The way I see it, the society we live in is like one big social experiment. Over the course of history, we've developed a lot of beliefs and ideologies (such as Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, etc), and we've tried them out to see if they work. Through the democratic process, we can pit these ideas against each other and pick the one we think is best for solving our problems. Over time, all of these ideologies go through rigorous testing and we then know which ones to keep and which ones to throw out. We don't always learn from our mistakes though, and we can sometimes keep using the same flawed methods, which keep producing the same undesired results. But if we do learn from the lessons of the past and reshape our culture accordingly, we may one day find an efficient system on which our society can run. This will enable us to tackle our many problems (like poverty, unemployment and dwindling resources), which will hopefully lead to a more peaceful world.

By Force. History agrees with me.

[Atras]

By Force. History agrees with me. Force involves violence. We will never obtain peace through violence, in my opinion.

[IndieAnthias]

As long as we are organized on the state level, our violent tendencies will manifest themselves on the state level (in other words... be blown massively out of proportion). I think violence is in our DNA. That's not an expert opinion, but it's not a wholly uninformed one either. Furthermore, I have reason to doubt that total nonviolence is a productive goal. But like I said, violent tendencies don't have to be magnified by the state like they are.

[Supernova]

Well every action is in the interest of one's self. That is why action is carried out, to remove a felt unease.

[nina]

Get rid of everyone besides hippies and beauty queens? Unfortunately, it just seems like human nature. I don't think world peace is a possibility, unless there is a massive transition in thought/consciousness as some people think will happen in 2012, and that just isn't likely at all. I'd say people are 90% more likely to wipe themselves out than achieve something like world peace.

[Atras]

I think it will take something really bad to happen before people start waking up. Unfortunately.

[Unelias]

Wait, are we talking about humans in this thread? As we are now that goal is not achievable. People cannot even live in peace in a little house that is full of cameras and booze.

[Supernova]

First contact.

[Darkmatters]

One of the keys to problem solving is to clearly define the problem first. Often by doing this the solution presents itself. The original question is way too vague and nobody has really defined what would constitute a real and realistic solution. It's also the kind of phrase that people don't usually use when they want a real answer, but just to pessimistically bemoan human nature or dream unrealistically of some distant utopia. I'm getting tired of hearing about how flawed human nature is. Don't we already know this? And is it really only human nature that makes us violent? Isn't violence a basic component of life itself? In order to live, isn't it always necessary for one thing to feed off the deaths of others- animals and plants alike? Some are scavengers benefiting from the random deaths of others, some are parasites or predators. But at root, life itself grows from death. Even plants need soil to root in, and soil is essentially dead plant matter for the most part. And yet we bemoan human nature as if the rest of nature is blissful and idyllic! It is true that since achieving consciousness of a human level we've become a lot more adept at destroying other species and displacing them to build our homes and cities, and at killing each other and doing collateral damage to each other for profit or greed or necessity. Sometimes I have to laugh when I see one of those cheesy sci-fi movies from the 50's where the whole message is that there's a galactic federation of peaceful aliens and humans as an emerging species are too warlike to join and must be eliminated. It seems childishly simplistic. I suspect if there were a galactic federation the other species would be just as warlike as us if not more so. Hell let's face it... the whole REASON we became the dominant species is because we became the most efficient species at killing and at using the resources around us for our own benefit - even if those resources were already in use by wildlife or another race of humans. So yes, violence and destruction is in our nature, as it is in the nature of all living things, and I don't believe it would be a realistic possibility for the human race to exist without doing violence or destruction. We'd first have to become completely unnatural. Growing technology has made it possible for us to destroy the world many times over. Somehow we still haven't done it. Other technology has also allowed us to accidentally or purposely destroy habitats of entire species. We sometimes do and sometimes don't. As we were developing this technology our attitude was one of progress and prosperity. It's changed now, and we've become much more aware of our responsibility - but unfortunately it's already too late in most respects to dismantle the technologies that have been wreaking havoc on ecosystems... the automotive industry and factories, nuclear plants etc. And if it were possible, would we? Doubtful in most cases. Governments depend on oil politics in order to continue to exist, and no government will willingly destroy itself for ecological or utopian purposes. Our burgeoning civilization has massive systems in place... governmental, transportational, waste disposal, etc... infrastructures I believe they're called, that can't just be destroyed overnight and new ones built. It would uproot entire cities and be cost-prohibitive. I know I'm going beyond the topic of world peace, but I'm trying to keep it in a realistic perspective... we can't just make changes without utterly devastating the systems we have already in place. So in order to more realistically answer the original question, it becomes a matter of more clearly defining what would constitute a possible level of peace. Does peace require some degree of force? Of course... unfortunately there are differences between people, and they're going to fight over these differences. Racial, sexual preference, political affiliation, some are poor while some are rich, some don't even have the basic necessities of life while some waste them ridiculously. Alright, I'm losing my focus and don't know what else to say, so I'll just stop here.

[Sornaensis]

Like x300

[Darkmatters]

Thank you!

[Atras]

I'm getting tired of hearing about how flawed human nature is. Don't we already know this? And is it really only human nature that makes us violent? Isn't violence a basic component of life itself? In order to live, isn't it always necessary for one thing to feed off the deaths of others- animals and plants alike? Some are scavengers benefiting from the random deaths of others, some are parasites or predators. But at root, life itself grows from death. Even plants need soil to root in, and soil is essentially dead plant matter for the most part. And yet we bemoan human nature as if the rest of nature is blissful and idyllic! Theres a difference between violence in order to survive, and mass violence and genocide in order to further ones interests. Sometimes I have to laugh when I see one of those cheesy sci-fi movies from the 50's where the whole message is that there's a galactic federation of peaceful aliens and humans as an emerging species are too warlike to join and must be eliminated. It seems childishly simplistic. I suspect if there were a galactic federation the other species would be just as warlike as us if not more so. Hell let's face it... the whole REASON we became the dominant species is because we became the most efficient species at killing and at using the resources around us for our own benefit - even if those resources were already in use by wildlife or another race of humans. So yes, violence and destruction is in our nature, as it is in the nature of all living things, and I don't believe it would be a realistic possibility for the human race to exist without doing violence or destruction. We'd first have to become completely unnatural. I disagree. I do not believe that any race can become advanced enough to travel light years distances and amass the amount of technology that we think aliens have, while still being a violent and greedy society. We are using our resources so exponentially fast that they will be gone way too soon. Its estimated that in 50 years we will be out of most of oil. We are polluting and destroying our planet, destroying ecosystems, and harming the health of society because of the greed of corporations. We are constantly finding ways to get into wars, mostly because of oil or just to flex our American muscle. There are other wars going on in the world because of self interest constantly. And we have the ability to completely destroy our planet many times over. As we advance we will only become more violent and our kill capacity will increase. At the rate at which we are advancing, eventually, if we do not become peaceful, we will destroy ourselves. It is guaranteed. We cannot keep doing what we are doing. So I do not believe that any race which is hundreds of thousands of years ahead of us could still be like us in violence and corruption. They would have to be enlightened to get that far. Yes violence is in our nature, we are after all animals. But I wouldn't call violence human nature, I would call it animalistic nature. Greed and corruption is human nature. And peace and selflessness is human nature on a higher consciousness. For us to become peaceful we have to be enlightened to a higher consciousness. Just because violence is in our nature does not mean it is right. All it means is that its harder for us to be peaceful but if we do become peaceful, then we are no longer animals, we can truly call ourselves intelligent, enlightened, civilized people. Growing technology has made it possible for us to destroy the world many times over. Somehow we still haven't done it. Completely disagree. The only reason we have not destroyed ourselves with nuclear weapons is just pure sheer luck. We have come close so many times and we are still on thin ice. The danger of nuclear destruction is not even close to being over. Other technology has also allowed us to accidentally or purposely destroy habitats of entire species. We sometimes do and sometimes don't. As we were developing this technology our attitude was one of progress and prosperity. It's changed now, and we've become much more aware of our responsibility Again I disagree. We don't sometimes detroy habitats and sometimes dont. WE always do and we are doing it more and more. As we are continuosly polluting, deforesting, and destroying the enviorenment just to fill our pockets with cash, we are destroying thousands of species. Scientists believe that we are in the 5th mass extinction of animals. I wonder why. And we are definetly not developing an attitudde towards progress and prosperity. We are not more aware of our responsibiity. Some are, but there are still too many who will only do what serves the interests of the wealthy and corporations. Which in turn causes negative externalities that we the people must pay. but unfortunately it's already too late in most respects to dismantle the technologies that have been wreaking havoc on ecosystems... the automotive industry and factories, nuclear plants etc. And if it were possible, would we? Doubtful in most cases. Governments depend on oil politics in order to continue to exist, and no government will willingly destroy itself for ecological or utopian purposes. Our burgeoning civilization has massive systems in place... governmental, transportational, waste disposal, etc... infrastructures I believe they're called, that can't just be destroyed overnight and new ones built. It would uproot entire cities and be cost-prohibitive. I know I'm going beyond the topic of world peace, but I'm trying to keep it in a realistic perspective... we can't just make changes without utterly devastating the systems we have already in place. We do not have to destroy the system or uproot society in order to achieve progress. We just need to start making decisions that serve the interests of the people, help bring about peace, and don't cause harm to other living beings or the enviornment. We obviously can't do it overnight but the excuse that it's not possible or that it is cost inneficient is bullshit. It is possible, and it may be cost prohibitive at first, but eventually it will actually cause us to prosper. Green technology is a huge oppurtunity for wealth, working to help the poor will obviously help everyone become wealthier, and of course stopping wars will cause a boom in the world wide economy. TA report in May 2011 on the Global Peace Index highlighted that had the world been 25% more peaceful in the past year, the global economy would have benefited by an additional $2 trillion, which would account for 2% of global GDP per annum required to mitigate global warming, cover all costs to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, cancel all public debt held by Greece, Ireland and Portugal, and cover the rebuilding costs for the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. So basically, peace is possible but it will take us to take action. We must stop doing what is just in the interest of money but what is in the interest of people. We must help the poor and needy, we must make decisions that benefits the majority not the wealthy minority; that help improve human equality not degrade it, that help improve the environment not destroy it, and that protects the rights and lives of people, not take them away. Once we have a society that's main focus is that, then we can have peace. You may say it's an unrealistic utopian dream, but its not. We just have to take it one step at a time, and always work in a progressive way, and not use excuses such as its not possible or its cost prohibitive, or say we've already done enough.

Force involves violence. We will never obtain peace through violence, in my opinion. Most major civilizations were founded by force. Now all we need is one big global force that can make this all good.

[Atras]

Yes and all major civilizations end up falling as well. And how does the founding of a major civilization equate peace? Civilization in the modern world just means we have technology. We are by no means peaceful and force will never cause peace. You can continually kill people until they do what you want, but do they really believe in it? You can't destroy an idea through strength of arms. And people will always fight back.