Thread: How to obtain world peace?

If aliens were somehow hostile, which I do not believe they are, we wouldn't be able to unite to defeat them. They would be able to wipe us out before we would know what's happening. Life isn't like Hollywood.

Well for my situation we would need more advanced technology, but I still believe that uniting against some other planet is the only possible way for world peace, with it lasting at best 5-10 years.

What if we used a combination of hardware, software and lucid dreaming to show everyone that we are in a simulation designed to improve the quality of consciousness. And that it can be done just as well, if not better, in peace.

one love

Originally Posted by WinRic

We need aliens.

The aliens will first need to do an attack on earth with us unprepared. Everyone will hate the aliens for attacking us and unite for the purpose of destroying the aliens. WORLD PEACE (in terms of on our world no one wil be fighting each other)

But world peace could only last as long as everyone is against the aliens that attacked us.

This was the most realistic possibility I could think of for world peace

lol this sounds like a way to form nwo. false flag alien attack by government. to make everyone agree to for one world government to fight the aliens that aren't really attacking us.

Originally Posted by saltyseedog

lol this sounds like a way to form nwo. false flag alien attack by government. to make everyone agree to for one world government to fight the aliens that aren't really attacking us.

Scapegoat

I also thought of government conspiracy as I was writing it, but my main thoughts were of Pearl Harbor, 9/11, and (sorry for the nerdiness) Gundam 00

...gundam seems so out of place there

Lol well you better hope we never go at war with aliens, because if we do, were screwed.

Originally Posted by Atras

Lol well you better hope we never go at war with aliens, because if we do, were screwed.

Ya, I know, we will probably never be at the level of aliens, but I found it more possible than everyone magically getting along.

Not magically, through work and progress.

Originally Posted by WinRic

Ya, I know, we will probably never be at the level of aliens, but I found it more possible than everyone magically getting along.

This is of course Assuming Aliens = Smarter than us. Who's to say they're not Cavemen I.Q leveled.

Think before you speak :p if aliens had the iq of a cavemen they would never be able to travel through space to our planet.

I have no belief at all that humans can ever be peaceful. From what I've seen humans aren't good, there will always be corrupt who get into positions of power

There may be cavemen aliens somewhere, but the ones I'm talking about are the ones that can attack us for this scenario.

Like I said before, to become advanced enough to travel to our planet from light years away, they must abandon violence and greed. If they cling on to it they would destroy themselves before becoming advanced enough.

Originally Posted by Atras

Think before you speak :p if aliens had the iq of a cavemen they would never be able to travel through space to our planet.

Think before YOU speak. You're just assuming aliens come on their own will here. Who's to say they aren't slaves of another race dumping them on earth?

If they were slaves then this is completely off topic because we are talking about aliens attacking earth.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Who's to say they aren't slaves of another race dumping them on earth?

Fighting for survival? Fighting on arrival.

Originally Posted by IAmCoder

Fighting for survival? Fighting on arrival.

That wouldn't be world peace, the world would be fighting.

Atras, I'm not sure we're really on the same page here. You seem to ascribe a lot of conclusions to me that I didn't really make. I can understand why though.

Let me say this - in the first paragraph of my post I said that a key to problem solving is to clearly define the problem first, and most of my post was simply an effort toward that. I wasn't really making any judgements or drawing conclusions... I was simply trying to define terms and ideas more clearly to help begin conversation. I tried to make very balanced statements with no real positive or negative judgements. It seems that you took much of what I said as judgements. I don't say this as any kind of accusation... I just want to try to clear up a misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Atras

Theres a difference between violence in order to survive, and mass violence and genocide in order to further ones interests.

Of course... completely agreed on that. We can't include genocide as a basic part of human nature though, can we? As far as I'm aware it's only a handful of fanatical madmen leading fanatical followers who have attempted genocide. Well, against human races anyway. I just realized you might mean extinction of animal species too. Again though, I don't believe that the desire to wipe out animal species is a component of human nature. I think it's the soullessness of huge corporations that want to relentlessly increase their power and earnings that proceed with their projects even when it could endanger a species. And while this mass corporate greed is of course an effect of humanity, it's people en masse, which as we know a crowd will act very differently than an individual (mob mentality). Individuals have a conscience (at least most do) - crowds don't.

Mass violence - war - destruction on a huge scale. I also don't believe these are inherent traits of human nature. I've never committed any of them. Have you? No person I know has. It takes large groups of people to do these things. So again, I say it's not an inherent part of human nature, but rather a side-effect caused by political groups and mob mentality. When soldiers go to war they're not trying to wipe out other humans (for the most part anyway) - they honestly believe they're making a necessary stand for their own country or group - defending it against attack or whatever. Yes, there are a few small fanatical groups who WANT to destroy other people out of fanaticism, but I believe this is human nature TWISTED by bizarre religion beliefs or hatefulness. Not really what I'd call an essential component of human nature.

And yes - I do realize that even in the less fanatical wars there are people near the top making horrible decisions and sending those soldiers off to war. But I believe even the generals and politicians who create the wars are responding to immense pressures and believe that what they're doing is RIGHT and necessary. "We must wage a war in the middle east to control oil interests or our entire Western way of life will come to a terrible end". Countries, political systems etc... these are also infrastructures and are too complex now to just erase and start over in any simple way.

And again.. I AM NOT saying that it's OK for these generals and politicians to create wars that they believe are necessary.... or for the soldiers to line up in patriotic ranks to wage those wars. But I'm saying there are understandable reasons why it's done, and until we can somehow remove those REASONS, I don't see how we can end these kinds of wars.

Calling these things "human nature" oversimplifies their extreme complexity, and does not help toward a solution.

But please understand - I am NOT saying that this behavior is acceptable!!! Not AT ALL!!! I totally agree with you that it should and MUST be eradicated if at all possible! I'm merely trying to say that I don't believe we can call genocidal tendencies a component of human nature... just a tragic and reprehensible effect of today's burgeoning technologies and corporate greed. I guess I'd say it's Corporate nature, but not really HUMAN nature. Maybe only a semantic difference though. But I believe it does tie in with the prevalent ideas expressed above that in order to achieve peace, it would be necessary to downsize the human race. Smaller groups of people and enough resources for all would be a huge step towards peace!

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

Obviously on all these issues we're in total agreement. I said all these things in my original post.

[QUOTE=Atras;1732702]
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.[QUOTE]

... we probably will. Though if we're lucky there may be small groups of survivors who can begin over at a more primitive level and without advanced technology. They may be able to live in relative peace for many centuries until they again reach the level where they can destroy the human race or the planet.

Originally Posted by Atras

We cannot keep doing what we are doing.

We probably will.

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

Ok, I see the point you're making. And I must agree. Any highly technologically advanced race would have to be enlightened to survive their own potential for destruction. Possibly it happens when the majority of the populace is destroyed and, as the saying goes, the meek inherit the earth.

Originally Posted by Atras

Greed and corruption is human nature.

I can't agree with this statement in this form. To say greed and corruption is human nature implies that it's ALL of human nature. I don't even agree that greed and corruption are a part of normal human nature. I believe they're a sort of perversion of human nature. Not everyone is greedy and corrupt - and not even everyone who's in the position to BE that way becomes that way. People have good in them as well as bad.

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

Ah ok - now I see the main thrust of your viewpoint!!

And I absolutely agree... in order to have peace (more peace than we have now) would require a lot more people become a lot more enlightened. The problem of course is... how to achieve this? You can't make people become enlightened. The vast majority of the population scoffs at the very word and considers it highfalutin' bullshit. Also there are people who consider themselves extremely enlightened and who believe in exterminating infidels and heretics. Unfortunately many people who are interested in enlightenment are religious fanatics. I'm just trying to list a few realistic obstacles that need to be considered. Though you are right... real and widespread enlightenment would be necessary in order to attain peace. I'm just not sure I believe that's a realistic goal in any way shape or form. Heh ok, that was a judgement!

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

You don't agree that we haven't destroyed the world many times over?

Heh ok, sorry that sounded a bit sarcastic. But I didn't say WHY we haven't destroyed ourselves... I only said that we haven't. You drew an inference from that and ascribed it to me and then proceeded to disagree with it. Come on... it IS a bit funny!

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

We do not always destroy habitats! In many cases where that's an option an equitable solution is found. You seem to see humanity as nothing more than a relentless killing machine chewing up the world. It does sometimes resemble that, but I feel that's unfair. Many corporations are going increasingly green now. Logging companies usually reseed so that the forest grows back, and strip away forest in such a way that not all of it is destroyed - they leave enough to preserve at least a degree of the ecosystem. Then they'll return in a decade or two and cut away the old growth trees they left last time, leaving the new growth to prosper. This actually supposedly stimulates the ecosystem in some way (ok, I don't know a lot about it... as I was writing this I realized I don't have any facts to back it up, but I have heard this is true). We now have hybrid cars which cuts down on carbon emissions (a little I know, but it shows that auto corporations are working toward a better model). I just don't share your apparently pessimistic view of corporations, though I do agree that many of them are evil and destructive on a vast scale. But not all, and it seems that many of them are learning to at least begin to work toward solutions.

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

To me this sounds like a major uprooting!! All of the political, social, economic, educational etc systems currently in effect are very petrified and resistant to change. I do not believe any of them would easily change without some major impetus.

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

I don't think I said it's not possible did I? Or did you mean "their" excuse? I totally agree that things should be changed even though it wouldn't be cost effective in the short term - but the problem I was trying to point out is that no corporation or established system that depends on profit is going to make cost-ineffective decisions! It would threaten their very survival!! No company wants to destroy itself. So the problem I was trying to point out was that we need to find some way to achieve the goal but we must keep in mind that these are the kind of powerful resistances that we face. I agree they're bullshit, but saying that accomplishes nothing. I was simply presenting these as subjects to be discussed - trying to help define the question more thoroughly. Heh, and as much as I agree with your sentiments and dismissive attitude toward these problems, they're very real and can't just be waved away.

Originally Posted by Atras

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.

No, I don't say that's an unrealistic utopian dream at all. I was saying that usually when people use the term "world peace" they're just talking about some dreamy utopia without actually defining specifically what peace is or what steps could actually be taken to achieve it - OR that it's used the opposite way, in a pessimistic diatribe basically just saying "world peace is impossible" blah blah blah. Heh you know, the view you seem to think I hold.

In your last paragraph here I think you've come a lot closer to defining what would constitute a realistic goal. I would go further though. "help the poor and needy" for example is extremely vague. We know it's impossible to completely eradicate these problems, barring some technology that currently doesn't exist or some miraculous sudden change in government policies. What amount and type of help would you consider possible and would constitute a real solution? Obviously there are many organizations already working to help the poor and needy, and obviously more can and should be done. Some of those organizations are actually scams and some fail to actually get money or food to the poor and instead end up lining pockets of wealthy people via various shady deals. Personally I don't know of any way to improve that situation though. It would essentially require complete restructuring of government and a close cooperation between nations on a level that's hard to imagine unless things change drastically somehow.

Again, please don't think I'm just knocking your ideas!! I'm not AT ALL... I completely agree something must be done... but I just don't know what or how.


Whew!! Too much typing. For all I know, the problems have been solved already while I was writing this!!!

A common goal or enemy.

Wow thank you for a very intelligent response dark matters. I completely agree with almost everything you said. I think I may have misunderstand your first post a little bit.

Thank you for reading it!! I doubt many will!

And to be fair, I think I failed to make myself very clear in the first post. So your response helped me to clarify it better.


I realized toward the end of my massive wall-o-text that I guess my belief is that the problem is too complicated for any single solution and probably the only possible way to work toward it is by various different groups doing what they can when the can. Sounds pretty lame I know.

But I also believe that most likely at some point we will destroy most of the human race and most life on earth, but that a few straggling survivors will crawl out of the radioactive wreckage and begin to repopulate. Heh... we'll actually be giving them a huge genetic boost thanks to radioactive fallout - the mutations that survive will be powerfully mutated, making them at least quite different from any species currently in existence. The earth has already changed hands from dinosaurs to humans. Who's next? Imagine a mutant cockroach civilization...

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Most major civilizations were founded by force. Now all we need is one big global force that can make this all good.

You can "found" things with force, but you cannot cultivate it with violence. People just won't have it. How can you ensure that this global force that has power to submit everyone else under its rule can be just? How do you intend to choose such institution, who has a right to claim such throne? History has proven that humans cannot handle power. As Atras said, you can never achieve true victory by bloodshed. You can destroy people, civilizations and nations, but it is hard to eraise memories. Hatred and revenge will just spawn a circle. And it will bite you in the ass eventually.

Free trade. When people are freely trading goods and services to each other, they are less likely to want to harm each other as it would go against their best interest. If you are selling stuff to someone, why would you kill them and risk losing all that money? And if you are getting stuff in return, why risk losing all the products that you want or may need?

You might say that people don't want to trade and would rather invade and steal it, but if given the choice people will usually rather just trade which results in a better profit, since wars can be extremely expensive. It is when you cut off trade, and refuse to talk to people that problems begin to come up.

Everyone has some resources that others do not, and improving trading all across the world would likely result in a much more peaceful relationship between each other.

Really any type of connection you can build between countries will make them more peaceful. I bring up trade specifically, because trade is more stable over the long term. Unlike say, combing all our currency into one, like the EU did. That caused a lot of problems, but there are not wars in the EU like there once was. If you go back a few hundred years ago, they were always fighting, nonstop. Both World wars started in Europe, they were as bad as the middle east.

Economic benefits are what people look for first, but anything will help. That is why people are so intersted in gaint one world governments. The problem with that, is that they want to force stuff on people, and forcing isn't peaceful and it doesn't work.

No one wants to really get involved in anything, unless they get a benefit out of it, and they definitely don't want to be involved by force. Which goes back to the trade, where people come together for mutual gain.

We'd need to change human nature. It's not built into human nature to "fix" human nature, either, unfortunately.

Just love everyone as much as you can. People aren't misguided, but ideas can be misguided. If they are influenced by poorly-established ideals, they will be likely to be seen as "misguided" themselves.

Now it may sound a little idealistic myself to say this... but love conquers all. (If it doesn't, we should just impose a global 1 child policy.)