World Peace is impossible, why keep selling it?
Ending world hunger has been possible for decades but it never happens. Why keep preaching the dream? Just to feel good about yourself? To make yourself look good? To pay for your lifestyle instead of getting a real job? Or has something new been discovered that suddenly makes it a reality today that wasn't true yesterday?
There's no money in "peace". Entire industries and financial infrastructures would collapse without war. Even our own government is at risk. So where's the motive beyond political speeches?
I can scream "World Peace" all day long and it won't stop someone from pulling a gun on me right here in my own back yard.
Besides, to have peace, it has to be enforced. By definition doesn't enforcement go against the idea behind a world of peace?
No tip has been added to this answer (I encourage others to keep tipping at a minimum too) to see if people really care or if it's truly all about money, winning and contests.
Let the real contest begin!
(Note: This question is worded to be thought provoking and should not be interpreted as criticism or an argument for war.)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$5 Answers
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
"Impossible" doesn't mean "very very hard", "very unlikely" or "will take an enormously long time to achieve".
World peace is no more impossible than peace between Britain, France and Germany, which fought each other for centuries, before now becoming more-or-less allies and friends.
That doesn't mean it's easy to accomplish or it could be accomplished in, say, the next 50 years.
Aside from that even apparently impossible goals can be worth pursuing.
Once upon a time people thought for very good reasons that powered flight would be impossible. They were wrong, but not stupid to think that.
It might be impossible for me to live to a 100, but does that mean I'd be healthier and happier if I set a more "realistic" goal of living to only 70?
Not necessarily.
> One persons peace is another's war.
Really? So are Britain and France at war?
> Besides, to have peace, it has to be enforced
Who enforces peace between Germany and France?
I think human beings mostly believe whatever the heck they want to believe, and then make up "logic" to justify their position. This seems to be exactly what you've done here.
There are many defense industries as you say, and yet when the Cold War ended, everyone was glad of the "peace dividend" and being able to spend their money on more positive things.
If you take a long view of history, over hundreds of years, it is pretty striking how there are ever expanding regions of peace and stability.
No inter-tribal warfare happening in the US. No wars between statelets within India. No wars in Western Europe. No wars between Catholics and Protestants over religion.
There are still plenty of conflicts left, but if you rewound back 100, 200, or 300 years it was much worse.
The trend is certainly not in a direction that we could conclude that world peace is impossible.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Modern communications means that we are now aware of all wars and conflicts around the world. In the past we were all blissfully ignorant of wars going on in distant lands. There still are a lot; but, most of them are pretty small scale as wars go. What is more, there have been no wars of conquest, that is to say wars to change the borders of a country significantly, since WWII. There have been some civil wars that broke up or reunited countries; but, the world community as a whole has essentially forbidden anything but the most minor border adjustments. This is a huge advance in reducing the motivation for war and it has stood for decades now. All the wars that are going on now are civil wars, sometimes with outside meddling, but essentially civil wars.
The ultimate truth is: humans are warfaring creatures. We've been doing it for thousands of years for a myriad of reasons (land, religion, money or power are the Big Four) and chances are we're not going to quit any time soon. Personally, (and you'll all think I'm insane for saying this) I believe this is why other life forms haven't come to share information with us - they're afraid we're going to try and destroy them - which we probably would. That seems to be mankinds answer to everything: let's kill it, then study it after the fact.
And, like you said, war is big business. Think of all of the jobs the war machine creates: SOMEone has to build the planes and make the bullets and sew clothing that our troops wear. To no longer have war would put all of those folks out of jobs. What are they all going to do? Be farmers?
Yes, as much as I hate war, it's not going to go away.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Anyone thinking "1984"? Sad stuff.
Now, that's not to say there's a lot of love and positivity in the world too! But If I talked about that after authoring the above, I'd be going against myself, which in fact may be very interesting, but I think I would disqualify myself from the actual answer - and may make me look quite insane.
1)Hunger.
We've done an amazing job against starvation. Most of the people who die of starvation do so because of dysentery, which is caused by unclear water supplies. Already scientists are doing wonders in the area of clean water. Other cases of starvation tend to be because of horrible governments hampering with the free market. China for example had starvation year after year until they allowed farms to keep a small percent of profits.
2) There no Money in "peace." Oh my god... DEEP BREATH... hyper ventilating on that one...
No free market enterprise has gone into ANYTHING like war. It is not a coincidence that the worst and most totalitarian societies are cut off economically. We were always at the soviets throats because we did not trade with them. An embargo against Japan directly lead to them attacking us. Economic restrictions on Nazi Germany completely lead to the establishment of their regime. Current trade restrictions on North Korea and Cuba only lead to these areas becoming less free and more violent.
You can make money on war, YES. But ONLY through tax money. If people actually had to choice to keep their money or invade Iraq... no one would write that check. If 40% of the people didn't want to write the check at price X, then the price would almost double, which would further inhibits involvement, which correspondingly raises the price for the remaining participants, who then have more and more of a percentage dropping out. This cycle of lowered participation and raised costs makes war economically unfeasible in the free market. You ONLY make money through peace, war by definition is a waste of time and resources.
3) "I can scream "World Peace" all day long and it won't stop someone from pulling a gun on me right here in my own back yard. "
This is called the Myth of Violence. When someone murders someone it makes great TV, but its absurdly rare. What little violent crime exists is due to drugs being illegal. If you give me 100 WIDGETS, and I don't pay, you can go to the cops. Drug dealers have to "take care of things" themselves. Drug prohibition also increases the costs of highly addictive substances which are by their nature are inelastic demand products. This simply encourages users to steal and murder to scrounge the money for the next hit.
Sure there will be crazies killing people here and there, or a jealous husband. But these events are rare, its governments that are the primary destroyers of human life.
4) "By definition doesn't enforcement go against the idea behind a world of peace? "
This is the problem with our society. You are seeing a choice between pacifism and attacking. Between weakness and aggression. There is a third choice, called the Non-Aggression Principle. This is why libertarians are so anti-war and so pro-gun. Its only through the enforcement of self and third party defense that you truly have peace.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Drug lords, Dictators, you, the IRA, the PLO, Noam Chomsky, me and Obama do not have different definitions of what peace is - we have different definitions of what needs to happen in order for peace to be realized. There is a difference between process and outcome. And there is more than one version of the history book out there. Ever read "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn?
I did mention the backyard in description of the question but didn't elaborate.
As for definitions of Peace, a Dictator or Drug Lord has their own definition of what peace entails. America sure does. So does North Korea and China. But it's not the same as ours.
If we take it upon ourselves to enforce or enact our concept of Peace on others it's no worse than if they were to enforce or enact their concept of Peace on us. It's not like our definition is superior to anyone but ourselves. There is no unbiased judge that sits above the rest and calls fair or foul. The group that can hit the hardest not only writes the history books but their definition of peace wins.
As for peace being the absence of adversity, I will agree with that. Some will even say that without adversity there can be no progress - which I don't agree with. But adversity is as much a part of human nature as anything. Not too many people can live without it.
Yes, sometimes peace must be fought for (I'm not the sort of person to use 'we' lightly). Obviously during the fight, peace has not yet been achieved. It is the goal, even though it is not the process. I don't know what your mean by your conclusion - 'one person's definition is greater than another, which brings us back to a world without peace' Peace is the absence of adversity. That is the definition. I'm not saying it's easy to achieve, I'm saying that there is a solution to everything, even world hunger. Whether or not it's practical or desirable to implement is another question. Why do you think that your definition of peace is something that must be enforced on others? Are you saying that if someone in Southern America refused to properly recycle, you would want to usurp them from their land because they are not, according to your definition, thinking globally? Relax. In order for peace to be achieved, everyone does not have to get what they want; rather they need to broaden their perspectives, think more positively and most importantly, take it easy. I agree with you about beginning locally, but then you might have rephrased your question to something like, "how can we achieve world peace if we can't even achieve it in our own neighborhoods". I might not have answered that question. I'm simply trying to say that you can't do anything if you believe that you cannot.
"Motivational" that worked for me.
And you're saying that sometimes we must fight for peace. Which implies that one persons definition of peace is greater than another's and so the opposition must be destroyed. Which brings us back to a world without peace.
I can "think globally and act locally" without enforcing my definition of peace on others. But I'd never try to motivate people by using the World as my excuse. I'd rather bring people together I can touch, feed, heal and help right next to me where it's needed the most.
Why do you guys think peace needs to be enforced? That's like saying you need a cop standing in front of you 24/7 telling you not to strangle your neighbor, because if he is not there to
"enforce the peace" you will commit atrocities. When peace is not happening, there is a reason - because two distinct things cannot both exist in one place. But once that is no longer the case, then peace can exist without being "enforced." I think you are confusing peace with justice. They are separate concepts.
Do you think the world would be at peace as long as there are people out there that have a desire to kill, rape, and not follow law? There are some people who do need someone standing next to them 24/7 to keep them from strangling their neighbor! If there wasn't people like that we wouldn't have so many unsolved murders! How do you propose we have peace if there is no justice? The only way that would happen would be if we killed off all people who wanted to go against what the next persons opinion of peace is! Hense we wouldn't have anyone left on the planet. Peace requires agreeing. You will never get everyone to agree!