NationStates Jolt Archive

is it? what is it that stops us from living in peace, love and harmony with our neighbours, whoever they may be?





of course this requires some form of universally accepted moral code of conduct, but most people do subscribe to a form of accepted morality - and pretty much everyone accepts the notion of living your life without causing intentional harm to others.

so, why can't we do this?

-snip- ...and pretty much everyone accepts the notion of living your life without causing intentional harm to others. -snip-
No, not everyone does. They only respond to violence, so we must use violence against them.

Because people still think Christianity is some sort of savage cult out to eliminate "freedom" and "democracy" and "fun" and "games".

Because people still think Christianity is some sort of savage cult out to eliminate "freedom" and "democracy" and "fun" and "games".

The Westernised version of it pretty much is.

And, think about this: A lot of people don't want to be forced to join a religion.

Human beings derive their evolutionary superiority to our two key abilities: Adapt and Overcome. Our capacity to adapt our behaviour to compensate for almost any circumstance has provided us with such a powerful edge that the desire to overcome any foe or obstacle has ground itself into our genes.

From whence arises the problem. Crawling up from our genes and into almost any society we devise is our need to succeed, conquer and dominate. Even once we have discovered a group of behaviours or cultural imperatives that allow us to defeat our environmental threats, we are still left with a driving desire for more challenges to overcome.

The natural world is pretty bereft of such challenges now - hell, from the arctic to the sahara humankind has spread. Even now we struggle to expand into the lifeless void around our world to plant our seed around distant stars. But for the average person, even average tribe or nation, such expansion is denied by lack of resources. So our drive to conquer is turned on each other as civilisations and societies clash.

For peace all of humankind would have to be united in a concerted effort against a shared obstacle or threat. Find something along those lines for all of mankind and the peaceful world is ours.

No, not everyone does. They only respond to violence, so we must use violence against them.
:rolleyes:

Yes it is. People have very different ideas of morality and purpose that can not really coexist. To have peace we have to have common goals and morality and not everyone does have those things in common. There is also the problem of divisions, people support their group over other groups(which of course makes sense but does not help the idealistic process of peace). I do not really think that there will ever be peace unless some country takes over the world.

And, think about this: A lot of people don't want to be forced to join a religion.

That too, is stopping us from living in peace.

of course this requires some form of universally accepted moral code of conduct

thats the problem, everyone in the world does not have the same ideas on morality.

is it? what is it that stops us from living in peace, love and harmony with our neighbours, whoever they may be?





of course this requires some form of universally accepted moral code of conduct, but most people do subscribe to a form of accepted morality - and pretty much everyone accepts the notion of living your life without causing intentional harm to others.

so, why can't we do this?


Its all grand theft auto's fault ...now gimme a hug before I shoot you and run you over .

Because nobody seems to be able to agree about ANYTHING!!! :fluffle: :sniper:

The general greed of people. People are always wanting more, and what they can't get from themselves, be it salvation, money, or whatever else they desire, they get it from those that have.

People like security, they enjoy being in control... If they find someone with the slightest gram of power, they will immediately crush them.

Another thing. People need change. However, some people cannot accept change, therefore they do what they can to prevent it.

To sum, people are afraid, and to eliminate that fear, they blindly turn towards violence.

Because nobody seems to be able to agree about ANYTHING!!! :fluffle: :sniper:
I disagree...

I disagree...

Smartass. ;)

Well, we all have our own personal tastes and distastes, and sometimes other people just hit that distaste just right. They might not even try to, they probably don't even know, but whatever it is irks you so much that arguement occurs.

The basic human animal response to anything is survival, even if it means the death of another human animal. If another has what one wants, then you take it. If the other dies, then such as life.
If you are going for a job that someone else wants, and you win, tough shit to the other. It's the same thing with everything in our lives.
All we are are animals and why should our instinctual response be any different than any other animal?

Peace is boring .

Oh bah humbug, you're all reading too much into this. It's just a fundamental thing that people don't get along. There are behaviors that will irk someone out there that we all portray. For example, my recalcitrance with cleaning the basement irks my parents to no end.

Meanwhile the kid who circles around our street on his noisy little toy motorcycle irks me to no end.

People are different, and the source of disagreement (and therefore arguement and possibly violence even) is that.

is it? what is it that stops us from living in peace, love and harmony with our neighbours, whoever they may be?

No, people don't like other people who are different. May it be religion, political, intelligence, social status, etc.

Put everybody on the same equal ground ie: Communism, then they'll start hammering each other to climb to the top.

What people need is tolerance and empathy to see through other people's shoes.

so, why can't we do this?
We're the most agressive, adaptable, cooperative, opportunistic territorial predators that 4.5 billion orbits of our rock was able to produce, and we're in competition for limited accessable resources.

Human beings derive their evolutionary superiority to our two key abilities: Adapt and Overcome. Our capacity to adapt our behaviour to compensate for almost any circumstance has provided us with such a powerful edge that the desire to overcome any foe or obstacle has ground itself into our genes.

From whence arises the problem. Crawling up from our genes and into almost any society we devise is our need to succeed, conquer and dominate. Even once we have discovered a group of behaviours or cultural imperatives that allow us to defeat our environmental threats, we are still left with a driving desire for more challenges to overcome.

The natural world is pretty bereft of such challenges now - hell, from the arctic to the sahara humankind has spread. Even now we struggle to expand into the lifeless void around our world to plant our seed around distant stars. But for the average person, even average tribe or nation, such expansion is denied by lack of resources. So our drive to conquer is turned on each other as civilisations and societies clash.

For peace all of humankind would have to be united in a concerted effort against a shared obstacle or threat. Find something along those lines for all of mankind and the peaceful world is ours.
I'd say this more or less hits the nail right on the head. Bravo.

The threat you describe would have to be a permanent, real one: and it couldn't be a construct of humanity, since if it was it would undoubtedly have it's proponents, the destruction of whom would undermine the very concept of "peace," no matter what their ideology. This could mean anything from poverty to racism to capitalism [if that's your thing] and so forth.

So yeah, at this point everything's pretty much a mess.

thats the problem, everyone in the world does not have the same ideas on morality.
this pretty much sums up a lot of the arguements here.

so what about thinking about this on a very local scale... everyone in the world may not agree, but, on a local scale between you and your neighbours, it is unusual to find massive disagreements in morality. and even if there is, a 'live an let live' attitude solves any problems caused by these differences, as long as nobody is harming anyone else. is it really any of your buisness what your neighbour does anyway?

i know this is a super-simplified view, and where there is a strong religious or tribal influence there is more likely to be differences; but by saying live n let live, and putting aside grudges or hate, perhaps even in these torn places of the world there can be peace. and if two neighbours live like this in peace, and they both live in peace with their neighbours, who live in peace and 'live n let live' with theirs, soon the whole world is covered...

so in this sense is there any role for government? in this regard all it becomes is a viechle for some men's desire for power and domination - if its true that governments that start wars on their own, or the sum of its nation's ideological beliefs, then removing governments is a step towards peace?



sorry, i'm just throwing ideas out here...

[Originally Posted by Potaria:
And, think about this: A lot of people don't want to be forced to join a religion.]
That too, is stopping us from living in peace.

Nope. The Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the hopefully-over mess in Northern Ireland, and Islamic fundamentalism demonstrate that the religious are quite incapable of living in peace.

Besides, you'd have to make everyone a member of exactly the same religion; not even different brands of Christianity get along. Doubtless that'd cause a few wars...

You want world peace? Kill all the humans. It's the only thing for it.

so what about thinking about this on a very local scale... everyone in the world may not agree, but, on a local scale between you and your neighbours, it is unusual to find massive disagreements in morality. and even if there is, a 'live an let live' attitude solves any problems caused by these differences, as long as nobody is harming anyone else. is it really any of your buisness what your neighbour does anyway?

And then somebody plants a hedge, or knocks down a wall, or gets a bee in their bonnet about some perceived trivial injustice and Mr. Jones winds up burying Mr. Smith's mutilated corpse beneath the patio.

And then somebody plants a hedge, or knocks down a wall, or gets a bee in their bonnet about some perceived trivial injustice and Mr. Jones winds up burying Mr. Smith's mutilated corpse beneath the patio.
hence live and let live, with a hint of unconditional love.

ah fuck it everyone should just smoke pot and take shrooms - the world would be a happier place i can tell you...

I'd say this more or less hits the nail right on the head. Bravo.

The threat you describe would have to be a permanent, real one: and it couldn't be a construct of humanity, since if it was it would undoubtedly have it's proponents, the destruction of whom would undermine the very concept of "peace," no matter what their ideology. This could mean anything from poverty to racism to capitalism [if that's your thing] and so forth.

So yeah, at this point everything's pretty much a mess.

So probably we're gonna have to wait for somebody or a group of people/things to pull a "Watchmen" on us. Note to self stay away from New York...