NationStates Jolt Archive

It is a really simple question. Sometime in the future, do you think humanity as a whole will learn to set aside all their differences, be it by race, religion, gender or anything, and unite as they truly are; human?

Personally...I cannot get my hopes up. I want, I seriously want to believe that one day we can unite and work for a better future...but I am a realist. The history of humanity has been littered with violence due to petty differences. I doubt it will change any time soon...For that is the nature of the beast, and the beast, is us.

No. There will be peace when humanity is dead.

you even bothered to ask?

No. There will be peace when humanity is dead.
I just love that oh-so-twisted Rousseauian logic...
If it weren't for that the Peace Club at my school is supervised by a really cool teacher, I would be tempted to come to a meeting and tell them "Promote World Peace: Kill off Humanity!!!"

you even bothered to ask?

You want the long version or the short version?

Short version: Yes

Long version: Yes...dammit

Nice thread but my answer is no.

I just love that oh-so-twisted Rousseauian logic...
If it weren't for that the Peace Club at my school is supervised by a really cool teacher, I would be tempted to come to a meeting and tell them "Promote World Peace: Kill off Humanity!!!"
Humans want peace when it serves their interests. People have different interests you can rarely satisfy them all. Each fights for their interests. Unless humanity shares the same common interest, each will fight against the other.

Will Humanity Ever Learn to Get Along?

No.

Humans want peace when it serves their interests. People have different interests you can rarely satisfy them all. Each fights for their interests. Unless humanity shares the same common interest, each will fight against the other.
That is true, yet I never really liked the hive mentality.

It is not a question of whether peace will come, but what events will cause it to happen. This statement from the Baha'i Universal House of Justice is much larger, but these two paragraphs will give you the flavor of the document.

To the Peoples of the World:

1
The Great Peace towards which people of good will throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet -- in the words of one great thinker, "the planetization of mankind".

2
Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity's stubborn clinging to old patterns of behaviour, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.

(The Universal House of Justice, 1985 Oct, The Promise of World Peace, p. 1)

The closest thing there will be to world peace is some brief moment of unity.

In my heart I so hope that it will be the case. But at the current rate we are going, I do not see it has happening soon.

Political freedom will bring about world peace.

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- President of the United States, George Walker Bush.
October 3rd, 2003

That is why the United States enjoys domestic peace and tranquility, has never attacked any other nation, and owns no weapons of mass destruction.

Political freedom will bring about world peace.

"Free nations are peaceful nations... Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- President of the United States, George Walker Bush.
October 3rd, 2003
Not necessarily.

Has the United States ever experienced domestic upheaval? Has it ever attacked other nations? Does it have any weapons of mass destruction?!

I DON'T THINK SO!

Has the United States ever experienced domestic upheaval? Has it ever attacked other nations? Does it have any weapons of mass destruction?!

I DON'T THINK SO!
Yes, it does have weapons of mass destruction. I hope you're being sarcastic.

There can never be a united humanity because everyone has their own agendas.

Has the United States ever experienced domestic upheaval?

We do have this.

Has it ever attacked other nations?

We have attacked other nations before!

Does it have any weapons of mass destruction?!

I DON'T THINK SO!

We have thousands of nukes still available for use.

I hope this post was sarcasm.

Political freedom will bring about world peace.

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- President of the United States, George Walker Bush.
October 3rd, 2003

That is why the United States enjoys domestic peace and tranquility, has never attacked any other nation, and owns no weapons of mass destruction.

Since when, precisely, has the US been a "free nation"?

There can never be a united humanity because everyone has their own agendas.

The countries of Europe could never be united either. The 13 colonies all had their agendas, formed a confederation and then a nation. The Soviet Union will never fall. Humans will never fly. We will nevr get to the moon. Blacks will never go to school with whites in southern schools. I could go on and on. (But I gotta go pee.) Never is a very long time.

Since when, precisely, is the US a "free nation"?

Since we started giving human rights to minorities and allow more of a voice in who leads our nation than most european nations.

Political freedom will bring about world peace.

"Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."
-- President of the United States, George Walker Bush.
October 3rd, 2003

That is why the United States enjoys domestic peace and tranquility, has never attacked any other nation, and owns no weapons of mass destruction.

Muh...Heheh...Mahahahaha!

Since we started giving human rights to minorities and allow more of a voice in who leads our nation than most european nations.

The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Any nation whose government sees the need to imprison that many people is not "free" by any sensible definition.

How, precisely, do we have "more a voice in who leads our nation than most european countries"?

Because we have a nice elite body that can decide for us, if the "great beast" acts in error, or even if the counts just happen to end up that way?

Because we have no legal means of removing the president short of impeachment, which requires a two-thirds vote in the blatantly undemocratic institution of the Senate, and must be on the grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Because the people we do legitimately elect and theoretically hold accountable end up being little more than figureheads for a more or less static ruling class policy, especially in foreign affairs?

The US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

The 4th or 5th largest population in the world too.

Any nation whose government sees the need to imprison that many people is not "free" by any sensible definition.

So you don't believe in having laws?

How, precisely, do we have "more a voice in who leads our nation than most european countries"?

We actually elect our leaders. Most european countries vote for a party. We vote for an actual individual.

Because we have a nice elite body that can decide for us, if the "great beast" acts in error, or even if the counts just happen to end up that way?

Hence why we actually have elections.

Because we have no legal means of removing the president short of impeachment, which requires a two-thirds vote in that blatantly undemocratic institution, the Senate, and must be on the grounds of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Undemocratic? The Senate portion is a TRIAL with the Jury being 100 people. And the reason that it is set at 2/3rds is because they didn't want people to be brought there for petty ass stuff. Frankly, I think Johnson's impeachment was really unwarrented whereas Clinton really did commit a crime. Nixon also committed a crime and had articles of Impeachment brought against him but he resigned.

Because the people we do legitimately elect and theoretically hold accountable end up being little more than figureheads for a more or less static ruling class policy, especially in foreign affairs?

Oh brother!

Goddamn it all, now this is turning into a US debate. *grumbles*

Goddamn it all, now this is turning into a US debate. *grumbles*

See!!!???

Humanity will never get along. :D

Goddamn it all, now this is turning into a US debate. *grumbles*

My apologies - I mean that sincerely. I could not resist commenting once Amoebistan brought up the issue.

For what it's worth in terms of relevancy, it is indeed my contention that if all nations were truly free, world peace would be the inevitable result. People are best manipulated when desperate, and when they have the power to control their own lives, they are rarely desperate. Manipulation is of the essence in imperialism and war. Since Amoebistan was sarcastically dismissing that argument, I decided to challenge the argument that the United States is an effective counterexample.

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)

Maybe this will get us back on track.



It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago by Bahá'u'lláh, Founder of the Bahá'í Faith, of which we are the Trustees.

6
"The winds of despair", Bahá'u'lláh wrote, "are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective." This prophetic judgement has been amply confirmed by the common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations to exorcize the spectre of war, the threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions. Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behaviour is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.

(The Universal House of Justice, 1985 Oct, The Promise of World Peace, p. 1)

There will come a time when humanity will be united. All that has to occur is to discover an intelligent alien species and declare war on it. You can't have an "us" without a "them".

There will come a time when humanity will be united. All that has to occur is to discover an intelligent alien species and declare war on it. You can't have an "us" without a "them".

Actually, I think the aliens will declare war on us first.

One of our basic instincts is to stick with a group that is similar to us. This instinct is somewhat responsible for creating hostility between humans. Since the human race has no common enemy, it decided to make itself the enemy. I have heard once that through out mankind's history, there has only been 7 years of absolute world peace. 7 years.
Some fools still say that world peace is possible. I laugh at such an idea. Unless the human race evolves into new beings, we won't be able to know what world peace is like. The increase in conflicts across the world proves this. I could list more than ten conflicts in the 1990s alone. Bosnia, Liberia, Haiti, Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, Columbia, Congo, Somalia, Sri Lanka. The list goes on and on.

Read some more.


With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on co-operation and reciprocity.

8
As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction, which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of mankind's historical predicament is based. Dispassionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct, far from expressing man's true self, represents a distortion of the human spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human nature, will encourage harmony and co-operation instead of war and conflict.

(The Universal House of Justice, 1985 Oct, The Promise of World Peace, p. 1)