NationStates Jolt Archive

Later today some buddies and co-workers of mine were talking with me about Iraq and the elections. We were discussing the different policies of the different cadidates, conflict casualites, etc. When a woman walked by wearing a "Department of Peace" T-shirt, our subject shifted to world peace.

So, let me ask all of you this; Is World Peace even remotely possible, or are these people just delusional hippes?

World peace is indeed possible. Humanity won't last forever. *nod*

Yes, I know humanity won't last forever. By World Peace, I mean World Peace while humanity is still here, not when we're gone!

World peace is indeed possible. Humanity won't last forever. *nod*

You mean life (in any shape or form) won't last forever.

See this is exactly why Al Gore should not have won the Peace Prize by trying to stop climate change which according to him will end humanity but if we don't stop it then world peace can never be accomplished. Woohoo at least I now know that by releasing more fossil fuels into the air I am doing my bit for world peace. *Turns on all the lights in the house*

Now back to this thread. No it isn't possible.

I have to agree. My personal opinion is that those hippes with Department of Peace stickers and T-shirts need to get off their meds and into reality. The world is a harsh, violent place, with no room for hippies.... *cought* or democrats! *cough*

Not that I have seen the Department of Peace stickers or other merchandise before (well done guys stayed up all night thinking of that one?) I would cringe when I see something like that, really there are better ways than trying to look cool to promote a cause.

Yes, if there's some way to make all conflicts economically disadvantageous for EVERYONE.

The problem with "world peace" or any other type of leftist resource sharing type system is that it is inherently unstable. Individual ambition and greed will either eventually seize control or individualism would need to be "moderated" through a friendly neighborhood system of police informants (also subject to the forces of ambition and greed).

So long as there are large groups of people linked by their devotion to different invisible avengers in the sky who keep telling them to kill those who don't believe in their version, no. It's not possible.

Also greed.

Yes, if there's some way to make all conflicts economically disadvantageous for EVERYONE.

That's not going to happen anytime soon, lol. Maybe once the Middle East runs dry......

So long as there are large groups of people linked by their devotion to different invisible avengers in the sky who keep telling them to kill those who don't believe in their version, no. It's not possible.

Also greed.

Sounds like an Aethiest to me.

So long as there are large groups of people linked by their devotion to different invisible avengers in the sky who keep telling them to kill those who don't believe in their version, no. It's not possible.

Also greed.

I would argue that the devotion to invisible warmongering avengers is just an excuse for greed

Sounds like an Aethiest to me.

While I am sure he is, it doesn't matter, what he is wrong about is that he seems to think that all conflicts are due to religious grounds.

Now that is true. Not all conflicts (except every single one in Israel) are caused by religion.

I read an article somewhere that said every major conflict involving the US in the past 50 years has been secretly over oil or other economic reasons.

Now that is true. Not all conflicts (except every single one in Israel) are caused by religion.

I read an article somewhere that said every major conflict involving the US in the past 50 years has been secretly over oil or economic reasons.

a) isn't oil an economic reason?

b) i would argue that every single action ever undertook by anyone, ever, was over economic reasons.

a) isn't oil an economic reason?

b) i would argue that every single action ever undertook by anyone, ever, was over economic reasons.

WWII wasn't or at least the action which lead to all out war in Europe wasn't. Whether the Brits decided to declare war at that moment was due to economic reasons or not may be open to discussion.

a) isn't oil an economic reason?

b) i would argue that every single action ever undertook by anyone, ever, was over economic reasons.

A) I accidently left out the word "other." It's been fixed though.

B) Yes, most have, but not all. Take all the "Jihads" in the Middle East. Those aren't over economic issues, but religious sectular conflicts.

WWII wasn't or at least the action which lead to all out war in Europe wasn't. Whether the Brits decided to declare war at that moment was due to economic reasons or not may be open to discussion.


...Yes, most have, but not all. Take all the "Jihads" in the Middle East. Those aren't over economic issues, but religious sectular conflicts.

@Blouman Empire: The desire to Rule the World usually has an economic reason behind it.

@Falkasia: The imams who control the Jihadis are motivated by economic issues...namely getting support/money from people who they don't currently control.

@Blouman Empire: The desire to Rule the World usually has an economic reason behind it.

Who said anything about wanting to rule the world?

Poland was initially invaded in order to link all German people under the one country, as parts of Poland had large concentrations of German people and the town of Danzig which was part of German territory but completely surrounded by Poland was the reason Poland was taken. Now had the Brits and French not declared war then the only other conflict that may have occurred would have been the war against the USSR, which was based on purely ideological grounds, you see Hitler didn't like Communists and wanted to shut them down, only 20 years ahead of the rest of the world.

There was and wasn't an economic reason behind WW2. The Great Depression and Treaty of Versallies namely decimated the germany economy, leaving them the only option of war. However, they could have stopped once they had their economy fixed.

"Show me a world without war, and I'll show you one without people."

My history teacher told me that, and judging from the history of humanity, I think he has more than a few points in his favor.

I got to go for the night. Feel free to continue the discussion without me!

Later today some buddies and co-workers of mine were talking with me about Iraq and the elections. We were discussing the different policies of the different cadidates, conflict casualites, etc. When a woman walked by wearing a "Department of Peace" T-shirt, our subject shifted to world peace.

So, let me ask all of you this; Is World Peace even remotely possible, or are these people just delusional hippes?

Only if we kill every human, and animals on the planet. *nod*

In my opinion "world peace" would require massive amounts of people to die, pretty much any one besides those living western countries and the nuts in them would need to be removed to. So I think the current system is working just fine.

No, sadly I believe World Peace is not possible. I certainly think the world could be more peaceful but world peace is a nice daydream. Greed, violence and all those lovely things will always be around.

I agree with some of the others; cull the numbers of humans and you cull the problem. I say it's time for all out nuclear warfare. Who's with me? ;)

World peace is impossible save for the aftermath of a war so brutal it scars everyone that survived. And then, only because everyone will have been reduced to communities smaller than 150 and farther apart than several days of walking.

No, sadly I believe World Peace is not possible. I certainly think the world could be more peaceful but world peace is a nice daydream. Greed, violence and all those lovely things will always be around.

I agree with some of the others; cull the numbers of humans and you cull the problem. I say it's time for all out nuclear warfare. Who's with me? ;)

Let's roll! (salutes)

b) i would argue that every single action ever undertook by anyone, ever, was over economic reasons.

Every single action ever undertook by anyone? No I don't think participating in sex is necessary for economic reasons. I think sex justifies itself, and so do eating, sleeping, or drinking water.

Every single action ever undertook by anyone? No I don't think participating in sex is necessary for economic reasons. I think sex justifies itself, and so do eating, sleeping, or drinking water.

the only purpose eating, sleeping, and drinking water serves is to keep you alive long enough to have more sex (and ensure that you are alive long enough to raise your children to be able to have sex).

so really, i should amend my statement to say that everything in the world has been about sex.

No, sadly I believe World Peace is not possible. I certainly think the world could be more peaceful but world peace is a nice daydream. Greed, violence and all those lovely things will always be around.

I agree with some of the others; cull the numbers of humans and you cull the problem. I say it's time for all out nuclear warfare. Who's with me? ;)

someone give this man/woman a cookie

Every single action ever undertook by anyone? No I don't think participating in sex is necessary for economic reasons. I think sex justifies itself, and so do eating, sleeping, or drinking water.

Please, no spamming on a semi-serious thread. Sex has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with World Peace!

World peace? Bah! As long as humans are humans we will find a reason to fight.

Of course it is possible. It's just not likely without a major re-adjustment of attitudes. For a start, all those people who run around touting the value of hard work and clean living have to go. (In fact, all of the type A personalities. Fucking troublemakers the lot of them).

And dudes like Kennedy, who are always asking people to do their utmost. Also bad.

Of course it is possible. It's just not likely without a major re-adjustment of attitudes. For a start, all those people who run around touting the value of hard work and clean living have to go. (In fact, all of the type A personalities. Fucking troublemakers the lot of them).

And dudes like Kennedy, who are always asking people to do their utmost. Also bad.

How would that happen?

Yes, I know humanity won't last forever. By World Peace, I mean World Peace while humanity is still here, not when we're gone!

WOuld we still be human?

How would that happen?

We could start with a twenty hour work week.

We could start with a twenty hour work week.

The hell?

How would people afford to live then?

The hell?

How would people afford to live then?

Wages would have to go up. Double I'd guess.

Wages would have to go up. Double I'd guess.

Well there goes the economy...I think it fell in the toilet.

Well there goes the economy...I think it fell in the toilet.

No, it fell in the toilet about two decades ago when the Russians canceled the cold war. That fact has been cleverly hidden by the judicious application of debt since then. But basically, we've all been working too hard causing big deflationary forces. This sort of thing usually leads to epic conflicts. Like the 1940s.

I say head it off at the pass.

No, it fell in the toilet about two decades ago when the Russians canceled the cold war. That fact has been cleverly hidden by the judicious application of debt since then. But basically, we've all been working too hard causing big deflationary forces. This sort of thing usually leads to epic conflicts. Like the 1940s.

I say head it off at the pass.

Eh, will. I'm no economist, but things don't seem to be absolutely horrible. I can still get a double cheeseburger for a buck!

Another major war is inevitable. It'll happen sooner or later. The only question is will it happen when our country still has advantages over our adversaries.

Yes, just fill the seas, lakes and rivers with Prozac and watch as everyone becomes extremely docile.

Why, yes, there are many ways to bring "world peace", thought I doubt many of them are very moral: for instance, killing all conservatives.

On a side note:
There was and wasn't an economic reason behind WW2. The Great Depression and Treaty of Versallies namely decimated the germany economy, leaving them the only option of war. However, they could have stopped once they had their economy fixed.

No, Germany could not prevent going to war. Their economy was never "fixed", it was ratcheted up by rebuilding the military, and was already straining the ability to be sustained by 1939. The only way to keep the Nazi German economy afloat was to go to war. BTW, economic "necessity" was also the reason Japan engaged in its wars as well.

Please, no spamming on a semi-serious thread. Sex has nothing, I repeat NOTHING to do with World Peace!

How does sex NOT contributes to world peace? The deprive of sexual gratification results in crankiness and increase in aggression. Surveys have also found that single people, especially those without a sexual partner, are often find more unhappy than those with a healthy relationship.

Sounds like an Aethiest to me.

Sounds like someone who jumps to conclusions. Calling the God that some choose to devote their lives to at the behest of a group of hucksters seeking control an "invisible avenger" doesn't make me an atheist (which is how you spell that, by the way). It makes me someone who doesn't trust anyone who claims that God is on their side. So long as the world has enough people who believe that to the complete exclusion of any other possibility, we will have war.

While I am sure he is, it doesn't matter, what he is wrong about is that he seems to think that all conflicts are due to religious grounds.

Not all conflicts, just the longest ones. Economic conflicts are usually quick and dirty (GIMME THAT! NO! *BLAM* MINE!). Notice how Gulf War II is now longer than World War II. Which of those two involve(d) religion (deliberately misleading misinterpretation or not) in any way?

Later today some buddies and co-workers of mine were talking with me about Iraq and the elections. We were discussing the different policies of the different cadidates, conflict casualites, etc. When a woman walked by wearing a "Department of Peace" T-shirt, our subject shifted to world peace.

So, let me ask all of you this; Is World Peace even remotely possible, or are these people just delusional hippes?

Of course world peace is possible. All it requires is everyone being willing to cooperate with everyone else in a peaceful manner. There's nothing physically keeping us from doing that.

Now, whether everyone will be WILLING, on the other hand is another thing entirely. We just need not make the mistake of assuming that unwilling means unable, when most of the time it doesn't.

Yes, under two quite important conditions:
a) technology advances enough and/or the population diminishes enough to no longer have resource conflict
b) we discover inter-stellar travel and life outside of earth, thus uniting humans into a humans v the aliens conflict. As history has shown, humans are generally quite happy to gang up with their enemies if it means fighting something perceived as a greater threat. Of course once that war's over, all bets are off.

World peace will not be possible while the bourgeois ruling classes crush the proletariat!!!!!!

World peace is only capable through Military Might at the moment, in a long time yeah our way of thinking might makes us be able to find a peaceful solution. We are still nothing but oversized tribes with the tribal mentality to suit it.

You would need a powerful nation or a group of semi-powerful nations and you could rule the world through coalition.

Even then, how would it be ruled? Democracy in theroy could work but it so heavily influenced by Capitalism it might aswell not exist. You would need a entire new system of running things, or just turn the United Nations into a United Government to rule the world and even then how would our representatives be elected?

A figure being a 'Emperor of Earth' would only work as a Consitutional Monarchy like here in Australia and even then who would want to be the biggest target in the world?

Then comes ecnomics, imagine a united government that is a slave to Captialism they will screw the planet over at a faster rate as it is doing now.

We could have world-peace by Sunday if we wanted, all it takes is a leap of faith and a different way of thinking. Not really complicated but it is hard.

World peace will not be possible while the bourgeois ruling classes crush the proletariat!!!!!!

Andaras?

...all men shall know that the day speedily cometh; the hour is not yet, but it nigh at hand, when peace shall be taken from the earth, and the devil shall have power over his own dominion.

-Doctrine and Covenants 1:35

And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

-Doctrine and Covenants, 87:2

Sure it is. Of course, it's also possible that I could roll a d10 millions of times and the results would be the digits of pi in the proper order.

Its impossible, because, deep down, we're all insane hatefull beasts

I have to agree. My personal opinion is that those hippes with Department of Peace stickers and T-shirts need to get off their meds and into reality. The world is a harsh, violent place, with no room for hippies.... *cought* or democrats! *cough*

I'm a brutal warmonger for the most part... if I thought world peace were an achievable ambition, I would back it completely... but I have studied enough history to know that there will always, ALWAYS be Irans, or N. Korea's or Communist Blocs or Nazi Germanies. It's part of who we are as a people... I know a lot of peacemongers tend to heavily blame religion for such violence, and they hope that because the Middle Ages have ended, and religion does not hold the global sway it did then, now we can have world peace... but religion is often used by humans to fuel war "Hmm, I want their land... wait they have a different religion, now I have an excuse to fight them"

The other day I saw a shirt, it had the peace symbol and the words "Backed by popular demand" I felt bad for the guy wearing it who clearly had not socio-political clue about humanity... past or present... I also kind of wanted to laugh in his face... but I was at work... getting fired for laughing at a Peacemongers ignorance just doesn't seem like a wise move in this economy.

Why, yes, there are many ways to bring "world peace", thought I doubt many of them are very moral: for instance, killing all conservatives.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh wait, thats not funny, in fact, it's pretty offensive... I hope a mod steps in an suggests you tone down the genocidal rantings abit.

And conservatives are who we have to worry about ruining world peace with people like you... you are ridiculous, and one of the worst hippocrits I've ever come across, and I've come across a lot... but don't worry, merely because I disagree with your political views, I don't think you should die.

World peace is only capable through Military Might at the moment, in a long time yeah our way of thinking might makes us be able to find a peaceful solution. We are still nothing but oversized tribes with the tribal mentality to suit it.

You would need a powerful nation or a group of semi-powerful nations and you could rule the world through coalition.

Even then, how would it be ruled? Democracy in theroy could work but it so heavily influenced by Capitalism it might aswell not exist. You would need a entire new system of running things, or just turn the United Nations into a United Government to rule the world and even then how would our representatives be elected?

A figure being a 'Emperor of Earth' would only work as a Consitutional Monarchy like here in Australia and even then who would want to be the biggest target in the world?

Then comes ecnomics, imagine a united government that is a slave to Captialism they will screw the planet over at a faster rate as it is doing now.

We could have world-peace by Sunday if we wanted, all it takes is a leap of faith and a different way of thinking. Not really complicated but it is hard.

If we had a coalition of, say dozen nations that covered the Earth, my bet would be on the 'European Union' idea. Keep the confederation loose, but real, and have the ties be mostly economic, that way it's in everyone's direct economic interest to stay friendly.

I absolutely don't think world peace is possible. As far as I've seen, humans are very tribal and warlike animal, and I don't see that changing any time, especially with today's problems.

Many people are too far wedged apart by petty differences, greed, and mistrusts of others, all implanted in them at an early age, to really get along with people who share any major differences.

Sure it is. Of course, it's also possible that I could roll a d10 millions of times and the results would be the digits of pi in the proper order.

I got it. You just inspired me to how world peace is achievable!

Make everyone play Dungeons & Dragons! That way everyone will get a heavy dose of both critical thinking, and teamwork, and everyone can vent their frustrations, anger, and aggression on Orcs, and White Dragons, and Black Guards, and Terrasques, rather than each other!

Yea, orcy slaughter, lol.

I got it. You just inspired me to how world peace is achievable!

Make everyone play Dungeons & Dragons! That way everyone will get a heavy dose of both critical thinking, and teamwork, and everyone can vent their frustrations, anger, and aggression on Orcs, and White Dragons, and Black Guards, and Terrasques, rather than each other!

I'm a genius.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh wait, thats not funny, in fact, it's pretty offensive... I hope a mod steps in an suggests you tone down the genocidal rantings abit.

And conservatives are who we have to worry about ruining world peace with people like you... you are ridiculous, and one of the worst hippocrits I've ever come across, and I've come across a lot... but don't worry, merely because I disagree with your political views, I don't think you should die.

No no, see, your making a mistake in looking at this. My point is that you would need something massive, and possibly so brutal that no one could ever step there again. Now, this isn't really serious, but I could suggest killing all liberals, but that would be illogical! Look at who thinks world peace is possible, and those that don't. Even look at your own words:
I'm a brutal warmonger for the most part... if I thought world peace were an achievable ambition, I would back it completely... but I have studied enough history to know that there will always, ALWAYS be . . .
Those that think world peace is possible are the liberal hippies. Now, if we are going to go and kill off a bunch of people, wouldn't it make sense to kill of those that are opposed to what the goal is?

In all seriousness, to bring world peace, you would need something that everyone can unite against, such as aliens, or such a reign of terror that knows no boundaries or race. Principal of revolutionary backlash. Anytime a revolution becomes so polar as to allow a reign of terror, a backswing will occur. Set the goal radical enough, you end up right where you want to be. It raises the question though, at what cost is World Peace possible?

World peace is not possible, only a delusional hippie would think otherwise.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

True, but as long as there is a such thing as power, and people want it, we'll never see world peace.

/.2c

The question isn't "Is peace possible?" but rather "Is peace likely?". Given the current state of the world and the fact that there are many of influence and power who stand to gain by there not being peace, I'd say that the answer to that question is no.

As long as humans are around, there will never be peace.

Only if we kill every human, and animals on the planet. *nod*

Plants fight over sunlight and oxygen too y'know.:tongue:

I'm a brutal warmonger for the most part... if I thought world peace were an achievable ambition, I would back it completely... but I have studied enough history to know that there will always, ALWAYS be Irans, or N. Korea's or Communist Blocs or Nazi Germanies. It's part of who we are as a people... I know a lot of peacemongers tend to heavily blame religion for such violence, and they hope that because the Middle Ages have ended, and religion does not hold the global sway it did then, now we can have world peace... but religion is often used by humans to fuel war "Hmm, I want their land... wait they have a different religion, now I have an excuse to fight them"

The other day I saw a shirt, it had the peace symbol and the words "Backed by popular demand" I felt bad for the guy wearing it who clearly had not socio-political clue about humanity... past or present... I also kind of wanted to laugh in his face... but I was at work... getting fired for laughing at a Peacemongers ignorance just doesn't seem like a wise move in this economy.
Here's the problem. In order for world peace to actually be achievable, everyone has to do their best to cooperate and make it work.

That means everyone. And it means that people like you who simply feel it's impossible need to take that first step and try. Because if no one ever tries, of course it'll never happen. You're creating a self-fulfilling prophecy here.

It's not that simple, of course. Even with lots of people trying, as you said there are still a lot of problems that need to be solved first. It'll take a lot of time and many generations of socio-political change, but it IS possible. As I said, there's nothing physically stopping us from it. All it takes is everyone to be willing, and in order for everyone to be willing, someone's got to take that first step.

World peace won't be possible. Someone will always want what the other one has. And with nations, that's oil,, or money, land, you get the idea. So as long as there is no unlimited amount of everything, there will be no world peace.

World peace won't be possible. Someone will always want what the other one has. And with nations, that's oil,, or money, land, you get the idea. So as long as there is no unlimited amount of everything, there will be no world peace.
Why couldn't we all cooperate to manage resources instead of fighting over them? That's what we've been doing for the most part ever since the end of World War II, and as you can see, it works a hell of a lot better than fighting constantly ever did.

Later today some buddies and co-workers of mine were talking with me about Iraq and the elections. We were discussing the different policies of the different cadidates, conflict casualites, etc. When a woman walked by wearing a "Department of Peace" T-shirt, our subject shifted to world peace.

So, let me ask all of you this; Is World Peace even remotely possible, or are these people just delusional hippes?

Yes, all you have to do is change human nature. A little genetic manipulation should do it.

Yes, all you have to do is change human nature. A little genetic manipulation should do it.

Not even that, really. Proper raising is enough.

Yes, if there's some way to make all conflicts economically disadvantageous for EVERYONE.THIS. ^
:hail:

Not even that, really. Proper raising is enough.

Ya know, Michael "Savage" Weiner says that at least one big issue is nurture not nature, too.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25804382/

I dont believe there will ever be world peace

AND ILL CAUSE A WAR TO PROVE MY POINT :P

all you need is one nutjob to disrupt a peacefull group of people just as you only need one group of anything (eco-terrorists, dicatorship, anarchy, religous-terrorists) to disrupt peace.