Poll: World Peace?
- Thread starter rvbnut
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The closest the world ever got to world peace was in Ancient Rome during the 'Pax Romana'. Very interesting time period. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana
There is no reason why reality should match up to idealism...the former being incidental, the latter being strictly abstract.rvbnut said:
We're just monkeys in shoes, our capacity for rational reasoning isn't as great as we constantly claim it is, and our(pretty large)adrenal glands have a habit of getting in the way of that too. It's best not to see us as apart from nature, we're just animals with nice homes...that's all.
As such, we're not organised as a species(why would we be?), we're 7 billion individuals before we're a race.
Be that as it may, those ordinary individuals, being a part of the Tea Party group still discourage moderation and compromise; that's the big problem. The lunatics just get better press coverage.SonicWaffle said:
No. At least, I hope not.
People will disagree. This shouldn't be changed. However, some people will disagree violently, some will try to force their views on others. While this should be changed, it never will be.
That means for world peace to be a possibility we'd need some from of "brainwashing" to make everyone think the same. Which would cause all sorts of problems. Besides essentially removing free will, there would be no more evolution.
I do wish it were possible, but the only possible (eventually) way I see of reaching world peace is a much worse alternative...
People will disagree. This shouldn't be changed. However, some people will disagree violently, some will try to force their views on others. While this should be changed, it never will be.
That means for world peace to be a possibility we'd need some from of "brainwashing" to make everyone think the same. Which would cause all sorts of problems. Besides essentially removing free will, there would be no more evolution.
I do wish it were possible, but the only possible (eventually) way I see of reaching world peace is a much worse alternative...
That's not world peace though. Thats only peace in the Roman communities, and really not even that. The Romans were still bastards to anyone who didnt render unto Caesar. The First Jewish-Roman War was in 60-70 AD, during this 'Pax Romana'. Jerusalem was raided, seiged and pillaged.gamerguy473 said:
of course we will!
as soon as we have finally killed ourselves, or blown up earth, or our atoms have dispersed, or the sun turned this planet into a nice, sterile, big rock floating in space ^^
so, there is hope!
on the other hand
is peace the same as boredom? as in, everyone thinks and wants the same? as in, no one dislikes nothing?
and is that not the same as the stop of any kind of progress and evolution? which is death?
should peace be aimed at, under these circumstances?
as soon as we have finally killed ourselves, or blown up earth, or our atoms have dispersed, or the sun turned this planet into a nice, sterile, big rock floating in space ^^
so, there is hope!
on the other hand
is peace the same as boredom? as in, everyone thinks and wants the same? as in, no one dislikes nothing?
and is that not the same as the stop of any kind of progress and evolution? which is death?
should peace be aimed at, under these circumstances?
Hmmm.... i Dunno? I, like most of my fellow escapists, am skeptical and slightly pessimistic....but is that right, cause look at it this way: There was a time when different tribes in one area waged great battles against each other.rvbnut said:
I mean, if you could go back in time and tell a Spartan and an Athenian; or a Shia and Sunni; or a Gaul and a Roman, that one day their ancestors would be citizens of the same "tribe" (Greece, Saudi Arabia and France(ish) respectively) they would laugh at you. But that did happen. Different Peoples in Europe cane together to form countries, at peace with themselves.
But then the countries fought. England fought France; Spain fought....someone when they were all muslims or sth; Germany fought em all and lost.
And now look at them. All fighting their way through an Economic meltdown hand-in-hand, bailing each other out (sorry, Greece, i had to). Sure there's still tension. but there's barely ever any hostility. And the entire continent is one inter-connected mass, allowing free travel and propagation if thought.
Why can't that one day happen between continents, like it happened between Ethniscities;Tribes;Countries? Who knows?
PS. i pessimistically voted "No" before writing this so count No one less please. Sorry
And welcome to the escapist, btw. Have a pleasant stay.
No Conflict = No Development = Stagnation = Death of Mankind
We NEED conflict to keep going, keep improving, keep developing, we can NEVER stop.
We NEED conflict to keep going, keep improving, keep developing, we can NEVER stop.
We're alive, and life wars upon itself.
Account to that the fact that we're all individual thinkers that can ignore our own instincts, and you can safely asume that world peace is impossible. Though, it is not a bad thing to stive for it either.
Account to that the fact that we're all individual thinkers that can ignore our own instincts, and you can safely asume that world peace is impossible. Though, it is not a bad thing to stive for it either.
Sure we can reach total world peace.
If we lobotomise the entire human race.
What really worries me is that there seem to be a lot of people (across the political spectrum) who may actually think it is a good idea. And because their reasons and ends will be diverse, we're more likely to get given only a choice of which pill to take, rather than getting the option of taking no pill at all.
Whilst the term 'progressive', like 'liberal', gets twisted and misappropriated a lot, the basis of progressivism is in the belief that mankind exists in a base/fallen state, but is on a path to a utopic future that is both inevitable and desirable (I forget the name of the guy who founded it). Whilst progressive is a term used mainly to describe most of "The Left", one can see that actually it also describes most of "The Right" too. The differences between the sides is only in the perceptions of the exact details of utopia and the correct path to reaching it, but the broad outline and aspiration are identical ("Same sh*t, different day" syndrome).
If we lobotomise the entire human race.
What really worries me is that there seem to be a lot of people (across the political spectrum) who may actually think it is a good idea. And because their reasons and ends will be diverse, we're more likely to get given only a choice of which pill to take, rather than getting the option of taking no pill at all.
Whilst the term 'progressive', like 'liberal', gets twisted and misappropriated a lot, the basis of progressivism is in the belief that mankind exists in a base/fallen state, but is on a path to a utopic future that is both inevitable and desirable (I forget the name of the guy who founded it). Whilst progressive is a term used mainly to describe most of "The Left", one can see that actually it also describes most of "The Right" too. The differences between the sides is only in the perceptions of the exact details of utopia and the correct path to reaching it, but the broad outline and aspiration are identical ("Same sh*t, different day" syndrome).
Its not world peace, no. But its probably the closest we've gotten to it as humans. Ceaser wrecked the shit of anyone who even thought about inciting violence against anyone or anything. So everyone was terrified of inciting violence. Hence peace.Spookimitsu said:
I will say this: Peace can only be achieved by violence because of the nature of the human race.
i think we will one day have world peace in the form of a universal government but there will always be those that are unhappy/ hate somebody else/ have a psychotic belief system that they are willing to fight and kill over. humans are naturally aggressive and need violence in there lives
i dont think a universal government will come to pass until either a devastating war crippled most major powers and somebody takes control or a new UN is formed with stricter regulations
i dont think a universal government will come to pass until either a devastating war crippled most major powers and somebody takes control or a new UN is formed with stricter regulations
Not unless there's only one man left on Earth.
And if that last man is me, still no, because I don't agree with half the things I think.
And if that last man is me, still no, because I don't agree with half the things I think.