World Peace

Obviously, people have had some of their ideas on world peace before. What is your thought on it? Do you think it's possible? How would it be achieved?

When you make a thread in the discussion forum, you have to have a detailed first post, indicating where you want the discussion to go. Links, photos and your general thoughts can all help with that.

Threads with vague first posts have to be locked.

Kurtni:

When you make a thread in the discussion forum, you have to have a detailed first post, indicating where you want the discussion to go. Links, photos and your general thoughts can all help with that.

Threads with vague first posts have to be locked.

I listed three questions above to start the discussion.

It's not specific enough. If you want to add some background information or relevant current events you could. Or, if you don't want to, someone else can.

It's... an unattainable goal.

At least in our current time. Our world is too divided, too conflicted. It's too easily torn apart by revolution and the slightest difference of ideals.

Not to mention all the borders that divide us. Whether they be of country, language, religion, economic standing...

As long as those borders exist, we can't have world peace. Not as long as we remain as different as we are now.

That's just my two cents.

Of course world peace is possible.

Just exterminate all the humans. Problem solved. [/Dalek Logic]

Sad thing is, I'm being pretty serious. There is no way in hell world peace can be achieved.

Maybe not world peace individually, but what about world peace generally? I mean, I guess that would basically be all the governments of every country came to agreement together. Obviously, some people out there would find a way to fight with each other.

^ I doubt even that's possible, because the way the Eastern and Western worlds work are vastly different from each other. You'd have to end up changing one side's worldview before they could agree with the other side, and that's hardly easy or ethical.

effervescent.:

Maybe not world peace individually, but what about world peace generally? I mean, I guess that would basically be all the governments of every country came to agreement together. Obviously, some people out there would find a way to fight with each other.

I reserve my doubts about it. Like Alex above me said, there are such divisions in how the world works - hell, there's huge differences between the governments of America and the UK. There are many countries that really do not like each other - India and Pakistan, for example. There are grievances and unjust areas of land that are oppressed - like Tibet and Palestine. There are countries who are rogue nations for whatever reason - Iran and North Korea. So many different shades of democracy, dictatorship, communism and corpratism.

You'd have to make the UN a parliament that creates all the laws for all countries that other parliaments were subject to. You'd have to get rid of dictators, the House of Lords and religious nutcases. You'd have to create supa-parties that can have many associations with ground parties on a micro-level. You'd have to spread the wealth, educate and reduce the booming population. You'd have to erase all debt and make all men and women equal. Allow places for religion but let science and art flourish on a worldwide scale. You'd have to get rid of all armies except from the UN troops. You'd have to get rid of all nuclear, biological and chemical weapons from every country. You'd have to ensure that every country had a degree of each democracy, capitalism and socialism. You'd have to limit resources used. You'd have to spend a lot on solar power in hot countries and wind/tidal power in colder countries.

Which would be nice, don't get me wrong. But it is still the human race we're dealing with and...there is only one word I can use to describe the human race accurately and it's not one I can use on here.

Well we were all born sinners, so we definitely won't be perfect, but you don't need perfection for peace. And although it would extremely difficult to achieve all of those things, that doesn't make it impossible. Probability may be at it's lowest, but possibility is always there.

I also heard from somewhere that one way to keep peace (in this case just not having any kind of war) that you have to always one-up yourself on weaponary from your enemy. Now obviously that's extremely debatable, but it's a thought.

effervescent.:

Well we were all born sinners

How does one sin as an infant?

river song.:

You'd have to make the UN a parliament that creates all the laws for all countries that other parliaments were subject to. You'd have to get rid of dictators.

That's quite the oxy moron.

I think what you described is a very western view of peace, and an eastern view of totalitarianism. Do we all have to be exactly the same to be peaceful? If so, is it even worth it?

effervescent.:

Well we were all born sinners, so we definitely won't be perfect, but you don't need perfection for peace. And although it would extremely difficult to achieve all of those things, that doesn't make it impossible. Probability may be at it's lowest, but possibility is always there.

I also heard from somewhere that one way to keep peace (in this case just not having any kind of war) that you have to always one-up yourself on weaponary from your enemy. Now obviously that's extremely debatable, but it's a thought.

Of course, nothing is impossible. But the likeliness of it happening is practically zero.

And that argument for peace has a Blackadder quote

which explains it far better than I could.

That version of peace has been tried and it never really turns out well.

Kurtni:

That's quite the oxy moron.

I think what you described is a very western view of peace, and an eastern view of totalitarianism. Do we all have to be exactly the same to be peaceful? If so, is it even worth it?

I wouldn't say we'd all have to be the same nor do I think it's totalitarianism.

All I am suggesting is an extended Parliamentary system with each national and continental government connected and accountable to a central government. I may have over states the "all the rules and laws" bit but as someone who lives under three governments as it is (Scottish Executive, Westminster and the EU) it seems a logical step to have a worldwide parliament that has a bit more influence and democratic standing than the UN has currently.

There are some laws in my country which are Scottish, some laws that are British and some laws that are European. Even so, I would think that any UN law would have to be derived from the Human and Child Rights Acts to ensure that people have a base level of dignity and respect from governments who may otherwise decide not to bother with that sort of thing. It still allows for vast differences (which is why the Scottish Exec is debating gay marriage whereas it is not a raised issue down in London or in Brussels) whilst maintaining a basic structure of law that is universal (like the notion that murder, stealing and crap are pretty much understood to be bad to...most of the people on earth anyway...)

Having a government held accountable to someone is no bad thing. It also means that access to, information about and the ability of complaint and removal of individuals from office should be easy and transparently clear if there is corruption.

I'd suggest that there would be well-publicised, itemised expenses forms, funding by a corporation forbidden and debates televised and transcribed.

Not that it will ever happen - humans are too thick - but it's what I envisage for some attempt at peace. A couple of extra layers that might be considered "totalitarianism" but is probably more like Utilitarianism. It has it's problems philosophically but isn't that what much of modern democracy is based on? Which has it's own problems admittedly but what alternative do we have? Alternatives to democracy have pretty much been crap if history is anything to go by.

Mind you, I am basing a theory of world peace on Futurama so what the hell do I know, eh?

Kurtni:

I think what you described is a very western view of peace, and an eastern view of totalitarianism. Do we all have to be exactly the same to be peaceful? If so, is it even worth it?

What is this nebulous notion of 'eastern view' on politics differing completely from the 'western view'? A lot more people are euroskeptic in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans who have, y'know, actually experienced a form of totalitarianism, can't wait to join the EU and see EU-wide laws as a way of ensuring stability in the country and preventing future dictatorships. The only Eastern countries I can think of who are against such country associations and multi-country legislations (and I'm not talking just about the EU here, the African Union is starting to organize themselves and to press for the Union having a more active role in the region) are countries who already have totalitarian regimes and/or don't want to lose the control they have over other countries in the region (e.g. Russia).

kafka.:

What is this nebulous notion of 'eastern view' on politics differing completely from the 'western view'? A lot more people are euroskeptic in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe. Eastern Europeans who have, y'know, actually experienced a form of totalitarianism, can't wait to join the EU and see EU-wide laws as a way of ensuring stability in the country and preventing future dictatorships. The only Eastern countries I can think of who are against such country associations and multi-country legislations (and I'm not talking just about the EU here, the African Union is starting to organize themselves and to press for the Union having a more active role in the region) are countries who already have totalitarian regimes and/or don't want to lose the control they have over other countries in the region (e.g. Russia).

Certainly from what I understand, the UK is highly Euro-skeptic whilst there are a few new countries (well, relatively new in the EU anyway) that seem perfectly happy to be in it. Of course, this is just my perception of the situation which can differ from reality.

I would most definitely love to see it happen in my time. I used to think that one person could change the world or that change could really happen thus resulting in "world peace" but if we're being realistic, it's just not going to happen. I don't believe that world peace ever even existed in the first place to be honest. There has always been war and death and prejudice and all of the other bullshit that makes this world as fucked up as it is now from the beginning of time. I'm sorry to be the bear of bad news, but then again I'm not because that's life and it's ugly like that. It's not like this is anything new to anyone. No need to sugarcoat things, right?

I don't believe it's possible and this point in time and I don't believe it every could be unless the human race somehow managed to evolve into a species that isn't so childish. The eradication of religion probably wouldn't hurt either.

We may not ever achieve it, but a big step in the right direction would be democracy across the board, I think. But then that would pan out slightly ironically, if at all, in that it would most probably involve forcing democracy upon some countries.

@ Alex; periphery.
Actual democracy or the bullshit democracy that America has? 'Cause America's making me hate democracy. I don't honestly know if there's a political system I'd trust 'cause it still takes people to have politics and people can't be trusted with power.

@ of dru's being.
I would say actual democracy, but a lot of "actual" democracy is bullshit as well. But democracy, in any case, at least in my opinion, is the best way of doing things, no matter how shit it can be. There aren't really any plausible alternatives. There's anarchy and dictatorship, and either of those almost invariably would end in disaster, I think.

@ Alex; periphery.
I honestly don't know if any political system would help us achieve world peace. But since i don't think WP is possible, that makes sense.