i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
Is it possible for wars to stop on our planet, whilst us apes are still about?
typo on the poll 'yes we CAN do that'
typo on the poll 'yes we CAN do that'
Will world peace ever be possible?
- Thread starter i-am-your-idea
- Start date
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
No chance. That's not how primates roll. Maybe when we've handed control of everything over to benelovent super genius AI's, but before that no
I remember reading a statistic long ago stating that since historical records began there have only ever been 11 days of world peace. So, it is possible.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
Well, there's never been a war between democracies - which may or may not actually mean there's never been a war between countries with developed capitalism. Interesting.
You could think on that.
You could think on that.
Actually, there is a fairly good page about that question here, as it turns out.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
'The shining hope for a revolution in human consciousness lies in the actions of everyday people.'
'Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves'
etc.. etc..
'Everybody wants to change the world, but nobody wants to change themselves'
etc.. etc..
It most definitely is possible. But certain conditions are required to be in place by a critical mass of people first.
The evidence that it can be the default in life is that it already is the default in many people's lives.
Those people have conducted their own spiritual revolution. Once a critical mass of people have done the same, then the criminal leaders who are the people who take us to war will no longer be able to get us to do their bidding.
Perhaps the first identifiable action is for individuals to kill off the idea of God.
The evidence that it can be the default in life is that it already is the default in many people's lives.
Those people have conducted their own spiritual revolution. Once a critical mass of people have done the same, then the criminal leaders who are the people who take us to war will no longer be able to get us to do their bidding.
Perhaps the first identifiable action is for individuals to kill off the idea of God.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
It is possible in theory for there to be world peace, if by that you mean an absence of war all over the globe at the same time.
However that is only possible in a situation of global balance, perhaps if or when one civilisation spans the globe. Civilisation is the thin veneer which we humans claim makes us better than the apes, if it could be made to cover the whole globe with all peoples feeling included at the same time, no resentment, no interracial fights no territorial struggles etc then it might be possible to have world peace.
To date no civilisation has succeeded in spanning the globe, hence the Romans building Hadrians wall to keep out the heathen outside whom they could not control. All civilisations have at their edges areas where they are imposed at the point of a gun (or sword) or where hostile forces are kept at bay.
World peace might be possible with two competing civilisations in balance though the most similar situation in recent times was the USA and USSR (cold war period) which spawned lots of proxy wars and an arms race and could not have been described as peaceful on a global scale.
World peace also means none of these small wars, civil wars in Africa for example, no ethnic cleansing no ongoing war in Congo etc etc ..
So will it ever be possible, yes it might, is it likely, no not at all likely.
However that is only possible in a situation of global balance, perhaps if or when one civilisation spans the globe. Civilisation is the thin veneer which we humans claim makes us better than the apes, if it could be made to cover the whole globe with all peoples feeling included at the same time, no resentment, no interracial fights no territorial struggles etc then it might be possible to have world peace.
To date no civilisation has succeeded in spanning the globe, hence the Romans building Hadrians wall to keep out the heathen outside whom they could not control. All civilisations have at their edges areas where they are imposed at the point of a gun (or sword) or where hostile forces are kept at bay.
World peace might be possible with two competing civilisations in balance though the most similar situation in recent times was the USA and USSR (cold war period) which spawned lots of proxy wars and an arms race and could not have been described as peaceful on a global scale.
World peace also means none of these small wars, civil wars in Africa for example, no ethnic cleansing no ongoing war in Congo etc etc ..
So will it ever be possible, yes it might, is it likely, no not at all likely.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
so, so far its 50/50 possible/ not possible
and the determining factor is kittens.
and the determining factor is kittens.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Tell that to the bonobos.
i think humans will have to evolve quite a bit more before world peace is possible.
gorski
customised free radical
India and Pakistan (pre-Musharaff) at Kargil in 1999?
what he/she said ^
Britain vs Finland 1941-1945 ....apparently
Jeremy Clarkson said so on the telly tonight.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
And on the wars between democracies, Hitler was elected initially at least ...
I think its a trite argument, America is a democracy yet since WW2 it has almost constantly been at war in one corner of the globe or another. Democracies can demonstrably wage war on quite a big scale.
I think its a trite argument, America is a democracy yet since WW2 it has almost constantly been at war in one corner of the globe or another. Democracies can demonstrably wage war on quite a big scale.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
the rare, endagered Bonobos? peace seems to be working out just fine for them eh?
Apart from Britain and the US going to war with Finland in WWII.
And the US (effectively) going to war with Chile after the election of Allende.
Apart from WWI.
And WWII.
Squatticus
for an armed populace
'developed capitalism', well that's already been dealt with - I guess it depends on what you mean by developed: WW1, WW2? If you mean more developed than that you're obviously narrowing things down a lot.
As far as 'no wars between democracies' goes, that's an old favourite of The Economist magazine. Trouble is, it only really applies to the post WW1 period (e.g. no women's suffrage in US 'til 1920, France until 1945!), and in dominant discourse (e.g. The Economist 'democracies' has a special meaning after 1945. Since then, the world has been under US hegemony, and 'democracies' means US allies/clients: all US opponents are excluded, even when they have some democratic features, and all US allies are included, even when they have notable democratic failings. Thus, all that 'democracies don't go to war with each other' means is that the allies of the US don't go to war with each other - hardly a big surprise.
However, I do think peace on Earth is possible; most likely when humans have colonized other planets, so that there is an 'other' the earth dwellers can all feel united against.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
USSR and China.
China and Vietnam.
Vietnam and Cambodia.
USSR and Hungary.
USSR and Czechoslovakia.
Squatticus
for an armed populace
Has there ever been a communist country? Similar problem to 'democracies' - in dominant discourse, at least, its more used as a factional label than an accurate description.
Squatticus
for an armed populace
No - the USSR was aiding those countries against subversive elements!
You might as well add between USSR and socialist Afghanistan!Or for that matter democratic USA and democratic Vietnam...
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
If I didn't make it partic clear, the theory is that there are mechanisms within (global) capitalism that prevent old school warfare - that doesn't mean there can't be more apropos confrontations (trade 'wars', trade tarifs, economic 'blocs', etc), but the idea is the market prevents warfare, presumably because the owners of capital (usually the same people) on both sides have too much to lose.
Similar threads
