Home› A Moving Train

Is World Peace Attainable? How?

Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
edited January 2012 in A Moving Train
This is a serious question. Everyone (well, most everyone) dreams of peace on Earth. To my knowledge, it has never happened. There will always be heads of nations who have ulterior motives that do not put the good of humankind first. There are the extreme religions/faiths/etc that feel the need to destroy others as some preemptive measure.

Some wars have been inevitible. WWII for example. We had no choice there but to go to war. How do you deal with those that have evil intentions without going to war? Is it possible?

Has any scholar written anything with significance that can actually feasibly address this issue?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    Equal standard of living for all countries is the foundation for peace (if one exists)
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    UpSideDown wrote:
    Equal standard of living for all countries is the foundation for peace (if one exists)

    how would that be achieved?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    world peace is possible through the following steps:

    1. the downfall of the military industrial complex
    2. a united nations body that is not beholden to america, china, russia and great britain
    3. global environmental initiatives
    4. elimination of the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other organizations that serve the global elites
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    This is a serious question. Everyone (well, most everyone) dreams of peace on Earth. To my knowledge, it has never happened. There will always be heads of nations who have ulterior motives that do not put the good of humankind first. There are the extreme religions/faiths/etc that feel the need to destroy others as some preemptive measure.

    Some wars have been inevitible. WWII for example. We had no choice there but to go to war. How do you deal with those that have evil intentions without going to war? Is it possible?

    Has any scholar written anything with significance that can actually feasibly address this issue?
    What is your definition of "good of humankind"
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    polaris_x wrote:
    world peace is possible through the following steps:

    1. the downfall of the military industrial complex
    2. a united nations body that is not beholden to america, china, russia and great britain
    3. global environmental initiatives
    4. elimination of the IMF, World Bank, WTO and other organizations that serve the global elites
    lol... Its so simple...
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    This is a serious question. Everyone (well, most everyone) dreams of peace on Earth. To my knowledge, it has never happened. There will always be heads of nations who have ulterior motives that do not put the good of humankind first. There are the extreme religions/faiths/etc that feel the need to destroy others as some preemptive measure.

    Some wars have been inevitible. WWII for example. We had no choice there but to go to war. How do you deal with those that have evil intentions without going to war? Is it possible?

    Has any scholar written anything with significance that can actually feasibly address this issue?


    world peace...not attainable

    more peaceful world...attainable

    it will be attainable when people leave each other alone
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    edited January 2012
    Blockhead wrote:
    What is your definition of "good of humankind"

    when governments/groups no longer worry about making money first and foremost. the Gulf spill comes to mind. cutting down entire ecosystems without caring about the animals that live there. or even the other humans that live there. I could go on.

    believe me, I'm no expert in this, which is probably evident, that's why I'm asking the question.
    Post edited by Hugh Freaking Dillon on
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    What is your definition of "good of humankind"

    when governments/groups worry about making money first and foremost. the Gulf spill comes to mind. cutting down entire ecosystems without caring about the animals that live there. or even the other humans that live there. I could go on.

    believe me, I'm no expert in this, which is probably evident, that's why I'm asking the question.

    maybe i am reading this wrong i am guess you want to say when governments/groups don't only care about making money.
  • PontikasPontikas Posts: 210
    yes, with a bong.
    http://youtu.be/cwPgXkNOun4
  • Quinn427Quinn427 Posts: 60
    Through a trade with the Los Angeles Lakers.
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    fife wrote:
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    Blockhead wrote:
    What is your definition of "good of humankind"

    when governments/groups worry about making money first and foremost. the Gulf spill comes to mind. cutting down entire ecosystems without caring about the animals that live there. or even the other humans that live there. I could go on.

    believe me, I'm no expert in this, which is probably evident, that's why I'm asking the question.

    maybe i am reading this wrong i am guess you want to say when governments/groups don't only care about making money.

    correct.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Godfather.Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    someday there will be world peace,when all the powerhouse nations come to an agreement but it wont last long I would guess only 10 to 20 years.

    Godfather.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    here's how it's got to happen:

    technology has to win the race versus the Malthusian end of days/peak oil situation.

    what is going to happen is a rapid ascension of technology that allows us to be interconnected to everyone all the time. Eventually, we will be so interconnected via technology that we will create a fabric of a single consciousness with everyone and with the technology itself. A single consciousness will pervade the world and it will be the singularity... where we are all one entity of love, peace and understanding. At that point we will hyperevolve and spread out through the universe via nano-technology and the universe will be complete; a single consciousness that communicates with everyone and everything, all the time. In short, man will create God, as has been our destiny since we began thinking about anything other than mere survival.

    come on, it's simple.

    disclaimer: LSD had something to do with my postulation, so buyer beware. :D
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    he still stands wrote:
    here's how it's got to happen:

    technology has to win the race versus the Malthusian end of days/peak oil situation.

    what is going to happen is a rapid ascension of technology that allows us to be interconnected to everyone all the time. Eventually, we will be so interconnected via technology that we will create a fabric of a single consciousness with everyone and with the technology itself. A single consciousness will pervade the world and it will be the singularity... where we are all one entity of love, peace and understanding. At that point we will hyperevolve and spread out through the universe via nano-technology and the universe will be complete; a single consciousness that communicates with everyone and everything, all the time. In short, man will create God, as has been our destiny since we began thinking about anything other than mere survival.

    come on, it's simple.

    disclaimer: LSD had something to do with my postulation, so buyer beware. :D

    it's funny, before I even got to teh "man will create god" part, I was thinking "so in essence man BECOMES god! what a concept!". :lol:
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    here's how it's got to happen:

    technology has to win the race versus the Malthusian end of days/peak oil situation.

    what is going to happen is a rapid ascension of technology that allows us to be interconnected to everyone all the time. Eventually, we will be so interconnected via technology that we will create a fabric of a single consciousness with everyone and with the technology itself. A single consciousness will pervade the world and it will be the singularity... where we are all one entity of love, peace and understanding. At that point we will hyperevolve and spread out through the universe via nano-technology and the universe will be complete; a single consciousness that communicates with everyone and everything, all the time. In short, man will create God, as has been our destiny since we began thinking about anything other than mere survival.

    come on, it's simple.

    disclaimer: LSD had something to do with my postulation, so buyer beware. :D

    it's funny, before I even got to teh "man will create god" part, I was thinking "so in essence man BECOMES god! what a concept!". :lol:

    yes, in essence we create God and ARE God.
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:
    UpSideDown wrote:
    Equal standard of living for all countries is the foundation for peace (if one exists)

    how would that be achieved?

    Coordinated allocation of resources between nations, which would require sacrifice on the part of the developed countries.

    This still wouldn't eliminate the threat of war completey, as bands of hate and greed will always exist.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    As Eddie said in the Italy DVD, take the top 25-50 leaders from the major countries and lock them in a room and dont let them out until until they figure it out.

    I assume they'd kill each other first though.

    Ps-I am not one of those that follows everything Eddie says as gospel, but this cracked me up because it made the worlds problems seem so trivial.
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • UpSideDownUpSideDown Posts: 1,966
    Also I think eliminating all nuclear weapons - no matter what country - is a good start.

    If you were Iran why wouldn't you want a nuke, when other countries have them stockpiled?
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    UpSideDown wrote:
    Also I think eliminating all nuclear weapons - no matter what country - is a good start.

    If you were Iran why wouldn't you want a nuke, when other countries have them stockpiled?

    agreed. it makes no sense for any nation to say "we can have them, we're responsible, you're not, so hand em over!". I'd give everyone the big EFF U too.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    but what about the nations that don't give a shit about their economy or oil, but just killing their own civilians? what do you do about them?
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,191
    It's attainable because we can ask the question if it's attainable.
  • he still standshe still stands Posts: 2,835
    Go Beavers wrote:
    It's attainable because we can ask the question if it's attainable.

    is man jumping to the moon with a single leap attainable?
    Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 9,191
    he still stands wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    It's attainable because we can ask the question if it's attainable.

    is man jumping to the moon with a single leap attainable?

    Touche. I should be more specific. Humans can question their own behavior, visualize it happening, and make the behavior happen, therefore it's attainable.
  • CheeksCheeks Posts: 151
    No, I don't think it's attainable. I think we can make the world a better place and more peaceful than it is now, but I don't think there will ever be complete peace. You can reallocate wealth and resources, ditch religion, but there will always be something to fight over.
    Even if peace was something attainable, I think the rules and laws that would have to be in place to maintain it would be staggering--I think we'd lose much of our freedom in exchange for peace. There are just too many people with individual minds, thoughts, ideas, desires, opinions.

    But, who am I to say....
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    Go Beavers wrote:
    he still stands wrote:
    Go Beavers wrote:
    It's attainable because we can ask the question if it's attainable.

    is man jumping to the moon with a single leap attainable?

    Touche. I should be more specific. Humans can question their own behavior, visualize it happening, and make the behavior happen, therefore it's attainable.

    well handled.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • Hugh Freaking DillonHugh Freaking Dillon Posts: 14,010
    Cheeks wrote:
    No, I don't think it's attainable. I think we can make the world a better place and more peaceful than it is now, but I don't think there will ever be complete peace. You can reallocate wealth and resources, ditch religion, but there will always be something to fight over.
    Even if peace was something attainable, I think the rules and laws that would have to be in place to maintain it would be staggering--I think we'd lose much of our freedom in exchange for peace. There are just too many people with individual minds, thoughts, ideas, desires, opinions.

    But, who am I to say....

    sadly, I think you are probably correct.
    Gimli 1993
    Fargo 2003
    Winnipeg 2005
    Winnipeg 2011
    St. Paul 2014
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    yes if there was only 1 person living.
  • JonnyPistachioJonnyPistachio Florida Posts: 10,219
    Cheeks wrote:
    No, I don't think it's attainable. I think we can make the world a better place and more peaceful than it is now, but I don't think there will ever be complete peace. You can reallocate wealth and resources, ditch religion, but there will always be something to fight over.
    Even if peace was something attainable, I think the rules and laws that would have to be in place to maintain it would be staggering--I think we'd lose much of our freedom in exchange for peace. There are just too many people with individual minds, thoughts, ideas, desires, opinions.

    But, who am I to say....

    Good points. As the world's population keeps on increasing, it just allows for more and more problems.
    fife wrote:
    yes if there was only 1 person living.

    or this would work.. :lol:
    Pick up my debut novel here on amazon: Jonny Bails Floatin (in paperback) (also available on Kindle for $2.99)
  • pandorapandora Posts: 21,855
    peace in ourselves = peace in the world :D
  • fifefife Posts: 3,327
    JonnyPistachio wrote:
    Cheeks wrote:
    No, I don't think it's attainable. I think we can make the world a better place and more peaceful than it is now, but I don't think there will ever be complete peace. You can reallocate wealth and resources, ditch religion, but there will always be something to fight over.
    Even if peace was something attainable, I think the rules and laws that would have to be in place to maintain it would be staggering--I think we'd lose much of our freedom in exchange for peace. There are just too many people with individual minds, thoughts, ideas, desires, opinions.

    But, who am I to say....

    Good points. As the world's population keeps on increasing, it just allows for more and more problems.
    fife wrote:
    yes if there was only 1 person living.

    or this would work.. :lol:

    hopefully that 1 person who not have multiple personality disorder or that would screw everything up.
Sign In or Register to comment.