Is peace possible and if so, how do we achieve it?
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,084
Last month my father gave me a copy of James Bradley's book, Flyboys. I'm not a big war story fan but since it was a gift and because he had served in the Solomon's during WWII, I figured out of respect I would read it any way. Well, it turns out this is a fascinating book chock full of history and very well written. In part, the first three or four chapters provide a brief history of war from 1848 up through the 1930's. Bradley describes the gruesome nature of the many wars during this period including the genocide of the American Indian and the false "war" against Mexico known as the "Mexican-American War" which was really just an excuse to steal vast amounts of land. (Bradley does say that outright but it is implied.) In fact, most of these wars were about imperialism-- wars started by the Americans, the Russians, the Germans, the English and the Japanese Russo-Japanese War which ended with the Portsmouth treaty of 1905 making the Japanese the only non-white world power during this time.
The number of deaths due to war during this 80 or so year period is staggering-- add to that the deaths in wars since then and the amount of war related death in the last 165 years is almost beyond comprehension. It is also worth noting that during this time it was the countries that had become developed, mechanized and industrialized who were predominantly both the perpetrators and the victors.
So all of this got me to thinking- with the world-wide push toward ubiquitous development and a strong penchant for furthering technology, what are the chances for peace and how do we foster peace despite these odds? I do not mean to paint a gloomy, hopeless picture here but rather to instigate some thinking about how to achieve the unlikely against these odds. To my way of thinking, peace is always a just and worthy cause and deserves our thoughts.
The number of deaths due to war during this 80 or so year period is staggering-- add to that the deaths in wars since then and the amount of war related death in the last 165 years is almost beyond comprehension. It is also worth noting that during this time it was the countries that had become developed, mechanized and industrialized who were predominantly both the perpetrators and the victors.
So all of this got me to thinking- with the world-wide push toward ubiquitous development and a strong penchant for furthering technology, what are the chances for peace and how do we foster peace despite these odds? I do not mean to paint a gloomy, hopeless picture here but rather to instigate some thinking about how to achieve the unlikely against these odds. To my way of thinking, peace is always a just and worthy cause and deserves our thoughts.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
Democracy Dies in Darkness- Washington PostPost edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
All good thoughts, however, there is way too much money to be made from war
just sayin
-Black Elk
If I opened it now would you not understand?
whgarrett, my answer to your "...it is not possible":
"Hope is not the conviction that things will turn out well, but the conviction that what you are doing makes sense, no matter how things turn out."
-Vaclav Havel
My second thought was "change don't come at once, it's a wave"
(the beloved ripple-effect, when it's on the positive)
My third?
"I'm trying to get a little squirrel to come over to me here. I don't wanna make any big, sudden movements. I'll frighten him away."
The squirrel is peace!
(I hope the reference is understood and if not, I'll use the "yes, I'm a bit buzzed" disclaimer. Still, good topic
GOing off of what Bentley said, war is a big money maker. Contractors make lots of money and the Military Industrial Complex is vast and very powerful. We need to worry about our own problems at home instead of trying to look for another "terrorist". I don't know about you, but it seems to me like even if you go the route (like we are) of killing "terrorists" there is another person that can and will take their place. It's one big game that will never end.
Peace will never happen, too many bad people out there, some real and some fake. The fake ones make the government a lot of money, they can tell us whatever they want but it's all about the money, you can't expect the decision makers of the world to get real jobs.
It's been going on since the Spanish American war. Thanks atom bomb
So this invites another interesting question: If you knew that your world (be it your geographic region or country or the entire planet) could enjoy 250 years of uninterrupted peace (i.e. the complete absence of war) but that this could only be obtained under the same self-imposed strictures placed on the Japanese during their age of peace, would you be willing to comply with that set of circumstances? If not, can you envision another social structure in which peace could flourish?
It won't happen. The USA always has their nose in other countries business, then they bomb the shit out of that country and send in the troops or robot planes, then they bomb the innocent. I feel the world would have less war and less violence if the American government quit starting wars in other countries. (Or their own for that matter)
It's all about reality and that's the way it is.
Clinton didn't feel the need to bomb the shit out of the rest of the world
250 years with no war, never happened before, never will
You are absolutely right, push me, in saying that there would be less war if the US quit starting wars. We certainly have done our fair share of that but this is a condition of ruling nations that has gone on for centuries, not something the US invented. I think the solution could begin with us, but unless we isolate ourselves it can't only happen with us. Peace has to be made as universally sought after as the internet or cars or lattes... and I don't mean to be flippant. I think we would do well to find ways to make peace as greatly desired as anything else we can think of and we need to be willing to give up some things in order to acquire peace.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
commodity. Peace will come from this lesson.
Um. Everyone likes to forget about Serbia.
... and the fact that Clinton bombed Iraq, as well.
Just sayin'.
And, Brianlux,
if you are askin' if we would like to join the NWO and enjoy a Millennium of Peace, sure. Sure thing.
I can live without guns, a fully sovereign country, and certain other freedoms, and endure strict environmental laws, a ramped up police state, an integrated North America, devalued currency, and ongoing wealth disparity ...
... if it means peace. Sure.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
i would say peace is indeed possible ... it will be achieved how every other peace is achieved ... through war ... there will come a point when the fighting must stop ... obviously, due to reasons aforementioned - i don't anticipate it happening anytime soon ... but perhaps the unthinkable does happen ... we enter into nuclear holocaust and but a fraction of the world's population survives ... i'm guessing we will have peace then ...
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Drifting, I think NWO is a possibility but I'm skeptical that power can be distributed that broadly, especially as we enter a post peak oil world.
How sad and ironic to think that peace must come through violence. Perhaps you're right, polaris_x, but I'm a hopeless idealist and dreamer. When I'm dead and gone they'll put this on my tombstone: "Nice try, man. Better luck in the place."
peace requires compromise from all parties involved.
most of those involved will refuse to give something up to guarantee a lasting peace. selfishness is inherent in people, and greed is as well.
just looking at history here.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh, that's absolutely true, gimme, in terms of the period of written history. Yet, there is speculation that pre-agricultural (i.e when humans lived in tribes as hunter-gatherers) that war did not exist. New Tribalism points toward this:
" Anthropologists such as Richard Borshay Lee and Marshall Sahlins began publishing studies that showed tribal life as an easy, safe life, the opposite of the traditional theoretical supposition. In the title to his book, Sahlins referred to these tribal cultures as "the Original Affluent Society," not for their material wealth, but for their combination of leisure and lack of want."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism# ... ibalism.22 )
If we can think outside the relatively short period (even of human history) that is written history, perhaps we can be open and move toward new ways of living.
Thats my pessimistic side. :evil:
I'll try optimism.. anything can happen. Make Peace. gotta start somewhere!
if we didn't have the military industrial complex and the US did not engage in a foreign policy of economic imperialism and war profiteering ... and the conviction that was spent on securing oil was spent on fortifying the UN - would we not have peace now?
Possibly. One thing for sure-- this kind of thinking makes more sense that saying "peace isn't possible". I believe in your kind of thinking here polaris_x. Why say anything is impossible? It's easy to be pessimistic but anything is possible... if we want it enough. Peace is possible.
Just as the sight of a beautiful woman attracts the eyes of many men who cannot resist looking and desiring to some degree... there are traits within humans that are inherent, natural, and very powerful. Dismissing these would be naive.
Granted, many people recognize such 'human' traist and fight the urges within them to behold or entertain such imagery in pursuit of a more noble existence, but I think this alludes to my point: exercising such 'control' is tantamount to resisting instincts- they are still there.
Greed, or the urge to covet, is a trait within us as well.
If one could accept the aforementioned, then one could surmise that war is not 'below' us and somewhat 'typical' given our animalistic traits and behaviours. I mean, when in the history of man has violence at all levels not been rampant?
I think this is somewhat myopic, or misguided.
Selfishness and greed are inherent in the lower emotional nature and the lower mind.
But neither are present in the higher mind ... that part of the mental capacity that has a direct link with the true self.
Man must go through the arduous process of separating his lower mind (personality) from, and then subjugating it to his higher mind. This is, in fact, what all of the great religious books of the world are speaking about -- the process whereby man transcends his own personal desires, and begins to focus solely on the good of the whole. Man must recognize the one life, actively pursue integration with that life, and then focus on service to that life.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As I said earlier, Japan had a period of 250 of peace. No war for 250 years!
I don't deny our impulses but I do believe we are capable of controlling them. Who among us has not harbored animosity toward someone and said something like "OOH, I could just strangle that guy!" But who among us has actually strangled someone? How many of you have killed other humans? What percentage of humans are murderous? Not many. We can overcome destructive tendencies if we use this huge brain that evolved in us. And our hearts.
As far as Japan goes, they've got this cooperation thing going already. They were there for each other after the earthquake, they communed and picked up the pieces together rather than loiter and riot their country away, which is something the U.S. would do. We have a lot to learn from them on how to cooperate.
self preservation is an instinct.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thoughtfulness is a way of life.
The way to get to the true self is through meditation and self-evaluation. If more people actually practiced meditation, it would definitely be a more peaceful world.
But yes...it IS a way of life. Or at least, should be, and not a movement.
Don't we learn these basics in kindergarten?
Good points Brian, my point earlier was that violence is easier when its not personalized, when it is distant. When we're really faced with the reality, most of us would likely concede. I like the examples often given in the death penalty threads... how many who are advocates of the DP would even be able to pull the switch or drop the guillotine? Not many. Hopefully we can all get back to that, and evolve in our hearts and brains as you suggested.