How Can World Peace Become A Reality?

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by mrgregbusybee

 

Some believe it is possible............but that is those who believe they are the authority of what is right and wrong.

As long as people believe there is not a Creator, that is one God who did it all there never will be peace upon the whole earth.

Peace may be regional....very regional like square acres it will never be upon the face of the earth until the prophecies of the bible all come to place.

And there are not many left to fulfill.

so in other words, you believe that religion is the cause of wars (different religions)...and I also agree with that and the only time we will be at peace is after god cleanses the world after the prophecies are fulfilled. i can dig that too....

thanks for reading and commenting, i appreciate it
greg

IMO ...

as soon as people accept the idea that it's possible. Also when people start only respecting leadership that is peaceful and for the benefit of our species and planet.

I think war and peace is memetic, not genetic. I think anger is built into our genes but I think with the appropriate culture, humans would be able to curb this to the point where wars never happened and crime was almost non-existent and the little crime that did exist could be dealt with mercy and forgiveness.

The idea that 'world peace is impossible because humans are violent' is a memetic concept just like an lolcat or saying 'epic fail' is. If people started living their lives devoted to peace, it would inspire others to believe in peace, spreading the 'peace meme'.

So I think the way to create peace, one of the ways anyway, is to simply make the idea peace is possible more popular. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.

I think the reason there isn't peace, oddly enough, is because people love their families and have the failure of imagination to think of defending them in a non-violent way should harm come. That might sound weird but think about it this way. I am a pacifist and when I ask other people if they are, they almost always say no, because they say they would kill anyone who tried to hurt their family. Forgetting that there are many other ways to protect you and your own than just an AK-47.

You can extend this concept to warfare. If there is a famine, people will march to war if their leader promises it will put food on their family's table. Most people are happy to participate in genocide and murdering other people's children if it's a bad enough situation and it will provide security for their own progeny.

Most people only care about their relatives and that's why I think there is so much conflict in the world. We have very little love for other members of our species.

I appreciate that you have come back to your thread and responded to all who commented, not just the ones you felt like taking on.
That said, I was being a little on the sarcastic side, I also cannot comprehend how men with all our faults can really rule ourselves without eventualy seeking an individuals own gain. But maybe I am short sighted?

However, there is the possibility that the we could see LESS conflict in some aspects (yes not peace, less conflict) if the United States was not seen as the worlds watchdog, if the US did not act unilateraly and was just being used by the United Nations as a bulldog, along with other great world powers who can afford it like China Russia and France and Italy and England and so on down the line of the 200? some nations worldwide.
If the global powers were working under a global governing body, helping the people of the world, ensuring Rule of Law.....
I mention before the right of individual nations the right to protect their own borders...that does mean to me that Iran should be allowed to have Nukes- for times sake, I just deleted a big rant about Iran having nukes...that's a different argument I imagine.
But rule of law...as long as an individual country is not crossing other countries borders, and not hurting innocent people, well...I think I need several paragraphs to explain rule of law...actually I need to research it better before I attempt to act like I can explain it to someone else...but the concept I get

What am I leaving out, oh yes...religion

Violence in the name of god has to be stopped somehow...and that really is my main view on how to create peace...and it is gonna take the global community to stand firm on something. Like I mentioned I do not think atheism is the way...but somehow stamping out those that call for violence or conversion has to stop....

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
I appreciate that you have come back to your thread and responded to all who commented, not just the ones you felt like taking on.
That said, I was being a little on the sarcastic side, I also cannot comprehend how men with all our faults can really rule ourselves without eventualy seeking an individuals own gain. But maybe I am short sighted?

However, there is the possibility that the we could see LESS conflict in some aspects (yes not peace, less conflict) if the United States was not seen as the worlds watchdog, if the US did not act unilateraly and was just being used by the United Nations as a bulldog, along with other great world powers who can afford it like China Russia and France and Italy and England and so on down the line of the 200? some nations worldwide.
If the global powers were working under a global governing body, helping the people of the world, ensuring Rule of Law.....
I mention before the right of individual nations the right to protect their own borders...that does mean to me that Iran should be allowed to have Nukes- for times sake, I just deleted a big rant about Iran having nukes...that's a different argument I imagine.
But rule of law...as long as an individual country is not crossing other countries borders, and not hurting innocent people, well...I think I need several paragraphs to explain rule of law...actually I need to research it better before I attempt to act like I can explain it to someone else...but the concept I get

What am I leaving out, oh yes...religion

Violence in the name of god has to be stopped somehow...and that really is my main view on how to create peace...and it is gonna take the global community to stand firm on something. Like I mentioned I do not think atheism is the way...but somehow stamping out those that call for violence or conversion has to stop....

Would you say you are a nationalist?

Originally posted by lampsalot
IMO ...

as soon as people accept the idea that it's possible. Also when people start only respecting leadership that is peaceful and for the benefit of our species and planet.

Okay...if that's your stance...please tell me when during the course of our past has there ever been peace? just because you tell me that you're not going to steal my lunch money or punch me today doesn't mean you won't tomorrow and it doesn't mean that since you told me that you aren't going to steal my lunch money and punch me today that i don't decide to retaliate for you being a bully before....you catch me? so i don't see how that train of thought is even rational at this particular time in our world affairs....

thanks for reading and commenting
greg

Originally posted by lampsalot
I think war and peace is memetic, not genetic. I think anger is built into our genes but I think with the appropriate culture, humans would be able to curb this to the point where wars never happened and crime was almost non-existent and the little crime that did exist could be dealt with mercy and forgiveness.

The idea that 'world peace is impossible because humans are violent' is a memetic concept just like an lolcat or saying 'epic fail' is. If people started living their lives devoted to peace, it would inspire others to believe in peace, spreading the 'peace meme'.

So I think the way to create peace, one of the ways anyway, is to simply make the idea peace is possible more popular. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing.

I can appreciate your comment and it actually has my mind thinking and trying not to be so one sided. I understand the self fulfilling prophecy. maybe i can ask you to further help me by explaining how it can be possible to attempt this because this would take many years to spread and generations to become accustomed to....i think the problem that would arise would be, how many times can you get punched in the mouth before you punch back type of scenario. if we attempt to set the example...what are we as a country willing to take to show it can work?

thank you for reading and commenting....i look forward to your response

greg

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee

Originally posted by lampsalot
IMO ...

as soon as people accept the idea that it's possible. Also when people start only respecting leadership that is peaceful and for the benefit of our species and planet.

Okay...if that's your stance...please tell me when during the course of our past has there ever been peace? just because you tell me that you're not going to steal my lunch money or punch me today doesn't mean you won't tomorrow and it doesn't mean that since you told me that you aren't going to steal my lunch money and punch me today that i don't decide to retaliate for you being a bully before....you catch me? so i don't see how that train of thought is even rational at this particular time in our world affairs....

thanks for reading and commenting
greg

Well, the Neolithic was supposed to be pretty peaceful.

Originally posted by lampsalot
I think the reason there isn't peace, oddly enough, is because people love their families and have the failure of imagination to think of defending them in a non-violent way should harm come. That might sound weird but think about it this way. I am a pacifist and when I ask other people if they are, they almost always say no, because they say they would kill anyone who tried to hurt their family. Forgetting that there are many other ways to protect you and your own than just an AK-47.

You can extend this concept to warfare. If there is a famine, people will march to war if their leader promises it will put food on their family's table. Most people are happy to participate in genocide and murdering other people's children if it's a bad enough situation and it will provide security for their own progeny.

Most people only care about their relatives and that's why I think there is so much conflict in the world. We have very little love for other members of our species.

and you my friend have actually provided a comment that makes perfect sense to me. if we add your comment and the gentlemen's above yours together...now we are talking. I think you are on to something....the analogy of people starving...kill everyone in sight and we shall eat theory is 100% correct.

How do you start instilling a pacifist mentality now though? I reference my answer to the comment above yours again...this would take such a long time...how long can we afford to attempt this method?

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee


I can appreciate your comment and it actually has my mind thinking and trying not to be so one sided. I understand the self fulfilling prophecy. maybe i can ask you to further help me by explaining how it can be possible to attempt this because this would take many years to spread and generations to become accustomed to....i think the problem that would arise would be, how many times can you get punched in the mouth before you punch back type of scenario. if we attempt to set the example...what are we as a country willing to take to show it can work?

thank you for reading and commenting....i look forward to your response

greg

Digging your open mindedness!

I think we need to do something radical to show. Like let's say, America's troops just decided to quit fighting for a year. All wars and military activity just STOPPED. If nobody came and did anything to us, it would be a huge blow to militarism as an ideology. Of course if the Chinese or Muslims or whoever came in and tried to take over, it would be a blow to pacifism.

I would argue America's belligerence and massive military-industrial complex actually makes us more vulnerable to small to medium scale attacks because people resent us for our power and hegemony. And with the way we are acting, they have every reason to resent us.

Originally posted by Xcouncil=wisdom
I appreciate that you have come back to your thread and responded to all who commented, not just the ones you felt like taking on.
That said, I was being a little on the sarcastic side, I also cannot comprehend how men with all our faults can really rule ourselves without eventualy seeking an individuals own gain. But maybe I am short sighted?

However, there is the possibility that the we could see LESS conflict in some aspects (yes not peace, less conflict) if the United States was not seen as the worlds watchdog, if the US did not act unilateraly and was just being used by the United Nations as a bulldog, along with other great world powers who can afford it like China Russia and France and Italy and England and so on down the line of the 200? some nations worldwide.
If the global powers were working under a global governing body, helping the people of the world, ensuring Rule of Law.....
I mention before the right of individual nations the right to protect their own borders...that does mean to me that Iran should be allowed to have Nukes- for times sake, I just deleted a big rant about Iran having nukes...that's a different argument I imagine.
But rule of law...as long as an individual country is not crossing other countries borders, and not hurting innocent people, well...I think I need several paragraphs to explain rule of law...actually I need to research it better before I attempt to act like I can explain it to someone else...but the concept I get

What am I leaving out, oh yes...religion

Violence in the name of god has to be stopped somehow...and that really is my main view on how to create peace...and it is gonna take the global community to stand firm on something. Like I mentioned I do not think atheism is the way...but somehow stamping out those that call for violence or conversion has to stop....

Sarcasm noted and also appreciated and thanks for writing and giving me the chance to respond and ask questions. I truly enjoy listening to intelligent and articulate people discuss things that sometimes leave me on a one track mind. Let's see...your initial opening about man governing their selves...I also think you nailed it...it's impossible because of greed. somebody with a little is always gonna want a little more...hell you can watch it in our kids when they are infants. so forming a world police if you will actually makes some sense to me. It's ironic that my favorite band to listen to is Pearl Jam and eddie vedder because vedder is probably one of the most liberal iconic rock stars out there. Be that as it may, he mentioned recently, within last couple years that he wishes all the world leaders of their countries would be locked in 1 large room and differences hashed out and they couldn't come out until there was a peaceful plan in place. I would sign up for that and i'm more of a conservative with a little liberalism in me...but that would make sense and throw the world police on-top of that....i think we're talking now. there may never be complete world peace, but i agree that even a less violent world at this point can't be anything but positive. as for the nukes and defending borders...i would sign on for a max amount of troops per land in country and population, artillery, tanks, helos, jets even.... i think the world police cuts it off at nukes. nukes are a catastrophe waiting to happen...

thanks again!!!
greg

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee

and you my friend have actually provided a comment that makes perfect sense to me. if we add your comment and the gentlemen's above yours together...now we are talking. I think you are on to something....the analogy of people starving...kill everyone in sight and we shall eat theory is 100% correct.

How do you start instilling a pacifist mentality now though? I reference my answer to the comment above yours again...this would take such a long time...how long can we afford to attempt this method?

One of them would be an abolishment of the concept of 'evil'. By evil I mean the concept that people and nations that commit heinous acts are cartoonishly, wilfully and diabolically evil and that the only way to change their behaviour is by giving them a taste of their own medicine. We need to realise that heinous actions are the result of other disorders, such as a nation in famine or a person with a mental illness or personality disorder. People are gonna hate me saying this, but we should see our enemies as wayward brothers and sisters and not as demonic entities. That attitude shift alone will improve things because rather than, like conservatives and cynics might propose, create a climate of tolerance of evil, it would allow people who suffer from mental psychosis, PTSD, sexual deviances and other things that might cause them to commit heinous acts seek help instead of simply be judged and ostracized for their problems.

I think a part of the reason there are so many random murders and sex offenders in America is because we do not have much sympathy for the mentally ill as a society.

As to the topic of religion - while I think, even as a non-religious person, that people put too much blame on religion for war, in a way they are right because the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of 'evil' prevents us from truly understanding the causes of war and violence. Western religion suggests that they are the result of the bad choices of individual leaders or nations, rather than the result of complex economic, social, and (yes!) climactic factors such as a drought that causes a famine. Religion, despite preaching forgiveness, also promotes retribution, especially towards people who believe in different things. But I still think you can't place too much blame on religion, for example, the Troubles in Ireland had more to do with ethnicity and history than with religion.

As for preventing war - I think we simply need to reject the idea that sometimes war is necessary. To some extent, I think we are making progress on this. Even Bush said that it's wrong to consider Muslims our enemy as a collective people, as an example. The Danish were able to kick out the Nazis and save almost all of their Jews by mostly nonviolent means. I think education in nonviolence is the key, and no it can't happen in a year or a decade, but in a couple generations, if people were really interested, we could make the entire world as peaceful as Iceland is today.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee

Originally posted by lampsalot
IMO ...

as soon as people accept the idea that it's possible. Also when people start only respecting leadership that is peaceful and for the benefit of our species and planet.

Okay...if that's your stance...please tell me when during the course of our past has there ever been peace? just because you tell me that you're not going to steal my lunch money or punch me today doesn't mean you won't tomorrow and it doesn't mean that since you told me that you aren't going to steal my lunch money and punch me today that i don't decide to retaliate for you being a bully before....you catch me? so i don't see how that train of thought is even rational at this particular time in our world affairs....

thanks for reading and commenting
greg

Well, the Neolithic was supposed to be pretty peaceful.

I need to research further to intelligently respond. thank you!!

Originally posted by lampsalot

Originally posted by mrgregbusybee

and you my friend have actually provided a comment that makes perfect sense to me. if we add your comment and the gentlemen's above yours together...now we are talking. I think you are on to something....the analogy of people starving...kill everyone in sight and we shall eat theory is 100% correct.

How do you start instilling a pacifist mentality now though? I reference my answer to the comment above yours again...this would take such a long time...how long can we afford to attempt this method?

One of them would be an abolishment of the concept of 'evil'. By evil I mean the concept that people and nations that commit heinous acts are cartoonishly, wilfully and diabolically evil and that the only way to change their behaviour is by giving them a taste of their own medicine. We need to realise that heinous actions are the result of other disorders, such as a nation in famine or a person with a mental illness or personality disorder. People are gonna hate me saying this, but we should see our enemies as wayward brothers and sisters and not as demonic entities. That attitude shift alone will improve things because rather than, like conservatives and cynics might propose, create a climate of tolerance of evil, it would allow people who suffer from mental psychosis, PTSD, sexual deviances and other things that might cause them to commit heinous acts seek help instead of simply be judged and ostracized for their problems.

I think a part of the reason there are so many random murders and sex offenders in America is because we do not have much sympathy for the mentally ill as a society.

As to the topic of religion - while I think, even as a non-religious person, that people put too much blame on religion for war, in a way they are right because the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of 'evil' prevents us from truly understanding the causes of war and violence. Western religion suggests that they are the result of the bad choices of individual leaders or nations, rather than the result of complex economic, social, and (yes!) climactic factors such as a drought that causes a famine. Religion, despite preaching forgiveness, also promotes retribution, especially towards people who believe in different things. But I still think you can't place too much blame on religion, for example, the Troubles in Ireland had more to do with ethnicity and history than with religion.

As for preventing war - I think we simply need to reject the idea that sometimes war is necessary. To some extent, I think we are making progress on this. Even Bush said that it's wrong to consider Muslims our enemy as a collective people, as an example. The Danish were able to kick out the Nazis and save Jews by mostly nonviolent means. I think education in nonviolence is the key, and no it can't happen in a year or a decade, but in a couple generations, if people were really interested, we could make the entire world as peaceful as Iceland is today.


Very intelligent and intriguing response. I can appreciate your discussion about heinous acts are most likely caused from an extenuating circumstance and if we address that circumstance instead of react to the heinous act, that may be a starting point. that is going to involve so many more programs, willing participants, different judicial system....and patience. Again, how long are you going to sit back and watch the same thing happen time and time again while we are working towards this new type of peace? what if it would involve your family, are you willing to sacrifice your family for the betterment of humanity? meaning what if that heinous act, god forbid, but figuratively speaking, caused your family pain. would you be willing to forgive and help that person or group ..etc.?? i like the idea and there's a few of you that's responded that actually have some substance and thought behind your ideas.... maybe it's time to stand up and introduce some of these ideas? I like this idea actually...i don't know if it's realistic...but i would agree that usually, not always, but usually there's a reason for invoking hostility...famine, sickness...etc.

I still want to dig into religion more. one gentleman hit on it earlier...religion has been the top reason for wars since the beginning of time.... i think the answer lies there...everything else falls under and can be addressed accordingly....in my opinion

thank you again

edit on 23-1-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

Sacrificing my family wouldn't be necessary to forgive anyone who hurt me or mine. I can't say for sure but I think I would forgive after the anger subsided. Technically all human beings are family members since we share common ancestors if you go back far enough. There's no reason to be angry and vengeful forever, I think in such a situation it would be necessary if you wanted to continue with your life. The damage would already have been done. I have sworn an oath to myself to never brandish a gun so by default I will never kill anyone in self defence or defence of another. The worst I would do is injure someone to save another or myself.

I don't judge people who do or would act in fatal self defence, but I practice absolute non-violence to set an example.

World peace can become a reality by: DENYING IGNORANCE!!!

reply to post by lampsalot


Its late, and I cant contribute to this thread in a constructive manner, however...You sir. If the world was filled with people who shared your disposition...we could all get along I am sure.

If only it were.

Thanks for sharing some light in this often dark world.

X

reply to post by mrgregbusybee


I hate to be so agreeable all in one thread...but yes..if they could all get together and hash things out...limits on who has how much...sounds good. And yes...I prefer no one has nukes...but if my neighbor has something I don't have..well if I have the means, I might have to "keep up with the Jone's" as they say.

Ahhh...it is late I said before..what do they call it when you live in a community, and you all agree to certain rules, like how tall your houses can be, and how long you can go before cutting your grass...how extreem you can paint your home...oh..I hate my lack of words, yet..I aint gonna spend another 5 minutes to look it up.
anyways...put that on a global scale...if every country had the same abilities...and its sovereign rule was recognized..then as countries there should be less saber rattling and distractions, and locally the world would be helping us be better Humans

Originally posted by lampsalot
Sacrificing my family wouldn't be necessary to forgive anyone who hurt me or mine. I can't say for sure but I think I would forgive after the anger subsided. Technically all human beings are family members since we share common ancestors if you go back far enough. There's no reason to be angry and vengeful forever, I think in such a situation it would be necessary if you wanted to continue with your life. The damage would already have been done. I have sworn an oath to myself to never brandish a gun so by default I will never kill anyone in self defence or defence of another. The worst I would do is injure someone to save another or myself.

I don't judge people who do or would act in fatal self defence, but I practice absolute non-violence to set an example.

edit on 23-1-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)

Okay and I respect your choice and views on violence, guns...etc. I agree that you have to let go of anger and we are all ancestors.

I don't judge people either...i've seen to much and I've done too many things to judge anyone else. i like to hear from pacifists because your thought processes are 180 of mine about 90% of the time. It's refreshing in a way.

thanks again for your comments, i appreciate your time on my thread...maybe there's hope yet...???