News Can Permanent Peace Exist in Our World?

[l-1j-cho]

i hope this thread is not redundant

anyway, do you guys think that permenent peace practically can exist in this world? or balancing tension between the powers is the most feasible way?

 

[turbo]

Tough one. There are always powerful (sometimes global, sometimes regional) players that want to use conflicts to create advantages for themselves and their families/friends/corporate sponsors. I don't see any permanent tranquility arising anytime as long as humans have motivations to subvert that for their own gain.

BTW, it is very common to cite "humanitarian" reasons to go to war, and still pretty easy to get your nation's sheeples to follow in line when you wave the flag and lie about non-existent security threats. As long as citizens remain ignorant in world affairs and can be lied to at a very low level of veracity, you'd be better off investing in a company that manufactures magnetic "ribbons" to sport on their cars than betting against them.

 

[l-1j-cho]

I have always been wondering why human beings are greedy.

 

[lisab]

I think it's much more likely that a population will remain peaceful if there is opportunity for economic advancement, and an equitable justice system. Just off the top of my head, those seem pretty important.

 

[l-1j-cho]

I think it's much more likely that a population will remain peaceful if there is opportunity for economic advancement, and an equitable justice system. Just off the top of my head, those seem pretty important.

it might decrease the conflict due to desire in some degree, but would it remove the fundamental root? human being's desire is endless...

 

[lisab]

it might decrease the conflict due to desire in some degree, but would it remove the fundamental root? human being's desire is endless...

Is it, though?

If you give the average person a choice to either
1) be fat and happy, or
2) go fight and maybe die for the King/President/whatever,

I'm betting they'll choose fat and happy.

They weren't really given the choice in the past.

 

[AlephZero]

I'm betting they'll choose fat and happy.

That might work, until some of them notice that the people in the next street / town / country are fatter and happier than they are.

Then, back the "normal human behaviour", I expect.

 

[rootX]

Due to limited resources, tensions and wars are inevitable. I strongly believe that worldwide literacy, push for economic reforms and economic dependency between all different nations can make this place more peaceful.

However, www.alternet.org/world/62848/ contradicts my belief about solving world conflicts through economic dependency.

 

[alt]

i hope this thread is not redundant

anyway, do you guys think that permenent peace practically can exist in this world? or balancing tension between the powers is the most feasible way?

Permanent peace is an oxymoron (or perhaps the opposite of oxymoron, whatever that is).

If you had a state of overall, permanent peace, you would not know it. You would eventually have NO 'non-peace' / war, by which to evaluate it.

In any case, sad as it might sound, it seems to me that a state of conflict and conquest is mankinds lot.

Only the dead have seen an end to war (Plato)

 

[alt]

That might work, until some of them notice that the people in the next street / town / country are fatter and happier than they are.

Then, back the "normal human behaviour", I expect.

That sums it up well.

 

[drankin]

i hope this thread is not redundant

anyway, do you guys think that permenent peace practically can exist in this world? or balancing tension between the powers is the most feasible way?

Only temporarily at best. Violence is typical when humans feel they are threatened in some way. Not just physically threatened but when their ideals are threatened. And there are too many differences in our ideals. It really doesn't matter how educated people are, their ideals can be (and will always be IMO) different. There will always be fundamental differences.

 

[Mr_Firelock]

Si Vis Pacem Parabellum

There's quite a lot of truth in this quote. I think the ultimate way to peace is to make everyone so goddamn powerful, that they'd be stupid to try and use that power, for fear of being destroyed themselves.

It stopped the USA and USSR from going to fullscale war with each other. I think it would work again too if it could happen. BUT the problem is that getting to that point will take some time and lots of destruction too.

So if man continues his quest for knowledge and power as we do and he continue to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction, eventually he will soon realize that he will ultimately destroy himself if he continues to destroy.

 

[I_am_learning]

There can be permanent peace EVERYBODY really thinks about global welfare and not just only oneself.
This can occur if we begin teaching such attitude from childhood.

 

[Alfi]

Peace . Sure it can be done.

When every single person thinks. I WILL NOT KILL FOR YOU!
NO MORE MILITARY. anywhere!

Military .. is just another word for a gang. Put on the bandanna, or uniform or whatever...

Kill for some one else... NO ! ... Tell them to do it themselves .. then it's murder.

 

[russ_watters]

That might work, until some of them notice that the people in the next street / town / country are fatter and happier than they are.

Then, back the "normal human behaviour", I expect.

I don't accept that people's greed is that closely tied to relative wealth. If someone is actually starving or actually living on a dirt-floor shack with rainwater dripping on his head, there is a strong and real physical motivator to change. Absent that physical motivator, the best that can be done is to manipulate people with propaganda into thinking:

1. People who have more money than me must have stolen it from me.
2. The only way I can do better is to make people who have more than me do worse.
3. Even though I have satellite TV, a microwave and air conditioning, my life is uncomfortable.

Such class conflict exists today in the US, but only at the prodding of people who use it for political gain. In any case, most of the time when I see this, the argument is that it only holds between members of the public, inside the borders of a nation. So it wouldn't cause wars.

The people who start wars are almost never poor.

 

[russ_watters]

I think the parameters of the question need to be defined better because it could be taken to be asking about a condition between any two nations. In that, case, there is a lot of "permanent peace" out there. Many western major powers like the US, France and the UK have been at peace with each other for almost two hundred years and no major power has been at war with another in 60 years, which is a condition unique in the history of the world. Prior to that, there tended to be breaks in wars only long enough to build-up to the next major war. Today, most western powers have all-but dismantled their militaries.

If the OP is talking about global peace between all nations, that won't happen as long as there are countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators.

 

[Dale]

I agree with russ watters. Modern western democracies are quite peaceful with each other. I think that permanent peace can be achieved in direct proportion as tyrrany is replaced by freedom.

 

[gb7nash]

Unfortunately, unless you live in a world of clones, no. From a civil perspective, everybody has their own ideals, which comes from their experience, race, age, location, sex, etc.. It would be impossible for any government to totally appease every person.

From a worldly perspective, also no. Every leader has different ideals and can range from from sadisticly nuts to zen.

 

[rootX]

I think the parameters of the question need to be defined better because it could be taken to be asking about a condition between any two nations. In that, case, there is a lot of "permanent peace" out there. Many western major powers like the US, France and the UK have been at peace with each other for almost two hundred years and no major power has been at war with another in 60 years, which is a condition unique in the history of the world. Prior to that, there tended to be breaks in wars only long enough to build-up to the next major war. Today, most western powers have all-but dismantled their militaries.

If the OP is talking about global peace between all nations, that won't happen as long as there are countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators.

1)
You seem to be hinting that countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators are more prone to going into wars. Do you have something to back up with? I will also be interested in knowing if you think:

permanent peace can be achieved in direct proportion as tyrrany is replaced by freedom.

2)
I don't understand the significance behind pointing out "western major powers like the US, France and the UK have been at peace with each other for almost two hundred years". What does this imply? There is lot of permanent peace these days looking at a sample of "US, France, and UK"? Yes, I share similar belief that things are more peaceful now then they were a century ago. However, this is bit insufficient to prove what I asked for in # 1 (Do countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators are more prone to going into wars) .

 

[OmCheeto]

I hate to repeat myself, but...

there are only two races of men, decent men and indecent. No society is free of either of them...

I'm quite certain it is the indecent ones that make war inevitable. And the decent ones make laws forbidding us to kill them all. Such a pity.

 

[Lacy33]

I think it's much more likely that a population will remain peaceful if there is opportunity for economic advancement, and an equitable justice system. Just off the top of my head, those seem pretty important.

Yeah, but even if you have all that you will never be able to keep me from mixing it up just because I am down right rotten to the core. I don't have time to explain it I got to go.
You explain it. You read about it.

 

[russ_watters]

1)
You seem to be hinting that countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators are more prone to going into wars. Do you have something to back up with?

The first part of the post.

2)
I don't understand the significance behind pointing out "western major powers like the US, France and the UK have been at peace with each other for almost two hundred years". What does this imply?

The OP asked "can permanent peace be achieved?" but didn't say permanent peace between who. So one answer to the question is simply: yes, permanent peace can be (has been) achieved: it currently exists between the US and UK.

There is lot of permanent peace these days looking at a sample of "US, France, and UK"? Yes, I share similar belief that things are more peaceful now then they were a century ago. However, this is bit insufficient to prove what I asked for in # 1 (Do countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators are more prone to going into wars) .

Then I don't understand what you're after.

 

[Dale]

It would be impossible for any government to totally appease every person.

I don't think that is a necessary condition for peace.

 

[gb7nash]

I don't think that is a necessary condition for peace.

Maybe not, but there could be a Coup d'état depending on how unhappy a particular group is.

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe not, but there could be a Coup d'état depending on how unhappy a particular group is.

Not really, no. In order for there to be a successful Coup d'état, that group needs to be very large. I doubt any developed country has been without riots at one time or another, but they haven't lead to a coup or revolution in any of them.

 

[rootX]

If the OP is talking about global peace between all nations, that won't happen as long as there are countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators.

Trying to be more concise this time, what make you think that global peace cannot be achieved as far there are non-functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators?

Do you have anything to support that claim?

 

[Dale]

1)
You seem to be hinting that countries without functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators are more prone to going into wars. Do you have something to back up with?

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/scor
http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/18/18760_armedconflicts_2009a.jpg

 

[rootX]

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2010/scor
http://www.pcr.uu.se/digitalAssets/18/18760_armedconflicts_2009a.jpg

Not only I see that countries with heterogeneous cultures have more internal conflicts (which is nothing to do much with freedom or democracy) but those links don't seem to consider external conflicts.

 

[russ_watters]

Trying to be more concise this time, what make you think that global peace cannot be achieved as far there are non-functioning governments or governments run by criminal dictators?

Do you have anything to support that claim?

Well first off, it's not a claim, it's a prediction since obviously I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to see the future. But it is a prediction based on past history and current status. It's also kinda true by definition: a "criminal dictator" is a dictator who commits crimes on a national level. That often involves illegal war.

If you're suggesting there can be such a thing as peaceful anarchy or a long-term stable/peaceful dictatorship(I remember you don't believe in democracy) , I'd look to you to provide an example where it has happened before in order to suggest it is possible.

 

[russ_watters]

Not only I see that countries with heterogeneous cultures have more internal conflicts (which is nothing to do much with freedom or democracy)...

Unless, of course, the existence of die-hard differing cultures is what causes the lack of government and/or dictatorship!

...though I question the claim itself. Europeans used to care a great deal about their cultural differences. Those differences haven't gone away, the Eurpeans just stopped caring about them.

...but those links don't seem to consider external conflicts.

Obviously they do, since that's how the US scores poorly.

 

[Dale]

Not only I see that countries with heterogeneous cultures have more internal conflicts (which is nothing to do much with freedom or democracy)

Now it is my turn to ask you for some evidence. Do you have something to back that up with? I don't even know how you would go about measuring cultural heterogeneity, and if there were such a measure then I would naively expect for democratic and free countries to be more heterogeneous due to greater acceptance and tolerance.

 

[chiro]

i hope this thread is not redundant

anyway, do you guys think that permenent peace practically can exist in this world? or balancing tension between the powers is the most feasible way?

The only way I can see it being a reality is to remove the large amounts of conflicts of interests that many people (or groups of people) have.

Conflicts of interest imply some kind of "zero-sum" games between different parties since if one person gains, the other loses because of that "conflict of interest".

You would have to reform huge parts of society as well as its incentive structures and unfortunately I'm very pessimistic that all of society would actually do it (could do it is another story).

 

[Antiphon]

Permanent peace cannot be achieved on a planet where all the living organisms must consume one another and can increase their own chances of survival by killing off their competitors whether of the same species or not.

Bacteria make war on the human body every day by eating and poisoning our very flesh. Humans fight back with burning heat, deadly organic solvents called "antiseptics", antibiotics (a weapon borrowed from the war between fungi and bacteria), and the cells of our very immune systems.

War between people will end when it's in everyone's best interest not to war and when it is no longer an instinct affirmed and cultivated by millions of years of natural selection.

In other words, no. Permanent peace cannot be achieved.

 

[drankin]

As long as there such a thing as right and wrong there will never be a permanent peace.

 

[Al68]

You would have to reform huge parts of society as well as its incentive structures and unfortunately I'm very pessimistic that all of society would actually do it (could do it is another story).

I think this is backward. Most conflict is caused by this desire to "reform society".

Human conflict will remain part of society as long as some have a desire to "reform society" and others are unwilling to be "reformed". Neither seems to be going away any time soon.

 

[Antiphon]

As long as there such a thing as right and wrong there will never be a permanent peace.

Alligators likely don't know right and wrong. They still make war on ducks and eat them.

 

[Triple_D]

No. Too many A-holes in the world.

 

[DR13]

Let's not foget about the Middle East. For there to be peace there, the world must either have a unified religion or no religion at all (neither of which will happen). All it takes is a few crazy suicide bomers to destroy peace.

 

[drankin]

Let's not foget about the Middle East. For there to be peace there, the world must either have a unified religion or no religion at all (neither of which will happen). All it takes is a few crazy suicide bomers to destroy peace.

They've been killing each other even though they are of the same religion for ions.

 

[Pythagorean]

Peace as a global way of life is possible, but I think it will take thousands of years of "social evolution". It won't be something that we convince everybody to do all at once, it's more likely something that will become part of developing a global society and/or the result of war homogenizing beliefs and peoples.

 

[WhoWee]

i hope this thread is not redundant

anyway, do you guys think that permenent peace practically can exist in this world? or balancing tension between the powers is the most feasible way?

I think you need to define "peace".

 

[WhoWee]

As long as there such a thing as right and wrong there will never be a permanent peace.

...more specifically - 2 opinions?

 

[DR13]

They've been killing each other even though they are of the same religion for ions.

Judism and Islam?

 

[Dale]

Judism and Islam?

Most of the violence in the middle east is muslim v. muslim. drankin may have been thinking of e.g. the centuries-old sunni v. shi'a violence which is still ongoing.

 

[russ_watters]

Let's not foget about the Middle East. For there to be peace there, the world must either have a unified religion or no religion at all (neither of which will happen). All it takes is a few crazy suicide bomers to destroy peace.

Perhaps it would be instructive to try to figure out how it happened in Europe and apply it to the ME. Prior to WWII, religious and ethnic differences drove many-a-war. After WWII, the nation-states decided that religion and ethnicity were silly reasons to go to war and just plain stopped. Remnants of the religious and ethnic hate remained, but slowly faded away. "A few crazy suicide bombers" and related terrorists used to kill a lot of people in the UK and Spain. But those have mostly gone away. Why?

 

[DR13]

Most of the violence in the middle east is muslim v. muslim. drankin may have been thinking of e.g. the centuries-old sunni v. shi'a violence which is still ongoing.

Ok. But there is still immense anti-semitism spread througout the middle east. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that he will not rest until Israel is wiped off of the map. He is also a Holocaust denier. People like this cause war.

I may have been better off saying differences in culture. That would be shi'a vs sunni. Ethnic cleansing is also a big problem in Africa.

Perhaps it would be instructive to try to figure out how it happened in Europe and apply it to the ME. Prior to WWII, religious and ethnic differences drove many-a-war. After WWII, the nation-states decided that religion and ethnicity were silly reasons to go to war and just plain stopped. Remnants of the religious and ethnic hate remained, but slowly faded away. "A few crazy suicide bombers" and related terrorists used to kill a lot of people in the UK and Spain. But those have mostly gone away. Why?

Maybe the develpoed nations stopped warring over religion and culture, but the undeveloped nations keep these kind of wars going constantly.
Also, would permanent peace mean no "small crimes". This means no murder, rape, burglary, etc. Or are we talking about nation-to-nation peace? It is necessary to define peace (As mentioned earlier)

 

[russ_watters]

Maybe the develpoed nations stopped warring over religion and culture, but the undeveloped nations keep these kind of wars going constantly.

So then the solution would seem to be obvious: development.

 

[DR13]

So then the solution would seem to be obvious: development.

But some nations, like Iran and many other Middle East and African nations, do not want to be developed. At least not developed by the "evil" western world. So to actually develop these nations we would have to be involved in many Iraq-type wars.

 

[russ_watters]

But some nations, like Iran and many other Middle East and African nations, do not want to be developed.

Maybe the current governments don't, but slowly but surely the people are starting to come around.