News Can Permanent Peace Exist in Our World?

[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.