I know that most of us would love world peace. It's an ideal, a great one. Something to look forward to. But the fact is, after an ideal is achieved, what then? The activists would be out of a mission. How many activists out there have a personality that could, like the old Roman General, settle down back in his farm after winning the battle? Most activists revel in the continual struggle against adversity, shining as a beacon of justice in the mire. That makes life worth living. That's why we all love the terminator series.
I try to create a model of world peace in my mind, and all I see is that once a certain situation may stablize, there are bound to be dissenting factors that will rebel against all the 'pseudo-everyone-loves-everyone-niceness' and there'll be people to oppose these rebels, thus making peace impossible. How much tolerance can we learn for each other? And if diversity is inevitable, so would disparity in levels of tolerance. We as humans cannot agree to exercise our freedom of will with the responsibility that it requires. Thus our society is in a constant state of flux.
People, by nature, like to be respected, to be better than others. That in some cases creates grounds for inequality. I often wonder, also, that in many people's secret hearts of hearts, there isn't actually a desire for some form of wrongness in society. There was a little boy in Anne of Green Gables series who once declared he didn't want to go to heaven. When asked why, he said that the sunday school teacher claimed that in heaven, they would all float in the clouds playing musical instruments for eternity. It sounded horribly boring. To be sure, if heaven is really like that, I doubt that people would want to go to heaven at all. And world peace, in a way, would be heaven on earth. It's unsettling. I'm not saying I don't desire it, but can we force everyone to agree to this?
In the increasing world trend of activism, we live now in an age of hope. We live with the idea that we really can do something to save the world. We live in constant change and excitement. This is heightening our expectations of what we can do, as individuals, as teams, in solving world problems. Heightening our desire for action. For justice. Heightening our appetite for the doing.
When and if all the problems in the world are solved, what then? Suddenly, people will panic. What? Nothing else to participate in? Must we all go back to a life of living, of enjoying our family and friends? I do not think everyone will agree to this.
Fortunately, World peace will never happen. Thus, if ever we humans solve all main issues concerning inequality, the environmental and energy crisis, intolerance, disease...etc, there will always be minor issues to wrinkle out. The industry of activism will be able to as sustainable as wind power.
And we'll always have to educate the next generation to heed history. I'm not optimistic about that either. A cartoonist once commented that he found himself drawing the same theme every decade or so, because man does not learn from history. The mistakes are repeated, with the stakes higher. World peace? Not gonna happen.
Although I do not like the terminator series, I do like this article. I never really thought of that this way. If it were to happen it would be to a higher power (like God) and I guess world peace would last For like seven years, since people will be resting from all the turmoil of now. When they realize that they have been inactive for so long, I think the biggest upheaval will happen and distroy the earth. But that is just my unthoughtful take on things.
Anyway, Thanks for writing, good job, and sleep.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
I agree that world peace is impossible, but even if it were possible, I think that it would suck hard. If there were world peace, there would likely be some sort of shared economy, and since there aren't enough resources to go around, everyone would be living substandardly (whatever that means objectively).
Competition and constant turmoil is what keeps the world from being mediocre.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
There are enough resources to go around.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
No, not really. That (in addition to the politics of British imperialism) is the reason why there are so many third world countries and so few first world countries.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
There are enough resources on Earth to keep every person fed, hydrated, and sheltered. It's a matter of distributing the resources efficiently.
Common sense is as rare as genius. ~Emerson
I agree with you on that one, but I think that the World Government that would probably arise is just as bad. That's really scary. If it's non-Democratic, we obviously don't want that. If it is, China's just taken over the World.
If you think world peace is one government, one way, and total agreement; or people skipping through a feild holding hands singing kum bi yah...then no, peace on earth just might be a fantasy of illogic.
However, if you consider it many governments and so forth living together, not in harmony but harmoniously; people doing their own thing while respecting the space of others...then it just might be possible.
I figure world peace would still have arguements and debates and bickering. However, I think that these arguemnts will not result in bombs and war or gun shots and stabbings, they will result in (heaven forbid) comprimise and understanding.
I think that, on a smaller scale, people would be more understanding of various classes. For example, instead of crossing the street (or clutching tighter to you purse) at the sight of a homeless person (or other unflavorful types), one would in the very least say hi as they walked by. Fear would be minimal and hate (as the strong word and feeling it really means) would be eliminated.
How do you see it being?
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
And you have just proven here that people have different perspectives on what world peace is. So it may be possible for some people to feel that we have acheived peace, but another group may not be satisfied.
"How can you say mad when there's so much beauty in the world?"
Concerning resources: well, there may be enough resources to go around now, check out all my school's leftovers. But there may not in the future, concerning certain key items (as you all know ) such as petroleum, construction material...etc.
Concerning viewpoint: I agree that it depends on how we view world peace, but I still maintain that it's not going to happen. Or last. Suppose, theoretically, we do eventually have every leader in every country agree to dropping arms (America, as one of the prime nations requesting it, hasn't), but will their sucessors agree? Suppose that there would be an earth law banning weapons. After a few generations people will forget what it was there for and it'll become a tradition. Like all the traditions mothers pass down to their children, the children will want to disobey, to test the waters. To keep this from happening, our methods of teaching history have to change. It's not about remembering precise names and dates anymore, it's about considering 'what would I do in that situation? And how can I change it for the better?' With history growing, it's going to be tough teaching world history, we'll need to start prioritizing on what we teach.
Concerning the future system: Once people get the taste of democracy, they're not likely to start agreeing with trusting in autocracy or oligarchy. In order to reach a world consensus, we either have to have everyone highly educated or greatly illiterate.
Great Article. I agree wholeheartedly that world peace is nearly impossible (I say nearly because I don't deal in absolutes). In order for world peace to occur there must be an end to Capitalism. Capitalist economies lead poverty. The Capitalist economy relishes in materialsim and when you mix capitalism and materialsim you have crime. Examples being the Blood Diamond trade. However if you take away capitalism then you take away free trade. That would never work. Also until humans evolve out of their power hungry mindstate then you will see no peace. Their are people who love to impose themselves on others and as a human race there can only be peace if we are to evolve out of our human ways. Humans are naturally volitale therefore a world run by humans will always be volitale.
It is not only that the World peace is impossible.
It is about that
there is a way to global peace forever.
According to my personal observation the world's population is divided in to two groups.
One group: Are those who actively contribute towards global peace,
Others: Are those who will join latter.
For more details click on www.peace365.org
and decide for yourself to which group you belong to ...
In Peace Forever
Marek Zielinski
Well, I honestly belive world peace is immposible mainly because some people won't accept it, It would just be to boring. Or atleast if a higher power such as Jehovah(AKA God) Were to cause world peace, then maybe we could live like that. But until Armageddon there isn't much we can do. (I belive in god, although theoretically I don't have any official religon.)
Maybe we should just lead our lives to whatever fate it may bring, and hope for the best.
"Wyrd bid Ful Araed - Fate is Inexorable."
I'd disagree on this, at least partially:
If you believe that "peace" means a "perfect" world, then no, it is not possible; there will always exist imperfection. If you believe that "peace" means everyone must agree with each other, entirely, that may not be possible either, nor is it desirable -- as then everyone thinks the same way and thus no new knowledge, and nothing gets anywhere, there is no advancement. Uniform thinking (where everyone thinks the exact same way like clones) is actually bad.
That is not, however, what I think "peace" is, and I think that even if (and we will, I believe) we do have peace, it will still not be a perfect world. Perfection? That is not possible. But one can get closer and closer
It sounds like you don't want "peace" or don't want to think it possible because then there would be no more "activism", no more to improve. See above. Also, what is the point of activism, if everything ultimately stays the same, and after it's all done, the world is not moved one iota closer to that perfection (even though it is not attainable in full, you can still get closer), and instead stays a battleground full of hate, fighting, and "life that sucks"? There is none. None at all. Hardly "progressive" thoughts at all.
And I'd also like to add one more thing: if one does not believe that any sort of peace is possible, then why bother trying to change things anyway? What happens when things become too painful to bear any more (continuing on a path that does not lead to peace, but to pain.)? If one does not believe it possible, then one will not really have the drive to actually look for the true solution to the problems and put it into practice. I've never seen someone really driven to do something despite having an honest belief it absolutely cannot be done at all.
For one thing, I think we need to trash politics, at least the way it is done now. Current politics is like a battleground, not a good administrative system, instead of "leaders" that administrate things we get greedy nuts that are in it for themselves (or for their "party"), not for the world. Just look at all these smear campaigns, gossiping, back-biting, and other dark things that go on in the current US presidential elections. The way we do "politics" right now is silly.