Is it possible for all humans to live in peace?

[RebeccaFog]

Is it possible for all humans to live in peace?

   Okay. Not only is an answer required, but some reason that supports the answer.

   Me first.

   It is possible for all humans to live in peace, but it is not likely to happen. 
Because -
   In order for there to be peace throughout all of humanity, it would require that our biology changes to the point where fight or flight is only a very small impulse in case of emergencies. We can never have peace as long as fight or flight can drive a person's actions.
   Also, there would have to be no hungry, homeless, or needy people.
   Greed would have to be bred out of the species.
   No alchohol.

I think that's all I got.

[Jonie]

Sure, if by "all" you mean the last two people left alive after world war three and they agree to only see each other one Saturday afternoon a month.

As for reasons I agree with yours, and would like to add that we are warriors all with different agendas. But sometimes I see something that surprises me and makes me think I could be wrong and that makes me hopeful.

[The Middle Way]

Ok ready for a rant?

Only if everyone becomes a Buddhist, they appear to live in peace all over, even with China. SEE: Bhutan.

Only problem, not a whole lot would get done, and there would have to be an absolutist rule (and an absolute central economy), like a monarchy or some more or less medieval form. People generally won't have this. Too simple, too focused, not enough drama/too little excitement, and not enough capability to have all your useless stuff.

That's one example, and the only one I know, of a social system that is non-contentious enough to not be duking it out all the time.

There is no sectarian violence among 'em and that is an actual fact. The worst they seem to get, in their divisions, is snarky sometimes, then they go home and mope at most. *They can't be arsed.*

What we got here, in EG: America (or its twin, Israel), is an economy driven by war and an idea of global dominion, well, half a globe, cause if you take over the whole planet, there won't be enough war to make the big bucks off of.

I disagree with your biological premise; it's the not backing up the other into a corner (which is driven by greed, mostly, which follows from abject ignorance) to create the adrenaline/testosterone rush... what has to happen would take an enormous paradigm shift across the board; this society loves the adrenaline/testosterone rush so much it artificially manufactures the combo with shoddy entertainment products, artificial replication of the idea of competing for that extra boost, that extra hoarding of goods, the child's 'this is mine' instinct...

It's way too late in the cycle of the thing anyway, the planet is overheated like your Central Processing Unit and your system files are corrupt, and there is no reboot option, much less your clean reinstall of the operating system, not til it's all over. Then there will be a clean slate, begin agin finnegan. {Ooh, religious are we. skeddy.}

Forget about it, you betta off. OM.

Nota

[cindianna_jones]

I do think that it is possible.  I honestly have had hope that with information technology, the world's populace will all know what's going on everywhere and that we won't allow power hungry leaders to do stupid things.

But then again.... we don't give a ->-bleeped-<- do we?  Bush signed away the constitution this week on Wednesday. The executive order is on the White House Website. Basically, he has assigned two of his cronies to take away everything you've got if you don't agree with him.  I wrote something about it in my blog.  I haven't heard one word about it in the media.  I've had no comments about it here in the blog either.

No, I'm not saying that you should comment.  I'm just saying that world peace requires dilligence.  It takes caring and responsibility from each and every person.  But we as a society have been fattened, fed all the TV we want, given fast food, and left to rot on our couch.  We are content to let them hook us in the nose and lead us to slaughter.

Am I wrong?

I don't think so.

Cindi

[katia]

well i would say that humans are egoistic on a moral level, i'm referring to anne rands moral theory of egoism. that is to say that everyone is acting in their best interest. if anyone does anything it is because it is helping them somehow, think of even the most generous kind and selfless person and you could still argue that they are acting out of a sense of self fulfilling nobility, or that they receive a feeling of pride, think of the saying it's better to give than to receive.

take that concept and combine it with hobbes' state of nature, and social contract. hobbes says that before laws existed it was every man for himself there was no co-operation or communication. the world was in utter chaos because the strongest man could horde all the resources, and the weakest man could just as easily murder the strongest man in his sleep. i would argue that people would never degrade to this sort of state of nature, but closer to anne rands every man for himself explanation.

of course the social contract is there to keep people in line and force each other to respect each other and to protect each other.  if you accept that people are self-interested and honestly don't give a rat's behind about anyone else and therefore society need laws in place to keep them from attacking or simply disrespecting others, the answer is clear, one would have to make people believe that it is in their own best interest to live in peace i.e. respect others.

[RebeccaFog]

of course the social contract is there to keep people in line and force each other to respect each other and to protect each other.  if you accept that people are self-interested and honestly don't give a rat's behind about anyone else and therefore society need laws in place to keep them from attacking or simply disrespecting others, the answer is clear, one would have to make people believe that it is in their own best interest to live in peace i.e. respect others.

   Hi Katia,

   It's good to see you around.

   Do you mean a 'benevolent dictator' kind of thing or a possibility of a 'cooperative' (democratic) type of thing, or just any kind of system that can keep people aware of their own best interests?

Posted on: July 21, 2007, 10:50:11 AM

But then again.... we don't give a ->-bleeped-<- do we?  Bush signed away the constitution this week on Wednesday. The executive order is on the White House Website. Basically, he has assigned two of his cronies to take away everything you've got if you don't agree with him.  I wrote something about it in my blog.  I haven't heard one word about it in the media.  I've had no comments about it here in the blog either.

Cindi

Hi Cindi, I read that blog entry and I emailed a link to the evil white house's web page to a bunch of people.  I may send it to Keith Olberman of MSNBC because he actually cares unlike the rest of the talking head[less].

[katia]

it depends rebis.  i'd rather take the fifth on your question.

[Jonie]

well i would say that humans are egoistic on a moral level, i'm referring to anne rands moral theory of egoism. that is to say that everyone is acting in their best interest. if anyone does anything it is because it is helping them somehow, think of even the most generous kind and selfless person and you could still argue that they are acting out of a sense of self fulfilling nobility, or that they receive a feeling of pride, think of the saying it's better to give than to receive.

take that concept and combine it with hobbes' state of nature, and social contract. hobbes says that before laws existed it was every man for himself there was no co-operation or communication. the world was in utter chaos because the strongest man could horde all the resources, and the weakest man could just as easily murder the strongest man in his sleep. i would argue that people would never degrade to this sort of state of nature, but closer to anne rands every man for himself explanation.

of course the social contract is there to keep people in line and force each other to respect each other and to protect each other.  if you accept that people are self-interested and honestly don't give a rat's behind about anyone else and therefore society need laws in place to keep them from attacking or simply disrespecting others, the answer is clear, one would have to make people believe that it is in their own best interest to live in peace i.e. respect others.

How would Anne Rand explain it when one person sacrafices their life for another person, especially if the first person really wanted to live and they didn't believe in karma or an afterlife?

[The Middle Way]

well i would say that humans are egoistic on a moral level, i'm referring to anne rands moral theory of egoism. that is to say that everyone is acting in their best interest. if anyone does anything it is because it is helping them somehow, think of even the most generous kind and selfless person and you could still argue that they are acting out of a sense of self fulfilling nobility, or that they receive a feeling of pride, think of the saying it's better to give than to receive.

well the saying 'better to give than receive', might be taken for what it's worth, and you are qualifying it in reverse according to a certain *belief system* from what might be characterized as a skeptical point-of-view, which I think doesn't follow. I would also venture to qualify: 'everyone is acting in their best interest' with 'everyone probably thinks that they are acting in their best interest' which is not the same thing at all; the real dissonance between these two is a big part of the problem I think.

however I understand the rest of it:

take that concept and combine it with hobbes' state of nature, and social contract. hobbes says that before laws existed it was every man for himself there was no co-operation or communication. the world was in utter chaos because the strongest man could horde all the resources, and the weakest man could just as easily murder the strongest man in his sleep. i would argue that people would never degrade to this sort of state of nature, but closer to anne rands every man for himself explanation.

Rand's thought is an exemplar of your degraded state, IMO.

of course the social contract is there to keep people in line and force each other to respect each other and to protect each other.  if you accept that people are self-interested and honestly don't give a rat's behind about anyone else and therefore society need laws in place to keep them from attacking or simply disrespecting others, the answer is clear, one would have to make people believe that it is in their own best interest to live in peace i.e. respect others.

In social systems that celebrate egoism (like Ms Rand did, In Extremis) this will be impossible, was and is my argument.

N

[Jessica]

Yes it is possible.

If people start thinking in terms of a global 'we' instead of an individual 'me'
If people learn to accept other people's differences.

It will take a global threat for this paradigm shift to occur.

We need something on a global level to threaten us before we are able to band together as HUMAN instead of city, state, country, ethnicty, etc...

Jessica

[The Middle Way]

what will it take to RECOGNIZE this global threat? when it comes from above, from outer space?

[cindianna_jones]

what will it take to RECOGNIZE this global threat? when it comes from above, from outer space?

A big rock!  Yeah! That's the ticket!  A big rock will fall from the sky and we will rally 'round our leaders to build a rocket to go get it.

Seriously, if we were facing global extinction, we could learn to work together for a few years.

Even that won't work for very long.  We are, after all, animals.  We still have basic instincts that we haven't learned to control.

Cindi

[The Middle Way]

what will it take to RECOGNIZE this global threat? when it comes from above, from outer space?

A big rock!  Yeah! That's the ticket!  A big rock will fall from the sky and we will rally 'round our leaders to build a rocket to go get it.

Seriously, if we were facing global extinction, we could learn to work together for a few years.

Hmm. I thought we were facing global extinction.

[Jay]

No and thats down to everyone having there own views!

[Aeyra]

It is possible for all humans to live in relative peace, granted we won't be a perfect world, but we won't have the wars and genocide that we have right now.

Problem is, it likely will never happen as long as we continue to think the way we do now. Many people argue that Bush and his ilk are turning the USA into a military dictatorship, well, the reality is, it's been a military dictatorship long before anyone on this site was born. Every single country on the planet is a military dictatorship irregardless of the claims their authorities make. Don't believe me? Go to a 'free' country like New Zealand and burn their flag during their country's equivalent of July 4th in Auckland and you will see how much 'freedom' you have. Likewise, go burn the US Flag during a veteran's parade and I can guarantee even your most 'liberal left winger' will try to hang you from a tree. I don't mean to be insulting but that is how every country on the planet is.

Another thing: since every country on the planet is a military dictatorship (a monarchy is basically the medieval version of a military dictatorship), by default every single business, person, and property is owned by the government. In turn, the government is owned by one person or a small group of people. There's no such thing as capitalism or socialism or anything in between, they have nothing to do with your freedom or peace. They have never existed in the course of human history and never will. Does anyone here really think that North Korea's state owned businesses really are 'owned' by the people? Likewise, do you really think you own your house in America? The US government owns everything in this country, the land, the water, the 'free market', everything. Nothing has changed in over 2000 years of recent human history.

Nothing at all. We place absolute supreme power in the hands of one person or a select few, and they protect us and feed us like nice little sheep. They run up more and more debt for various pet projects and in the end, they end up with everything. We have nothing. Then, society falls apart since you can't sell something to someone with no money.

If the top brass (top 1%) in the USA holds 99% of all the wealth and the rest of the masses have the rest, is it logical to assume the masses can buy what the top brass sells to them? If you are in a town of say 500 people and out of $500 million USD floating around in the town, you own $499 million, can the rest of the town purchase stuff worth $100 million? Or even $2 million?

The cycle repeats itself. The 'old money' re-establishes itself in the new society/country/whatever and once again they become the top brass. This is a tactic the Mafia has used to control their territories for generations. The rest of the masses are reconfigured into various new roles; the former upper middle class (yuppies) becomes the new lower middle class, the bottom of the barrel classes basically become scavengers, and the middle and lower classes become cannon fodder for whatever games the top brass desires. The top brass deflects blame from themselves onto various subcultures and groups within a society, whatever is most convenient in thier eyes. The terrorism argument being pushed around in the USA is bogus; the sole purpose of the Patriot Act and all of the DHS activity is for damage control, not to fight terrorism or set up a military dictatorship. In most of recorded human history this is where the tension and wars come from. They pit people against each other, and make up a bunch of scapegoats in the process.

The key is to stop seeing your country as something to be venerated. Patriotism is just another form of religion. After all, God and country is the sales pitch used by groups like the "Constitution" Party and their kind. They go hand in hand; go into any of your VFW branches and they will have all kinds of religious and pseudoreligious symbols and materials throughout the place. Stop making flags and national birds and trees and all the other religious symbols that make up the state religions on the Earth. The first people that understand this will set an example for the world; we would walk into a brave new era for humanity. Time is the only thing that heals bad blood between nations, not more 'tolerance' rahrahs and trying to get mutual enemies to sleep with each other, so to speak. Israel and the Arabs will never stop fighting so long as they never leave each other alone. The Northern states and former Confederate states in the USA will never get along so long as they try to use DC as a means of conquering each other. Trying to force people to accept each other never works, not in the long run. Leave each other alone, and the wounds will eventually heal.

It's really that simple. 

[RebeccaFog]

The key is to stop seeing your country as something to be venerated. Patriotism is just another form of religion. After all, God and country is the sales pitch used by groups like the "Constitution" Party and their kind. They go hand in hand; go into any of your VFW branches and they will have all kinds of religious and pseudoreligious symbols and materials throughout the place. Stop making flags and national birds and trees and all the other religious symbols that make up the state religions on the Earth. The first people that understand this will set an example for the world; we would walk into a brave new era for humanity. Time is the only thing that heals bad blood between nations, not more 'tolerance' rahrahs and trying to get mutual enemies to sleep with each other, so to speak. Israel and the Arabs will never stop fighting so long as they never leave each other alone. The Northern states and former Confederate states in the USA will never get along so long as they try to use DC as a means of conquering each other. Trying to force people to accept each other never works, not in the long run. Leave each other alone, and the wounds will eventually heal.

It's really that simple. 

   I agree.  I have thought this way since I was a kid.
   Since I agree with you, I'm afraid I'm going to have to tell you that you're a genius!   

[Shana A]

It will take a global threat for this paradigm shift to occur.

We need something on a global level to threaten us before we are able to band together as HUMAN instead of city, state, country, ethnicty, etc...

Well, we're currently killing our planet and using up all its natural resources... environmental disasters are getting worse every year and threaten human existence. Are we listening? Some of us are, but it's going to take lots more people paying attention and doing something to reverse the trend.

Zythyra

[Lori]

Never. As long as there are social barriers and religion there can be no equality. Until every single person/country unites towards a common goal, there will be no peace.

That is why I admire Star Trek. They did away with the need for money and other things of social status. Humanity worked towards a common goal. Good luck with that. It won't be until we are the brink of extinction when we figure that one out.

[King Malachite]

I think if every human on this planet were to be stripped of their envy for others and valuables and everyone had the equal amount of things and religion wasn't involved then yes I think it's quite possible.

[Medusa]

It is impossible, fight is human nature.
Religion is just alibi for fight for money.