Is World Peace Attainable?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by ryan.wthxx, Jul 14, 2013.

  1. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    you're like the only guy I've know that's having a hard time to agree with this favorite phrase of mine. Is it really that hard to swallow?

    Without those 3 basic needs you're dead. But that is also saying we're all needy. to the point that we're willing to kill for these 3 basic needs. But why stop at the first 3? why not extend that to security? you may never know you won't get to eat the next day. Why not extend that to power? once we're powerless we'd be defenseless.

    And then the desire grew.


    greed or necessity, wars are wars. China was once at war with Eurasia because they refused to sell ceramics. This particular war would have been prevented if only China did sold their ceramics.

    They only do it out of necessity. they're paid for doing it. but honestly? that's a big slash to their pride.

    ---------- Post added at 01:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:36 PM ----------

    ridiculous. you'd be dead in the next minute without oxygen.
     
  2. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member



    Argumentum ad Populum

    There's generally no need to kill other people, in fact free market economies tend to show that mutual cooperation is significantly more productive than violent resource competition. Violence also tends to be lower in more educated areas.

    Now, there's a conclusion we can draw from this: humans generally don't kill each other because they want to, they kill each other because they feel they have to. If there's only one steak, and I have to choose me or you, I'm going to choose me, and I'm going to fight to survive.

    Further, from this, there's another conclusion we can draw: if there are enough resources to reduce competition to near zero, then there is no need for violence in order to compete for resources. If you take a look, you'll notice that generations of people have dedicated their lives to fields like agriculture and medicine to help feed and prolong other peoples' lives while also feeding themselves and prolonging their lives.

    Yes, we've all been to 1st grade history and can figure out that many governments become corrupt.



    I find it rather ridiculous that you think you can see into the mind of every human being out there.

    ---------- Post added at 02:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:12 PM ----------

    [YOUTUBE]AqERqQj-ozc[/YOUTUBE]

    for the lols
     
  3. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Being a knight is a slash to your pride? Samurais were pretty much the same for Japan and they also served their lord. Do you think any Samurai would take a slash to their pride just like that? Many people are proud to serve a good master more than just being paid. Also knights and samurais did not do it for money, they were no mercenaries, they were vassals.

    What did you not understand in such a simple sentence? I didn't say "I'm just gonna stop eating and drinking and be greedy in a vacuum." I said IF. You brought up technology yourself and i don't really want to follow the religious way, there is another thread for it, because religion clearly implies another world and not this world which we are living on. The central organ we cannot replace is our brain, to work our brain mainly requires energy in form of sugar and oxygen. Given the technology you could build a self-sufficient robot carrying the brain providing the ressources to keep it alive and even then you could be greedy.


    Were is greed most prevalent nowadays? Money!
    People save insane amounts of money and still want more, they save more money then they ever could spend and given how money works, it will not help them when shit hits the fan. And when it comes that far, you will not be secure by having printed paper (or cotton). So if we actually assume you want to improve your safety you are better off training martial arts, building a huge castle with spring guns and stash water and durable energy bars.
     
  4. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    Finally I've been waiting for this.

    Where are you gonna get this "resource" that you speak of? but wait, the problem is not resource, but our very own consuming nature. no matter how many resource there would be, we'd still be competing over it. because we need to consume, or we die.

    Or they were brainwashed. They say soldiers fight for their country, they fight with pride etc etc etc, but really, all I'm seeing is those generals get to command soldiers according to their whims. I repeat: whims.
     
  5. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Yeah, Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded because some general got bored.

    And where did i write soldiers?
     
  6. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    For thousands of years, people have worked to create farms to create permanent residents for themselves and their children.

    If we had enough for everyone to consume, there'd be little to no violent competition. If you want me to accept that peace and competition are mutually exclusive, you're going to have to do more than take it as an assumption.

    Just like your brainwashed to be loyal to God? Hmmmm.
     
  7. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    ^
    ^ nonetheless you're not denying the "whims" part, so meh.

    the basic of basic need is not yet solved though. I don't know what you're trying to prove here.

    problem is, your "enough" is subjective. a person's desire is never-ending. he has all the reason in the world to lie, steal, deceive, manipulate, etc etc etc.
     
  8. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    So you're not denying that God has brainwashed you?

    ---------- Post added at 02:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

    Define.

    I'm not surprised at all.

    Once again, a gross over-generalization of human nature with no attempt to back it up whatsoever. Worse still, it's snipped into a loaded one liner. Do you dance around fires to make it rain?
     
  9. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Actually it is. With things we throw away in Europe and the USA because we don't want dry bread or food past the best-before-date we could feed pretty much everyone starving. It's just no profitable to fly your "waste" to Africa compared to the current way.

    Pretty sure there also is enough water.

    And oxygen, i hope i don't need to comment on that.
     
  10. kildat017

    kildat017 Well-Known Member

    No, It is not solved. there are still people starving day and night out there. It's far from solved.

    But that's not what I'm saying. The problem is the very act of consuming. That we're bound to these needs. the need will grow at some point. especially when people get older. As long as we're needy, peace cannot be attained.
     
  11. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    Metabolism and resource consumption tends to fall off as people get older.
     
  12. ryan.wthxx

    ryan.wthxx Well-Known Member

    What if world peace isn't attainable, simply because some people think that would be really boring? A world without conflict is unimaginable imo. Marslow's hierachy of needs kind of shows the impossibility of everyone reaching "self-actualisation", their desired end goal, simply because resources aren't infinite or plentiful (if material wealth is your desire, or anything that requires resources). Even more so because we have 7 billion people on earth, and it is possible for at least one person, that his "self-actualisation" may somehow be the exact opposite of attaining world peace.

    How else would you explain al qaeda doing stupid shit? Or north korea?
     
  13. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    It's not just about all people on earth co-operating peacefully, it's about reducing the impact of those that don't to effectively zero.
     
  14. ryan.wthxx

    ryan.wthxx Well-Known Member

    Well, I think achieving the latter would ultimately require something contrary to peace itself, and so world peace would be something of an artificial construct. But still, the probability of outliers existing will probably be high enough to make world peace impossible, unless they are eliminated.

    So is there really any meaning to world peace if these people of differing, possibly extremist views never exist?
     
  15. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    Do you consider law enforcement to be a sign of an overall unpeaceful society?
     
  16. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    The only thing that will bring world peace will be an alien invasion imo, but even that will be temporary at best.
     
  17. ryan.wthxx

    ryan.wthxx Well-Known Member

    No, but requiring law enforcement in itself is inevitable, which alludes to world peace being impossible to achieve without intervention and suppressing outliers.
     
  18. Mognakor

    Mognakor Well-Known Member

    Maybe we should define "World Peace", is it the absence of wars or everyone living completly without any conflict?

    Because IMO it is clearly possible to live in a world without wars but conflicts cannot be erased but it matters how they are solved.
     
  19. TwoHourMotel

    TwoHourMotel Well-Known Member

    World peace usually refers to countries generally living in harmony with one another. Maybe if we evolve (technologically or otherwise) towards an enlightened hive-mind society where humanity is able to set and follow goals the same way cells in the body do, we could potentially have a virtually conflict free society. Of course, this currently reads more like a thesis to my book if anything.
     
  20. CAFO

    CAFO Well-Known Member

    Well, yea, in order to go from a world full of conflicts to one without you have to make some forceful changes.