World Peace

[h2orowe]

Do you think it's obtainable? I do, but it will take a long time, or we could have it happen quicker, but either way.... the road to peace is paved in blood and resistence.

This isn't what I want but it is a posibility.

If all of the U.N. were too agree to a peace treaty, and form a one nation world, ruled by some sort of overpowering person, and a lower branch of about 10 or so, than it could happen. Any resistence would be wiped out by nukes and bombs, regardless of civilian casulties.
If it meant a peaceful existance, than it would happen.
It would require children to start with new education programs, teaching that you must follow the government, that you must obey the law, and if you disagree the consequences will be severe, no matter how miniscule the crime.

New laws would require, any and all hate speech to be punished with prison time, petty theft to require prison time, Grand theft to be punished with a decade or two in prison. ANY repeated offense, wether it be stealing a lolipop, would be punished with either brainwashing and life in prison, or simply death.
Fighting, Murder, rape, or any act of violence would be punished with death. Even suggesting that you would do such an act.
There would be no freedom of speech. No free thinking.
All pre-peace culture would be erased. They would start a new timeline.
Everyone, everywhere would be entitled to the same benefits. Everyone would wear the same clothes, and eat the same food. Everything would be provided to you, meaning that there would be no money, so there would be no rich and no poor. Everyone would get the same medical care, and the same dental care, and the same education.
People would all live in complexes that provide bedding and food. The housing would contain many family units.
This would be world wide.

I'd list more, but it's all I can think of for now.

Or, if eventually through what is happening in Iraq, where -.- the USA and other countries go in (stupid USA -.- ) go in and force democracy onto them, concluding with even the USA's allies, maybe peace would eventually happen.

I don't like either ideas, but I was bored so I made this thread.

What is your input?
What do you think it would require?

[Gunner]

Did you realise that today, Sept 21 is the United Nations' International Day of Peace??

http://www.un.org/events/peaceday/2005/

[Jay]

People are always gonna have the will to blow eachother up. Always going to, always will. You'll never get world peace.

[h2orowe]

Did you realise that today, Sept 21 is the United Nations' International Day of Peace??

http://www.un.org/events/peaceday/2005/
:O Are you serious?!?!?

I'll check out that site in a second.

[Twistedice]

I think it's obtainable, but it probably won't last long.

If life in a peaceful world would be as you described, I know that I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in that world.

[Jiant Flying Panda]

Sadly.

No. We will never achieve world peace :(. There will always be conflict at one level of another.

And to qoute the great Terminator:

"It is in our nature to destroy each other."

[Quartermaster]

Personally I don't believe peace can co-exist with freedom. War is the disagreement allowed by freedom on a large, violent scale. So no, I don't care if we never have world/universal peace, nor do I believe it's possible.

[Pierrot le Fou]

I wouldn't want World Peace. People fighting for what they believe in assures a plurality of opinions being voiced, and the presence of people who are willing to die for what they believe in. Humans throughout the ages have been ostracized and belittled for their unconventional beliefs, yet so many of those unconventional beliefs have become the norm because people were willing to fight for what they believe in. Look at the growth in personal freedoms. Would you want world peace in exchange for still being under the yoke of King George? I certainly wouldn't.

There are things worth fighting for. As long as things that are worth fighting for still exist, we won't have peace. And I hope to God that we always have something worth fighting for in our lives, otherwise existence is peaceful, but meaningless. And restlessness is a cause of conflict as well.

[NERD]

World Peace would mean everyone will come into series of compromises that they all agree upon- I doubt that will happen, and it is more easier to break the peace than to preserve it. Even if World Peace was achieved, it would only need something so small to break that apart.

[Balain]

There will always be someone wanting to fight over something. Some leader wanting that extra bit of land from the other guy or just because so and so wore the wrong hat.

I won't get started about the UN.

[DarkFire168]

I just plan to unite Asia under my velvet gloved iron fist, and bash you goddamn crackers into pieces when you piss me off. The hispanics and black people are cool though, we'd trade with them and stuff. But you whiteys best watch yourselves.

[l337m45t3r]

World peace? Not for a few more centuries at least. Humanity needs to evolve beyond our current state.

[kyaa the catlord]

Pledge your Allegiance to Il Palazzo!

[ChronoSphere]

I don't see world peace ever occuring - I may see restraints on using wmd's (because in the end, they affect the whole world) but a cessation of all armed conflicts? Never.

And in reference to what Pierrot was saying, here's a quote that I always found rather true:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself" - John Stuart Mill

[Kass]

Wow. So much idealism and naievete in one post, I'm not sure what to say. The whole idea is rather blinldy optimistic and fails to even account for the darker aspects of human nature.

It won't happen. There will always be fundamental disagreements on how people should live and be governed. No one government will ever be cohesive enough or strong enough to maintain control of the planet's population.

Gene Roddenberry might have created a nice story, but grounded in reality he was not.

[yogi]

The only way to get world peace is to kill everyone but yourself. Then there would be peace and boredom. But you know if life wants to deal that hand to someone you'll get world peace.

On a side note does anyone else dislike it when people say 'peace out' or somesuch bullshit. Its like saing Ciao with the intention of being spanish.. no it isnt, but it just irritates me.

[Pete]

h2o - that sounds worryingly like a totalitarian world state to me.

World peace is probably an impossibility, but ending poverty and human rights abuses aren't.

[DarkFire168]

"Freedom. It's as simple as that. I'm not talking about freedom for the world, god damn you, I'm not saying 'Let's go out there and fight the good fight for everyone on the planet' I'm talking about your own freedom. Your freedom to choose right from fucking wrong, your right to choose to think instead of follow, your right to believe and die or your right to die because someone else believes. That's the freedom I'd fight for, that's the freedom I'd die for."---Unknown.

I don't know who said that, but I believe it.

[sharpie]

We can all hope for it but it is highly doubtful that it will be obtained anywhere within our lifetime. To some people, peace isn't profitable.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

I'd hate to say it, but what you just described is what the Bible speaks of in Revalations.

Ya know. The end of the world...

"People will be calling for peace and there will be peace...for a short while..."

Then all hell breaks loose etc. etc.

I'm not trying to bible thump you, but what you are talking about is so doomsday it isn't funny.

[DarkFire168]

Dude, I'm not talking bout peace foo'. I'm talking 'bout freedom.

[Tssss..]

I trust in what the cartoonist, scott adams, has said concerning human nature. every single human is stupid, selfish, and horny.

i don't think stupid selfish horny individuals will ever be able to peaceably coexist.

beyond that, change is necessary to prevent life from becoming stagnant. change is very rarely peaceful, but it is required for our cultures to continue to grow.

[Kaji]

If you unite the world under a single nation you're still going to have problems, because there will still be smaller units within it, or else you won't be able to govern effectively at all. Besides, that'd mean you'd have to get China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan to all settle their differences with each other to a point where they'd give up their respective thousands of years of identity to be called a name none of them grew up with. One nation would be a cultural tragedy.

Regarding the laws, what would be defined as hate speech? Who would have the power to update the definition? How would you treat the problem? Should you treat the problem? There are many areas the government simply should not be involved. The Declaration of Independence didn't just randomly order the inalienable human rights as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. One person's right to life trumps another's right to liberty. The right to liberty trumps the right to pursue happiness. As freedom of speech is guaranteed, even hate speech is protected by the right to liberty, insofar as it's not treading on anyone's right to life. Unless you're really into the government telling you how to think...

[Collapse]

World Peace is achievable. However if total peace ensues, then the military won't have jobs you know.

Okay, screw it. No matter how many people want world peace, human instinct will always drive us into conflict. No peace, just peace at times in conflict whether internally or externally.

[Kash]

If all of the U.N. were too agree to a peace treaty, and form a one nation world, ruled by some sort of overpowering person, and a lower branch of about 10 or so, than it could happen. Any resistence would be wiped out by nukes and bombs, regardless of civilian casulties.


There is a sublime irony to a peace treaty that is enforced with nukes aimed at civilians.

[DarkFire168]

Isn't life just one big ironic event after another though?