World peace: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:35, 18 September 2004 editSlicky (talk \| contribs)946 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:40, 19 October 2004 edit undoJRM (talk \| contribs)5,015 edits →Rational Assessment Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:


	== ~~Rational~~ Assessment ==		== Assessment ==

			Whether world peace is achievable or not depends on what exactly we mean by it.
	From a rational, that is a scientific attitude world peace is a fiction which describes the scenario of unity with peace and harmony amongst the human species, whilst some even extend the meaning of the term to a ] background, namely that all higher developed lifeforms coexist in harmony.

			The ]n ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all ] beings) seems quite improbable to achieve, most basically because of the wide ranges of behaviour and personal circumstances there exist. Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the ] that makes us human.
	It can be shown however with a simple thinking experiment that world peace is impossible to archieve for the human race at its current state. In order to enable something like world peace, the least requirement would have to be a coherent striving or natural drive of the human beeing that stretches throughout the whole species, meaning that all humans would have to be affected by such a drive. Now one would instantly think of the natural survival 'instinct' (humans basically have no instincts, thus the more exact expression would have to be 'drive'), as it is known to be one of the strongest, but as we all know humans are well capable of sacrificing themselves for a ] which seemingly has no other resort in order to be achieved and is deemed important enough to actually be fulfilled. Because of the structure of the human species each human beeing develops into a completely individual ] (]), although at the price that anything that would require some kind of total unity throughout the species is impossible. ] did some psychological research on that topic.
	The real questions that has to be asked is what the human species would have become if there would actually be some kind of ] (on a mental level) withhin them, and if they would have even made it so far as they are now, or perhaps even further.

			Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of ]s. If we only include ]s, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for ''that''). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like ] conflicts or ] disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.
⚫	See also:

			Even if world peace (in whatever sense it is taken) is unachievable, this doesn't imply that striving for it is not a worthy (personal) goal. In this sense (and others), it is much like ].

		⚫	== See also ==
			*]
	*]		*]
		⚫	*] - a peacebuilding idea
	*]
	*]
	*]
⚫	*]
	*]		*]
	*]'s "]" song		*]'s "]" song
			*]
	*]		*]
	*]		*]

Revision as of 11:40, 19 October 2004

Definition and History

World peace is a future ideal of freedom, peace and happiness among and within all nations.

The realization of world peace may also make the idea of individual nations obsolete. Some historians identify a long-term trend where nation-states stop fighting and become united. For example, old Europe with wars culminating in World War I and World War II, compared with the European Union; warring Chinese states compared with the modern Chinese nation. Some historians theorize that the world will eventually follow this pattern as well.

Dr. Frank Laubach, an American Missionary to the Phllipines in 1935 saw poverty, injustice and illiteracy as impediments to world peace. He developed the "Each One Teach One" literacy program which taught about 60 million people to read in their own language.

World peace is often claimed to be the inevitable result of some political ideology. Thus, communist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace, and neoliberal thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama assumed that the rise of Western democracy will inevitably lead to the "end of history".

Assessment

Whether world peace is achievable or not depends on what exactly we mean by it.

The utopian ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all sentient beings) seems quite improbable to achieve, most basically because of the wide ranges of behaviour and personal circumstances there exist. Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the individuality that makes us human.

Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of conflicts. If we only include armed conflicts, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for that). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like trade conflicts or border disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.

Even if world peace (in whatever sense it is taken) is unachievable, this doesn't imply that striving for it is not a worthy (personal) goal. In this sense (and others), it is much like perfection.

Misplaced Pages