|
Post by almightylawliet on Apr 19, 2017 13:03:02 GMT -8
So I've been having a few conversations with people about world peace and thought it would be good to discuss here. One of the major things, how should peace be made? Through war and conflict by conquering all nations and rule the world with an iron but fair fist or through peace and negotiations like trying to unite the world through understanding and love where all of humanity is equal. After that how de we make sure the peace stays? Because eventually peace might fall but how do we prevent that from happening. Personally I think the world needs to be ruled with an iron fist by one ultimate leader, but I want to hear your opinions on it.
|
|
|
Post by legend1124 on Apr 19, 2017 17:27:13 GMT -8
If there was one leader people would revolt against the leader and make their own state, following their own rules. Not much would change in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by almightylawliet on Apr 20, 2017 3:44:42 GMT -8
Yes with one leader people would revolt. Unless you make them love or fear the leader if the leader killed anyone who tried to revolt it might make people afraid of doing it. On the other hand if the people love the leader they won't want to revolt
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on Apr 20, 2017 14:44:19 GMT -8
Yes with one leader people would revolt. Unless you make them love or fear the leader if the leader killed anyone who tried to revolt it might make people afraid of doing it. On the other hand if the people love the leader they won't want to revolt Check out Machiavelli he has an interesting take on what you are saying. I agree that fear can be a strong motivating factor to controlling others, but I believe the best government is a righteous dictator. Someone who makes perfect decisions for everyone. Problem is it's not sustainable and unrealistic because of people disagreeing with these decisions. Heck there are people who disagree with the 10 commandments. So that's the issues but I believe if everyone accepts and someone of that caliber is the leader. We could have a progressive society.
|
|
|
Post by kerrigansswarm24 on May 5, 2017 9:00:06 GMT -8
I honestly believe that world peace is impossible to achieve. There are to many variables and the cycle of discrimination in this world is to strong. Everyone will only perpetuate this cycle of hate, if its not skin color, its religion, if its not religion its terrorism, if it not terriorism its war. The cycle will never end until something truly drastic happens.
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 5, 2017 9:05:24 GMT -8
Not possible when there are oppressive regimes in the world and nations in the world without the same values as western nations. And by the same values I mean freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc.
As long as nations are significantly oppressing their own citizens there can be no world peace.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 5, 2017 12:33:21 GMT -8
Not possible when there are oppressive regimes in the world and nations in the world without the same values as western nations. And by the same values I mean freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc. As long as nations are significantly oppressing their own citizens there can be no world peace. What are your thoughts on eliminating everyone? Even if it is the most tiny of sin. But leaving alive only the most prestigious people. Like the people you meet who are the most honest, loyal, and the most virtuous. This may be only 200 people, but world peace might be achievable under this circumstances. Given that they are well off with the resources the other 7 billion people have already acquired. Of course the first generation may have memory of this mass killing, but later generations will only taught of virtuous ideals and not how the civilization came to be. Tell me if you believe this would be the most realistic way to peace. Of course not agreeing with the methods.
|
|
|
Post by kerrigansswarm24 on May 5, 2017 13:09:41 GMT -8
Not possible when there are oppressive regimes in the world and nations in the world without the same values as western nations. And by the same values I mean freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc. As long as nations are significantly oppressing their own citizens there can be no world peace. What are your thoughts on eliminating everyone? Even if it is the most tiny of sin. But leaving alive only the most prestigious people. Like the people you meet who are the most honest, loyal, and the most virtuous. This may be only 200 people, but world peace might be achievable under this circumstances. Given that they are well off with the resources the other 7 billion people have already acquired. Of course the first generation may have memory of this mass killing, but later generations will only taught of virtuous ideals and not how the civilization came to be. Tell me if you believe this would be the most realistic way to peace. Of course not agreeing with the methods. YOU FOOL! That would not be true world peace. True world peace would be that we would be able to keep everyone alive and come to an understanding with one another. Do you want these people to live on each and every continent and if that's the case they would each repopulate each part of the world and that would lead to the children being taught differently about history and what happened. This would lead to more hate that would be passed from generation to generation. Then if they all lived together than it would not be world peace it would be a community peace at best.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 5, 2017 18:17:27 GMT -8
What are your thoughts on eliminating everyone? Even if it is the most tiny of sin. But leaving alive only the most prestigious people. Like the people you meet who are the most honest, loyal, and the most virtuous. This may be only 200 people, but world peace might be achievable under this circumstances. Given that they are well off with the resources the other 7 billion people have already acquired. Of course the first generation may have memory of this mass killing, but later generations will only taught of virtuous ideals and not how the civilization came to be. Tell me if you believe this would be the most realistic way to peace. Of course not agreeing with the methods. YOU FOOL! That would not be true world peace. True world peace would be that we would be able to keep everyone alive and come to an understanding with one another. Do you want these people to live on each and every continent and if that's the case they would each repopulate each part of the world and that would lead to the children being taught differently about history and what happened. This would lead to more hate that would be passed from generation to generation. Then if they all lived together than it would not be world peace it would be a community peace at best. I don't see the reason for world peace to need to have everyone still there. Of course it would not be world peace leading up to the 200 people, but a few generations later possibly. I do see the flaw with new members being introduced and being rebellious. However, if we are not limiting world peace to humans I believe world peace could only be achieved through either psychlogically taking away free-will of animals (teaching them is improbable) and possibly humans. This brings up ethical questions though. In the end maybe world peace can be create through species deletion. Which leads back to the problem of needing to exterminate. Which is not a good method to lead to world peace.
|
|
LSDMB
Citizen
Christian Trinitarian Universalist
Posts: 15
|
Post by LSDMB on May 7, 2017 7:01:49 GMT -8
Not possible when there are oppressive regimes in the world and nations in the world without the same values as western nations. And by the same values I mean freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality under the law, etc. As long as nations are significantly oppressing their own citizens there can be no world peace. What are your thoughts on eliminating everyone? Even if it is the most tiny of sin. But leaving alive only the most prestigious people. Like the people you meet who are the most honest, loyal, and the most virtuous. This may be only 200 people, but world peace might be achievable under this circumstances. Given that they are well off with the resources the other 7 billion people have already acquired. Of course the first generation may have memory of this mass killing, but later generations will only taught of virtuous ideals and not how the civilization came to be. Tell me if you believe this would be the most realistic way to peace. Of course not agreeing with the methods. Well I don't think that would be a very realistic way to achieve world peace. First of all, whoever ran the systematic killing of almost every human being on the planet certainly wouldn't be a morally upstanding human being/group of human beings and would continue to be a pestering problem for society. Assuming whoever systematically killed most of humanity is no longer alive however, there's still the second problem, and that problem is people change. Even if the people left alive were the most upstanding people in the world, they're being thrust into an entirely new environment under the pressure of rebuilding society, and potentially vehemently disagreeing with others on the best course of action, so who knows if they would change under these conditions? And that's completely ignoring the fact that these people have experienced the horrific slaughter of most of humanity, undoubtedly including some of their most loved ones. Nah if this is the line of thought you're going down the most realistic way to achieve it is a global apocalypse that wipes out humanity.
|
|
|
Post by RadioactiveHaggis on May 7, 2017 10:53:27 GMT -8
Sadly, world peace is a delusion. We can strive to get as close to it as possible, but I doubt it can actually be achieved.
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 7, 2017 15:17:16 GMT -8
What are your thoughts on eliminating everyone? Even if it is the most tiny of sin. But leaving alive only the most prestigious people. Like the people you meet who are the most honest, loyal, and the most virtuous. This may be only 200 people, but world peace might be achievable under this circumstances. Given that they are well off with the resources the other 7 billion people have already acquired. Of course the first generation may have memory of this mass killing, but later generations will only taught of virtuous ideals and not how the civilization came to be. Tell me if you believe this would be the most realistic way to peace. Of course not agreeing with the methods. Well I don't think that would be a very realistic way to achieve world peace. First of all, whoever ran the systematic killing of almost every human being on the planet certainly wouldn't be a morally upstanding human being/group of human beings and would continue to be a pestering problem for society. Assuming whoever systematically killed most of humanity is no longer alive however, there's still the second problem, and that problem is people change. Even if the people left alive were the most upstanding people in the world, they're being thrust into an entirely new environment under the pressure of rebuilding society, and potentially vehemently disagreeing with others on the best course of action, so who knows if they would change under these conditions? And that's completely ignoring the fact that these people have experienced the horrific slaughter of most of humanity, undoubtedly including some of their most loved ones. Nah if this is the line of thought you're going down the most realistic way to achieve it is a global apocalypse that wipes out humanity. Yeah, it may be unrealistic but i'm thinking it would create the closest that we could come to world peace. The morally upstanding citizens could just be sheltered, tricked, or just not care from the killing of the population. This would of course take a person who can withstand great loss, while still holding integrity. As to rebuilding society. They wouldn't rebuild, for world peace they would have to live with what they have and ensure that their children follow the same exact ideals. Highly improbably, but I would say the most interesting way. As it would take a certain type of people to go about creating this world peace.
|
|
|
Post by almightylawliet on May 11, 2017 16:57:37 GMT -8
This is what I like to see all the discussions but now even though it's only been about a month I have a new plan for peace I'd kill everyone except for 100 babies an even amount of each race and sex fora wide gene pool and raise them the way I want and instill my ways of Peace in their heads that way I can start humanity over and by the time the population grows to a significant amount almost all the races would combine into one race that would know no war and everyone is a winner and I'd be their god that raised this race and their world
|
|
|
Post by UniversalAris on May 12, 2017 8:45:48 GMT -8
This is what I like to see all the discussions but now even though it's only been about a month I have a new plan for peace I'd kill everyone except for 100 babies an even amount of each race and sex fora wide gene pool and raise them the way I want and instill my ways of Peace in their heads that way I can start humanity over and by the time the population grows to a significant amount almost all the races would combine into one race that would know no war and everyone is a winner and I'd be their god that raised this race and their world But how do you expect to raise all 100 of them?
|
|
|
Post by Cнroмα on May 12, 2017 8:45:49 GMT -8
This is what I like to see all the discussions but now even though it's only been about a month I have a new plan for peace I'd kill everyone except for 100 babies an even amount of each race and sex fora wide gene pool and raise them the way I want and instill my ways of Peace in their heads that way I can start humanity over and by the time the population grows to a significant amount almost all the races would combine into one race that would know no war and everyone is a winner and I'd be their god that raised this race and their world nice Now the question of the day is how would you go about destroying Russia without triggering a nuclear war?
|
|