Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View WORLD PEACE.........a reasonable...
Show More
Loading...
Flag Thebeliever August 8, 2009 10:10 AM EDT


I just got on BN and I would like to hear from those who believe that World Peace is a reasonable objective for mankind.


If you don't think it is, please chime in...... God knows, you might be right......


The Believer


 

Flag Zaracyn August 11, 2009 9:19 AM EDT

Aug 8, 2009 -- 10:10AM, Thebeliever wrote:



I just got on BN and I would like to hear from those who believe that World Peace is a reasonable objective for mankind.


If you don't think it is, please chime in...... God knows, you might be right......


The Believer


 





This kinda goes hand-in-hand with my "world government" thread.  I suppose it might even be a prerequisite!  Is it possible, I'd like to think so...realisticly, I dunno!

Flag Thebeliever August 11, 2009 5:08 PM EDT

Hi Z....thanks for chiming in......let me take a look at your post and maybe we can get some other posters going on our look on Word Peace and World Politics!


Catch ya on the flipside,

Flag Mlyons619 August 14, 2009 5:08 PM EDT

World peace?  Nice pie-in-the-sky stuff. Of course everyone wants that.


World government?  Like the ole' United Federation of Planets type government from Star Trek?  Of course everyone'd like that too.  However, it is more likely this government would by an oligarchy of the elite -- and the rest of us would be peons with no say whatsoever.  No thank you.

Flag CharikIeia August 14, 2009 6:25 PM EDT

Aug 14, 2009 -- 5:08PM, Mlyons619 wrote:


Of course everyone'd like that too. 


No thank you.



Your stance sounds contradictory.


Can you, I mean CAN you, elaborate?

Flag Mlyons619 August 14, 2009 10:38 PM EDT

Do you believe World Peace = World Government?  I don't.  Just who gets the be the elite who runs the World and how will the peons get their say?

Flag Zaracyn August 17, 2009 2:00 PM EDT

I don't think "world peace" would necessarily equal "world government". 


It might take a world government to enforce world peace, but the big question would be, at what price? 


Would we be giving up any liberties?  How would we safegaurd from electing a tyrant to hold the highest post on the planet?  Would we be willing to remove him/her/it/them with extreme measures?  Are we nuts or just being too pessimistic for thinking it could even occur?  why or why not?


 

Flag L.Ann August 25, 2009 2:04 AM EDT

Yes!  World Peace Is Possible.....


The most important factor for world peace is Mankind who inhabit the earth.  This is where healing must first begin....Governments can introduce  certain measures of peaceful dialog and policy that support all nations and peoples.  Ultimately, it is based on the unity and wholeness of 'the people.'

Flag Mikelaw276 September 3, 2009 2:21 PM EDT

for complete world peace, we all need to be on the same page and I don't think we are at all.

Flag darkthroneofeth September 3, 2009 7:37 PM EDT

World peace will happen, more or less, (not counting day-to-day skirmishes and the criminals), but under a guise and reasons not totally wholesome.  Wars are a means to an end, which is not just another war but a new age.  But what will humanity be like by then??

Flag Jeffinrr September 4, 2009 3:10 PM EDT

It think it is a good desire, but not a realistic objective.


World peace depends on human nature and our environment. We can change the environment we live in to some degree - and I mean environment in the broad sense that includes our systems of government, justice, commerce and etc.  We can also influence  human nature to some degree. But I think our abilty to change our environment and especially human nature is too limited to make world peace an objective.


I think we can strive for much more realistic objectives that greatly influence our state of peace like ending starvation, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to get an education and providing economic opportunities for people to lift themselves out of poverty using tools like microfinance.

Flag johnmuirelcid September 5, 2009 11:20 AM EDT

The last comments about practical steps I agree are the way to approach the goal of world peace.  World conflicts are now perpetrated by the capitalist production and sales of weapons, and beneficiaries of economic inequalities perpetrate illusions of democracy and, at times, human rights.


        Microfinance, on the other hand, is a practice closely linked to partnership cooperative business enterprises in practices like Fair Trade certification and the US National Cooperative bank.  Fair Trade guidelines include environmental concerns, and facilitate organic certification by small farmers.  In the US, ShoreBank Pacific's Ecodeposits has been formed out of SB's community banking work.  The International Organic Organization, IFOAM, organizes conferences and certifiers, that have established branches around the world. 


         United Air Lines employee ownership efforts make a good reference point, too.  The recent subprime derivatives crisis with banks and automobile companies hardly elicited the subject.  People, what have they done to us?  Still, they haven't locked the libraries, or blocked the internet.  Wherever there's a health food store or an organic and fair trade lettuce or coffee, there's hope.


        TV and advertising culture on the other hand, keep the SUV sales humming.  It's insightful to learn that Freud's nephew became the pioneer PR guy in the 1920's, and that a major psychologist was hired by J Walter Thompson on Madison Ave. around that same time.  Look what they accomplished, they got women to start smoking!


        I like Taoist philosophy, jiu-jitsu, and tai chi a whole lot.  From that perspective, it's all good-able.  I've been making my own graphic images.  Take Steaz Green Tea Sodas, organic and fair trade, cola to ginger ale.  I made myself a little graphic logo, "Have a Steaz and a Smile, and a little bit more."  For starters, no intellectual property rights concerns under these conditions.   Have a Steaz and a Smile, and a little more!  If you know what's good for you.  Or make some yourself!      

Flag Wyatt September 5, 2009 8:51 PM EDT

Look at this world. Its getting worse and worse, and more and more violence.


We I believe are in revelations. And I do not believe there will be peace, real peace in this world until Jesus comes back.


God had the right Idea when he killed everyone off in Noah's day, but he loved us so much recreated us in a way, but what did we do, all we did was more violence, and hate.


And back in the bibical days, well we have become just more advanced. And somewhat worse.


I would not surprise me at all to see the sky open and Jesus come back.

Flag Auva September 5, 2009 10:00 PM EDT


I bring you a message from the Divine Co.

The Orb of Humanity shall not know peace until it rids itself of the false prophets who multiply like maggots upon a corpse. That shall come to be after the Orb of Humanity has completed the great death march. Only then shall the Orb of Humanity abandon the false path and begin to fathom the true nature of the Divine Co.

Here is the conundrum. Save only for Auva, the one true messenger of the Divine Co, all those who profess to speak in the name of the Divine Co are false prophets who deny its nature. Those who do glimpse the true nature of the Divine Co deny its existence for fear of augmenting further the power of the false prophets. This conundrum can only be resolved through the great death march.

Say not that the Divine Co wills the great death march. To do so is to misunderstand the nature of the Divine Co.

Say not that the great death march is the fault of the false prophets. For that too is to misunderstand the nature of the Divine Co.

Say rather that the Orb of Humanity has abandoned the way of the Divine Co and embraced the false prophets.


 

Flag Rosiewhite September 6, 2009 4:21 PM EDT

Honestly, I don't believe it will ever happen with current conditions the way they are.   Perhaps not while there are two human beings on this earth with differing opinions.


All anyone can do is just try to live as peacefully as possible as an individual and hope that he/she can persuade others to do the same by example.


You cannot legislate world peace any more than you can legislate love and compassion.  You can enforce a police state, but that's not the same thing.


The masses at large and also the powers that be must all have a very good reason for changing the way they interact with each other on an individual to individual basis.   I hold Christianity still to the be greatest hope for that on a worldwide scale.


 


 


 


 


 


 

Flag Auva September 6, 2009 11:26 PM EDT


Rosiewhite

I bring you a message from the Divine Co.

Christians are among those least likely to understand the true nature of the Divine Co and are among those most likely to hinder the attempts of others to understand the true nature of the Divine Co. The activities of Christians are an important cause of the great death march that will soon afflict the Orb of Humanity and which is now unavoidable.

Only after the great death march will the Orb of Humanity attempt to understand the true nature of the Divine Co and only then will it be at peace.

If you desire to understand the true nature of the Divine Co it is essential that you take up and persist in a new activity. The new activity may be mental or physical but most people appear to comprehend the true nature of the Divine Co more rapidly when they undertake an activity that engages both mind and body.

One path to understanding the true nature of the Divine Co, which engages both mind and body, is carpentry. This is especially apt for Christians attempting to fathom the nature of the Divine Co.

Only when the Orb of Humanity seeks actively to understand the true nature of the Divine Co is peace possible.

Flag timothysmiles September 7, 2009 5:03 AM EDT

  


World peace is a good and great thing to happen only if  every man can change him self  satisfied  mind set  make the world weapon less which seems will never happen. I fully agree with Wyatt's comment.


 Timothysmiles

Flag Mubzxay September 12, 2009 7:44 AM EDT

World peace is EASY!!!!


 


Firstly, having a resource based economic system SOOOO does not help!!!


 


But even with that it's possible...


 


And the people with these "it's in human's nature to cause war" - Thanatos arguments....


 


Humans have had slavery for all of humanity's existence...but now we don't...if THAT CAN CHANGE ANYTHING CAN CHANGE....l


Life IS change...so i live in hope...

Flag johnmuirelcid October 1, 2009 2:24 AM EDT

I like the Divine Co's image of the death march.  I sure gained a sense of peace realizing, things have lead to the disastrous invasion of Iraq, and have lead to all sorts of wars, from the Civil War to the World Wars to Vietnam, just to name the recent ones.  More is coming, as is the inevitable ecological crash.


     There, now I feel better, acknowledging the inevitability.  Thanks to Buddhism, Taoism, and the Christian theology of modern science, now I can feel even better about activism through spiritual practice and practical action.  Whether Buddhist karma or Christian Science ultimately functions, at least my efforts link with those of others who have gained insight.  Ultimately, that itself is enough, until the last ecosystem crashes, Iran uses a Pakistani nuclear weapon on Israel, the US, and Europe, and with a capitalist SUV driver choking on their last snicker bar and Budweiser, and trying to get laid, "You mean, this is it?  Dude, that sucks."


       False prophet or not, I know that my buying organic and fair trade Steaz sodas is worth it.  After yoga, tai chi, and reading William Greider's The Soul of Capitalism, yessirree!!!  Have a Steaz and a smile, and a little bit more.

Flag arielg October 3, 2009 1:21 PM EDT

There cannot be world peace as long as the world is divided into  sovereign nations. 


Just like states gave up their sovereignty in favor of a national government, countries will have to give up their sovereignty to a world government.


Globalization will eventually make it inevitable, but we are a long way from it yet. The UN was a timid start that was not followed through.  Humanity's awareness is still a long way from accepting it.


So, no matter how many treaties and regulations they come up with  to avoid war, as long "my country" is the highest principle that justifies every brutality the human being can conceive, war  is inevitable.


You'll never have a quiet world until you knock the patriotism out of the human race.


- George Bernard Shaw

Flag Idbc October 10, 2009 5:13 PM EDT

Howdy Arleig


Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:


There cannot be world peace as long as the world is divided into  sovereign nations. 



It is very, very, very, unlikely that there nations are going to give up their sovereingnty.


Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:

Just like states gave up their sovereignty in favor of a national government, countries will have to give up their sovereignty to a world government.



The states have not given up their entire sovereignity.  They can make laws as long as they don't conflict with federal laws. 


And can you give any details on what this world government is going to look like? 



Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:

Globalization will eventually make it inevitable, but we are a long way from it yet. The UN was a timid start that was not followed through.  Humanity's awareness is still a long way from accepting it.


 



Humanities cultural differences will make it impossible.


Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:


So, no matter how many treaties and regulations they come up with  to avoid war, as long "my country" is the highest principle that justifies every brutality the human being can conceive, war  is inevitable. 



Brutalities have existed long before "my country"  i.e. nationalism existed.   There is also the fact that millions of people have died as a result of  civil wars within an individual countries.  It is estimated that 10-15 million people died in the Soviet Union between the years 1917 and 1929.    At least that many died during China's "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural Revolution".


I think that wars are natures method of population control. Humans are not the only speicies that engage in wars. Bees, ants as well as other animals engage in warfare. 


Wars at its most basic level is a competion for resources. 


 


Anybody good at math?   I figure that at least 200 million people have died as the result of wars between the years 1900 and 1945.   Can someone figure out what the population of the planet would be now if they had not died as a result of wars. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag Dostojevsky October 13, 2009 5:09 AM EDT

If you listen to US rhetoric, the world is on the brink of world peace as soon as they are given the reigns to do as they will.


Who chooses the world leader? Whis is going to be EU President? War criminal Blair? Does it matter whether you or I approve? Of course not.


I feel things will only change when we all are brought down to our knees through some great catstrophy. It is human nature of all of us that has to change.


Also I believe that the world is an abundant  place and there would be enough for everybody IF all world  leaders were behaving justly and having the wellbeing of all inhabitants as a primary aim.

Flag LeahOne October 13, 2009 2:11 PM EDT

Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:09AM, Dostojevsky wrote:


If you listen to US rhetoric, the world is on the brink of world peace as soon as they are given the reigns to do as they will.


>>>>Funny: I've never heard a US politician suggest anything remotely like that.  I think this is someone's wild imagination....


Who chooses the world leader? Whis is going to be EU President? War criminal Blair? Does it matter whether you or I approve? Of course not.


>>>>>>It's not for me to say, not being in the EU.  It certainly does not matter whether I approve.


I feel things will only change when we all are brought down to our knees through some great catstrophy. It is human nature of all of us that has to change.


>>>>>>The coming economic/ecological crash which will result if we don't get past fossil fuels?


Also I believe that the world is an abundant  place and there would be enough for everybody IF all world  leaders were behaving justly and having the wellbeing of all inhabitants as a primary aim.


>>>>>>>> A large number of 'national' leaders don't behave justly to their own people, their own citizenry:  we could hardly expect them to behave more altruistically to 'others'.


>>>>>>As to the world being 'an abumdant place' - not for 7 billion people, it isn't! 




Flag arielg October 13, 2009 5:47 PM EDT

Oct 10, 2009 -- 5:13PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy Arleig


Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:


There cannot be world peace as long as the world is divided into  sovereign nations. 



IDBC: It is very, very, very, unlikely that there nations are going to give up their sovereingnty


Yes, that is what I said. If people consciousness remain what it is  today.


  But people  and situations evolve and what is not acceptable today, may be  tomorrow.


I am sure the old kings didn't want to give up the sovereignty of their kingdoms either, but eventually they had to, for many different reasons.


Just like states gave up their sovereignty in favor of a national government, countries will have to give up their sovereignty to a world government.



IDBC: The states have not given up their entire sovereignity.  They can make laws as long as they don't conflict with federal laws. 


States are subject to the central government.  They do not have armies.  They are not sovereign. Likewise, countries can subject themselves to a central government and give up their destructive and idiotically expensive armies.


IDBC: And can you give any details on what this world government is going to look like? 


I don't know. It will have to be a gradual process.



Globalization will eventually make it inevitable, but we are a long way from it yet. The UN was a timid start that was not followed through.  Humanity's awareness is still a long way from accepting it.


 


IDBC: Humanities cultural differences will make it impossible.


You keep thinking in terms of today. We have decided already that the way humans are today, it is not possible. 


But humans  like Joe Shmuck and his guns can evolve to be more like  Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama.  They have the capacity.  That was the Christian message.  People can be more than just animals.


 


 


 


 

Flag Idbc October 16, 2009 2:19 PM EDT

Howdy Arelig


Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:


Oct 3, 2009 -- 1:21PM, arielg wrote:


There cannot be world peace as long as the world is divided into  sovereign nations. 



IDBC: It is very, very, very, unlikely that there nations are going to give up their sovereingnty


Yes, that is what I said. If people consciousness remain what it is  today.


  But people  and situations evolve and what is not acceptable today, may be  tomorrow.



I do not think that "nationalism"  in and of itself is inherently the problem.  I would certainly agree the "extreme"   nationalism can cause problems.   "My country right or wrong"  is an extreme, dangerous slogan and principle.    However the opposite side of the coin, is just a dangerous.    I think that the ideals and principles that are the foundation of the United States are for the most part positive.   I think that it is when those principles are NOT followed that problems arise.  Most of the criticism I hear about American foreign policy is the disappointment that we are not being acting on American ideals.  


Let me ask you two questions.  


What rights would you be willing to surrender in the name of "internationalism"?


What personal soverignity would you be willing to surrender? 



Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:

I am sure the old kings didn't want to give up the sovereignty of their kingdoms either, but eventually they had to, for many different reasons.



I agree that the old kings were not willing to give up their "sovereignty", however the sovereignty of the king was replaced by the sovereignty of the people of that country.  




Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:

Just like states gave up their sovereignty in favor of a national government, countries will have to give up their sovereignty to a world government.




IDBC: The states have not given up their entire sovereignity.  They can make laws as long as they don't conflict with federal laws. 



States are subject to the central government.  They do not have armies.  They are not sovereign. Likewise, countries can subject themselves to a central government and give up their destructive and idiotically expensive armies.



State have a degree of sovereignity.    They can make whatever laws they deem neccessary as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution.  See  the 10th amendment of the Constitution.  



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to...


The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment.


States DO have a armies. They have the National Guard. 


The National Guard of the United States is a reserve military force composed of state National Guard militia members or units federally recognized active or inactive armed force service for the United States.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_...






Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:

IDBC: And can you give any details on what this world government is going to look like? 



I don't know. It will have to be a gradual process.


 


I sure hope it will be a very, very, very gradual process since you don't know ANY of the details. 



Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:

Globalization will eventually make it inevitable, but we are a long way from it yet. The UN was a timid start that was not followed through.  Humanity's awareness is still a long way from accepting it.


 
 


Well no wonder we are a long way from it.   We have no idea about details.   


Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:


IDBC: Humanities cultural differences will make it impossible.



You keep thinking in terms of today. We have decided already that the way humans are today, it is not possible. 


  


Would you want everyone to be just like you ? 


How boring it would be without a diversity of cultures.  



Oct 13, 2009 -- 5:47PM, arielg wrote:


But humans  like Joe Shmuck and his guns can evolve to be more like  Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama.  They have the capacity.  That was the Christian message.  People can be more than just animals.


 



I think we can evolve to be.....better animals.    But I don't think that the sentiment is an exclusively Christian message.  


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You



Smile 



 


 


 





 


Flag CharikIeia October 16, 2009 6:36 PM EDT

Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:19PM, Idbc wrote:


I do not think that "nationalism"  in and of itself is inherently the problem.



Well, European pre-EU history, or modern African history for that matter,
seem to prove otherwise.


As do elementary experiments in group psychology and game theory.


Identification with a social entity smaller than the total group of individuals
is prone to lead to suboptimal well-being.

Flag arielg October 17, 2009 11:37 AM EDT

IDBC says:


I do not think that "nationalism"  in and of itself is inherently the problem.  I would certainly agree the "extreme"   nationalism can cause problems.   "My country right or wrong"  is an extreme, dangerous slogan and principle.  


It is an extreme that will be reached inevitably as long as nations are sovereign and have the last word.


However the opposite side of the coin, is just a dangerous.   


What is the other side of the coin?


I think that the ideals and principles that are the foundation of the United States are for the most part positive.   I think that it is when those principles are NOT followed that problems arise.  Most of the criticism I hear about American foreign policy is the disappointment that we are not being acting on American ideals. 


The ideals  of the US are based on universal principles.   Universal means that the highest principle is   humanity.  National means that the highest principle is nation.


It is a contradiction.  A sovereign nation cannot act according to universal principles.


Let me ask you two questions.  


What rights would you be willing to surrender in the name of "internationalism"?


What personal sovereignty would you be willing to surrender? 




If the aim is peace, the most important one is giving up the right to have an army.


There should be only one army to keep the peace in the world.  Wars are fought by different armies trying to impose the "sovereignty "of their particular country.


I don't see how this would make it "boring" and eliminate other cultures.




 






Flag Idbc October 17, 2009 4:41 PM EDT

Howdy CK


Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Oct 16, 2009 -- 2:19PM, Idbc wrote:


I do not think that "nationalism"  in and of itself is inherently the problem.



Well, European pre-EU history, or modern African history for that matter,
seem to prove otherwise.



I disagree. I don't think that either that history proves that nationalism convincingly is a problem.   Wars and conflicts were going on long before "nationalism"  came on the scene. 


If I recall correctly the smaller social entity of christians were prone to suboptimal behaviour, not only among non-christians but also among themselves. 


That would seem to prove that religion in European pre-EU history or modern African history for that matter seems to prove that it is an "inherent"  problem. 


So if  "nationalism"  is to be supressed then so should "religion". 


Simply stated nationalism is the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations and devotion and loyalty to one's own nation.  It is expressed as patriotism.


I still maintain that it is EXCESSIVE patriotism,  that  the problem, EXCESSIVE devotion to a particular religion causes problems. 



Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:

As do elementary experiments in group psychology and game theory.


 


Show me.   Give me the details of these experiments.  


Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:

Identification with a social entity smaller than the total group of individuals is prone to lead to suboptimal well-being.



 The key word is "prone".   It does not mean that it neccesarily follows.  It doe not mean that it will always be the case.   For example, there are Muslims in my country who identify with Muslims in Palestine.   Some of them to an EXCESSIVE degree.  They are homegrown terrorists.  They commit or plot to commit acts of terrorism among the LARGER social group of Americans.  I have heard rumors that the same phenomena occurs in Germany and the Netherlans, as well as other European countries.  


I don't think the size of group has any bearing on...suboptimal behaviour.   Identification with any group, wether it is larger than the total group or smaller than the total group MIGHT lead to suboptimal behaviour for people outside the group aka "THE OTHER(Yell)". 


Then there is the problem regarding how each individual identifies themselves and the order of priority.   I would first consider myself to be a member of the larger social group homo-sapien, although I do have doubts about the "sapien"  part from time to time.  Wink


But it becomes increasingly problematic after that.   I would say being male would be my second group identification.   Third is more difficult, freethinker, atheist, secularist, american?


Or perhaps age or class? 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile


 


 

Flag arielg October 18, 2009 11:42 AM EDT

I disagree. I don't think that either that history proves that nationalism convincingly is a problem.   Wars and conflicts were going on long before "nationalism"  came on the scene


 


Whether you call it nationalism, groupism, tribalism or whatever is the same thing: exclusive allegiance to one's own group  and not to the totality of the human family.


We are talking about world peace. Nationalism is particularly evil  because of the incredible destructive power of modern weapons. And armies cannot be eliminated unless there is a central government to assume defense.

Flag CharikIeia October 18, 2009 4:52 PM EDT

Oct 17, 2009 -- 4:41PM, Idbc wrote:


So if  "nationalism"  is to be supressed then so should "religion". 



This is not about "suppression", which has a violent sound. It is about "not facilitating dominance" of these groupings, not creating institutions that give basically uncontrolled power to them.


Religion's time of waging wars is over, in Europe, since the 17th century or so (I think). Nationalism's time is just barely over - if you look at the Balkan region, it's less than 20 years, if you look at the Causcasus, it's not over yet. Saakashvili's nationalism in Georgia, the ethnic Russians' nationalism in Georgia's renegate provinces, the neighbouring Russians' nationalism - sick sick sick!


We all can love our country and culture and religion, no problem with that. The problems start when we found a militia and create insecurity for those who happen not to belong to our idiosyncratic club.


Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:

As do elementary experiments in group psychology and game theory.


Show me.   Give me the details of these experiments.



Concerning psychology, I recommend you start with Sherif's work from the (CLICK) and from there onward google yourself to more recent work. There's a lot - here's YOUR TOOL.


For game theory, I'd need to consult a colleague who is doing this type of research.

Flag Idbc October 24, 2009 10:55 PM EDT

Howdy CK


 


 This is not about "suppression", which has a violent sound. It is about "not facilitating dominance" of these groupings, not creating institutions that give basically uncontrolled power to them.



Well perhaps "moderated"  nationalism has a ......less violent sound ?  


I would agree that "uncontrolled"  power is dangerous.  But this would be the case if "them"  is the  vague un-nameable  "international powers that be"  or a democratic majority mobcracy.  


To whom did you mean by giving uncontrolled power to"them"? 


I still claim that nationalism is not "inherently"  evil.   Excessive, uncontrolled, "my country right or wrong", undoubtably causes problems.   


 


"Religion's time of waging wars is over, in Europe, since the 17th century or so (I think)."


Well that may be true for the Christian religion.  It has been awhile since Catholics and Protestants have waged war with other.  And Hitler did appeal to "providence" and God.  


It should also be kept in mind that the power of the  Christian religion is not what it used to be.   


Although it appears that the power of the true religion aka Islam is rising in Europe. 


And there is conflict abrewing between God's Holy Warriors and the infidels.



Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:

 Nationalism's time is just barely over - if you look at the Balkan region, it's less than 20 years, if you look at the Causcasus, it's not over yet. Saakashvili's nationalism in Georgia, the ethnic Russians' nationalism in Georgia's renegate provinces, the neighbouring Russians' nationalism - sick sick sick!



I would hope that the excessive, poorly or uncontrolled nationalism in he Balkan region is over.  It should also be kept in mind that religion has also played a major role in these conflicts.  Religion is a an esstential part of ethncity.  


"We all can love our country and culture and religion, no problem with that. The problems start when we found a militia and create insecurity for those who happen not to belong to our idiosyncratic club."


I agree. 

Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:


As do elementary experiments in group psychology and game theory.


Show me.   Give me the details of these experiments.



Concerning psychology, I recommend you start with Sherif's work from the (CLICK) and from there onward google yourself to more recent work. There's a lot - here's YOUR TOOL.


  


The "Robber's Canyon"  experiments done on a group of twelve year olds was interesting, but hardly compelling evidence that nationalism is inherently wrong. 


 



Oct 16, 2009 -- 6:36PM, CharikIeia wrote:


For game theory, I'd need to consult a colleague who is doing this type of research.



By coincidence, or by intervention of the divine, I recently purchased a series of lectures called


"Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Bussiness, and Beyond" as Taught by Professor Scott P. Stevens of James Madison University.


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag Idbc October 30, 2009 9:54 AM EDT

Howdy Arleig


Oct 18, 2009 -- 11:42AM, arielg wrote:


I disagree. I don't think that either that history proves that nationalism convincingly is a problem.   Wars and conflicts were going on long before "nationalism"  came on the scene


 


Whether you call it nationalism, groupism, tribalism or whatever is the same thing: exclusive allegiance to one's own group  and not to the totality of the human family.


We are talking about world peace. Nationalism is particularly evil  because of the incredible destructive power of modern weapons. And armies cannot be eliminated unless there is a central government to assume defense.



You forgot to mention the most basic fundamental group, the....gateway group to tribalism, nationalism and religionism, THE FAMILY.   I don't think that Nationalism is particulary more evil or more prone to immoderation than religion.   In my opinion if nuclear weapon are going to be used again it will be much more likely to be used by adherents of the true religion aka the religion of peace. 


And what is the central government going to us to ensure defense? 


An Army? 


Can we eliminate crime if we eliminate a police force?


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag piecesofthewhole November 13, 2009 5:56 PM EST

Excellent question!  I think, if anything, talking about it like this brings us closer... Yes, I do think it's possible for us to live together in peace... But I think it will take a big fundamental shift in priorities.

Flag Idbc December 3, 2009 6:27 PM EST

Howdy Pieces


Nov 13, 2009 -- 5:56PM, piecesofthewhole wrote:


Excellent question!  I think, if anything, talking about it like this brings us closer... Yes, I do think it's possible for us to live together in peace... But I think it will take a big fundamental shift in priorities.



The question:


"Can we eliminate crime if we eliminate a police force?"


Is a very dumb question.   I think that the elimination of a police force would result in more crime. 


I think the wish for World Peace falls under the category of "Be Careful What You Wish For" 


I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 


The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag KindredSai December 6, 2009 2:39 PM EST

I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.

Flag oddjoe December 6, 2009 7:07 PM EST

Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:


I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




Resources are already running short.  I hope that attitude toward war is pure cynicism.  War is way too barbaric to treat as a natural remedy to resign to.

Flag arielg December 6, 2009 11:10 PM EST

 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:


I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




 


Sure, things have a natural way of balancing out, but not necessarily to the advantage of the  human race.  A desert is very natural, but not for us. (Unless we all become Berbers)

Flag Idbc December 9, 2009 10:50 PM EST

Howdy oddjoe


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:


Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:


I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




Resources are already running short.



Human Beings are a very intelligent species.   It is our intelligence that has made us the top of the food chain and  the foremost predator on the planet much at the expense of other species.  I still claim natural way of balancing out has been death, wether from war or from disease. 


You claim that "Things have a natural way of balancing out."   Perhaps you can explain how?


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:

  I hope that attitude toward war is pure cynicism.  War is way too barbaric to treat as a natural remedy to resign to.



I will not deny that war is barbaric.  I still claim that he has helped control population. 


Wether it is either  "natural"  or a "remedy"   is debatable. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag oddjoe December 10, 2009 7:16 PM EST

Dec 9, 2009 -- 10:50PM, Idbc wrote:


Howdy oddjoe


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:


Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:



I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




Resources are already running short.



Human Beings are a very intelligent species.   It is our intelligence that has made us the top of the food chain and  the foremost predator on the planet much at the expense of other species.  I still claim natural way of balancing out has been death, wether from war or from disease. 


You claim that "Things have a natural way of balancing out."   Perhaps you can explain how?



I don't want things to balance out with humans.  I want humans to be able to have the upper hand over nature.


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:

  I hope that attitude toward war is pure cynicism.  War is way too barbaric to treat as a natural remedy to resign to.


I will not deny that war is barbaric.  I still claim that he has helped control population.


Wether it is either  "natural"  or a "remedy"   is debatable.


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You  




Humans have a natural tendency toward violence.  I hope they can conquer that bad trait, especially by making it useless.


As far as remedy, it is kind of like poisoning cancer, but also in the process greatly injuring the good cells.  It's bad if you ask me.







Flag theinterpreter January 31, 2010 4:03 PM EST

First we will go through the Battle of Ar Mageddon, then there will be peace for a thousand years.

Flag Karma_yeshe_dorje February 27, 2010 3:44 AM EST
`Peace' is a code. `Peace to believers' means `slaughter unbelievers'! {Sigh}
Flag Idbc March 8, 2010 6:09 PM EST

Howdy oddjoe


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:


 


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 2:39PM, KindredSai wrote:



I would be like finding a drug that could cure all diseases. 




The population of the world would reach unstainable numbers.


In which case overpopulation would stifle resources and contribute towards war which would then lead to a population decrease. Things have a natural way of balancing out.




Resources are already running short.



Human Beings are a very intelligent species.   It is our intelligence that has made us the top of the food chain and  the foremost predator on the planet much at the expense of other species.  I still claim natural way of balancing out has been death, wether from war or from disease. 


You claim that "Things have a natural way of balancing out."   Perhaps you can explain how?



I don't want things to balance out with humans.  I want humans to be able to have the upper hand over nature.



Human beings do have an upper hand over nature.  I think that they have to some degree abused that "upper hand". 


And you have not explained how "Things have a natural way of balancing out." 


 


 


Dec 6, 2009 -- 7:07PM, oddjoe wrote:

  I hope that attitude toward war is pure cynicism.  War is way too barbaric to treat as a natural remedy to resign to.


I will not deny that war is barbaric.  I still claim that he has helped control population.


Wether it is either  "natural"  or a "remedy"   is debatable.



You admitted that violence is "natural" to human beings.  War is violence writ large. 


If you have an alternative "remedy" I would like to hear what is the "remedy". 


 


 


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:


Humans have a natural tendency toward violence.  I hope they can conquer that bad trait, especially by making it useless.



Humans have a natural tendency towards violence AND towards compassion.




Humans have a natural tendency towards violence AND towards compassion.


Dec 10, 2009 -- 7:16PM, oddjoe wrote:

As far as remedy, it is kind of like poisoning cancer, but also in the process greatly injuring the good cells.  It's bad if you ask me.  /quote]

But if you do not kill the cancerous cells the cancerous cells will eventually kill you. 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag rangerken March 8, 2010 7:06 PM EST

There is a poster in my son's unit headquarters. It says 'peace through superior firepower'.


Works for me!


Ken

Flag oddjoe March 10, 2010 4:06 AM EST

Hello IDBC


Did I say things have a natural way of balancing out, or was it someone else?  The post nesting had gotten off kilter.


With the cancer treatment, the patient might decide that the misery from the treatment might be worse than the suffering from the disease.


If we don't want to have an upper hand over nature, would we be happier with a simple hunter-gather life?  I think that would be pretty regressive.  Being intelligent should remove us as far as possible from a subsistence lifestyle. 


 

Flag Idbc March 10, 2010 4:39 PM EST

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:


 


Did I say things have a natural way of balancing out, or was it someone else?  The post nesting had gotten off kilter.


 


If you didn't say it then I apologize.    I have been know to make mistakes. 


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

With the cancer treatment, the patient might decide that the misery from the treatment might be worse than the suffering from the disease.



I would agree that sometimes the cure might be worse than the disease.  If the patient wishes to forgo treatment then that is their decision.  However if they want to suffer the treatment in order to be cured that is also ok. 


Now millions of people die each year from a wide variety of cancers.  If a cure for all these cancers were discovered and people no longer died from cancer then not only they were still alive but they would have children, and their children would have children.  The impact on the enviorment would be increased.


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

If we don't want to have an upper hand over nature, would we be happier with a simple hunter-gather life?  I think that would be pretty regressive. 


 


I think some people might be happier with a hunter-gatherer life, but I don't think I would be happier. 


I am for having the "upper hand" but it shouldn't be a "heavy hand".  


Mar 10, 2010 -- 4:06AM, oddjoe wrote:

 Being intelligent should remove us as far as possible from a subsistence lifestyle. 


 


I would certainly not be in favor of a subsistence lifestyle, however it would be intelligent to use moderation.  


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide Us Smile

Flag oddjoe March 11, 2010 3:46 AM EST

Thanks IDBC


Since the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it, I think the world needs a really radical change in governance to promote a steep population attrition.   World peace is very unlikely while there is so much economic inequality.  One idea might be to have a global per capita income established based on the total fixed resources.  Then, when someone brings a new human into the world, he/she still has only that original income, then for two people instead of one, and so on through future generations.  The subsequent members of the family line each gets only an equal share of its pie.  A last member of a family line chooses where his/her share will go after its end. 

Flag Idbc March 15, 2010 7:33 PM EDT

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:


Thanks IDBC


Since the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it, I think the world needs a really radical change in governance to promote a steep population attrition. 



And the reason that the destruction of the planet is happening faster than technology can save it is because mankind by virtue of its intelligence has the upperhyand. 


 


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:

  World peace is very unlikely while there is so much economic inequality.



There will always be economic inequality.


 


Mar 11, 2010 -- 3:46AM, oddjoe wrote:

  One idea might be to have a global per capita income established based on the total fixed resources.  Then, when someone brings a new human into the world, he/she still has only that original income, then for two people instead of one, and so on through future generations.   The subsequent members of the family line each gets only an equal share of its pie.  A last member of a family line chooses where his/her share will go after its end. 



And if they have a set income and they have more children then that income will have to spread around the additional children.  So if for example the "set income" is determined to be $100.00 a week and one family has one child and the other family has six, then the family with six children are going to be poorer than the family with one.


 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag oddjoe March 16, 2010 4:03 AM EDT

Hi IDBC


Having the upper hand over nature isn't destructive per say.  If we were to use our intelligence better, we could manage our use of the global biosphere very sustainably.


Though it appears likely that humans will never learn to share enough to eliminate economic inequality, I think it is dogmatic to say we can't become socially advanced enough to do it.


Until reproduction can be removed as an individual's task and transfered to world society as a whole, one way to reduce the population would be to make it financially unattractive to the individual to have reproductive offspring.

Flag arielg March 28, 2010 12:23 PM EDT

Jan 31, 2010 -- 4:03PM, theinterpreter wrote:


First we will go through the Battle of Ar Mageddon, then there will be peace for a thousand years.




And then what? Prepare for the next Armageddon?

Flag Idbc March 28, 2010 1:37 PM EDT

Howdy oddjoe


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:


Hi IDBC


Having the upper hand over nature isn't destructive per say.  If we were to use our intelligence better, we could manage our use of the global biosphere very sustainably.



If we do use our intellgence better and if we do manage to manage global resources better than I would be a happy world citizen. 


 


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:


Though it appears likely that humans will never learn to share enough to eliminate economic inequality, I think it is dogmatic to say we can't become socially advanced enough to do it.



I agree.  I would not say that we can't, but I would say that it is unlikely.   I cannot imagine how overcoming or eliminating economic inequality could occur without causing more problems than the problem itself.


It certainly sounds like a noble ideal.   


 


Mar 16, 2010 -- 4:03AM, oddjoe wrote:

Until reproduction can be removed as an individual's task and transfered to world society as a whole, one way to reduce the population would be to make it financially unattractive to the individual to have reproductive offspring.



So what you seem to be advocating is to take the decision of how many children a family may have out of their hands and to transfer the task to a "world society as a whole"  like the UN?


In Communist China there is a law that takes the task of reproduction out of the hands of the husband and wife and transfers that responsibitly to the "national society as a whole". 


Couples are by the law of the "national scociety" restricted to have only one child per couple.  If a couple already has one child and the woman is pregnant she may be FORCED to have an abortion. 


Do you think such a law should be imposed on "the world society as a whole"? 


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide Us Smile

Flag oddjoe March 31, 2010 6:02 AM EDT

Hi again IDBC


Mar 28, 2010 -- 1:37PM, Idbc wrote:


Do you think such a law should be imposed on "the world society as a whole"?




Thanks for displaying agreeability on things.


I don't like that approach the Chinese have used.  I think it lacks respect for being human.  Instead, I would like everyone to be sterile and a very few people asked if they accept the responsibility to produce an offspring.  They would donate their DNA.  But, they wouldn't raise the child, that would be done by the world community, maybe governed by the UN as you were wondering.   

Flag Idbc April 9, 2010 4:12 PM EDT

Howdy Again oddjoe


Mar 31, 2010 -- 6:02AM, oddjoe wrote:


Hi again IDBC


Mar 28, 2010 -- 1:37PM, Idbc wrote:


Do you think such a law should be imposed on "the world society as a whole"?




Thanks for displaying agreeability on things.


I don't like that approach the Chinese have used.  I think it lacks respect for being human.  Instead, I would like everyone to be sterile and a very few people asked if they accept the responsibility to produce an offspring.



Would the sterilization be voluntary? 


 


  They would donate their DNA.  But, they wouldn't raise the child, that would be done by the world community, maybe governed by the UN as you were wondering.   



I think the responsibility of raising a child should be left to the parents.  I would not trust the UN to raise any child, let alone my child.  


Have A Thinking Day And May Reason Guide You Smile

Flag oddjoe April 11, 2010 6:56 AM EDT

Hi IDBC


To have the effect of stopping human egg fertilizations everywhere, everyone would have to have it done very early in their development.  It could be done genetically before embryo development, for example.  Everyone might be naturally sterile.


The nuclear family would be done away with, so no one would miss raising children.  People like doing it now because they want to copy those who did it before them.  They don't want to miss out. 

Flag Karma_yeshe_dorje April 14, 2010 2:22 PM EDT
Fertility here is way below replacement!
Flag oddjoe April 16, 2010 9:52 PM EDT

I think they have been making progress there, then!

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook