Post Reply
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View WORLD PEACE.........a reasonable objective for mankind?
5 years ago  ::  Oct 10, 2009 - 5:13PM #21
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

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

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2009 - 5:09AM #22
Dostojevsky
Posts: 7,525

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2009 - 2:11PM #23
LeahOne
Posts: 16,396

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! 




Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 13, 2009 - 5:47PM #24
arielg
Posts: 9,116

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.


 


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2009 - 2:19PM #25
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

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 



 


 


 





 


HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 16, 2009 - 6:36PM #26
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

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.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 17, 2009 - 11:37AM #27
arielg
Posts: 9,116

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.




 






Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 17, 2009 - 4:41PM #28
IDBC
Posts: 4,556

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


 


 

HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2009 - 11:42AM #29
arielg
Posts: 9,116

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Oct 18, 2009 - 4:52PM #30
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

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.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook