It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Peace possible?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:48 PM
I hear people talk about peace and the abhorrence of war, but I'm not sure people truly understand what being able to have peace would entail.

Let's take a look at what peace is first.

I mean does peace mean the absence of war? If we had no wars tomorrow, would that mean we were at peace? How long till another one crops up?

Are little skirmishes among people enough to say that we aren't at peace?

These are all rhetorical questions because the reality is that no one (well, very few) would truly want peace.

The fact is that man is ruthless, selfish and brazen in attempts at garnering control and power over others.

Notice I said MAN as in mankind. There are men who are selfless, giving and care for their fellow man.

Unfortunately, it only takes one person to desire what another possesses or to covet another man's things for war to erupt.

What's the answer then?

The truth is that there is only one way for peace as most think of it to exist. There has to be a technology so advanced, so overpowering that no one would have any hope of overcoming it by force.

Here's the problem with that. Who runs it? Who has control over it? What stops them from abusing it and becoming the all powerful ruler of everything?

Is that what people want when they ask for peace? That's the only way that true peace can exist because as I said, it only takes one man to not be happy with the status quo to say # it, let's start a revolution.

Why do you think that govts want to get guns out of civilian hands? for the safety of the people? Get over yourselves. If anything has been proven throughout history, it's that govts can't be trusted with total authority. He with the guns right now has the authority.

Guns are the power as it stands right now.

What has stopped the USA from taking over the world? We have the firepower to.

Obama could go and carpet bomb the entire middle east and colonize it if he so chose. What's stopping him? His lack of desire? Nope. His good will toward man? Nope. His fear of other nations? Partially.

No, the main thing stopping him is the people of the USA. That can change easily. More easily than most would like to imagine. The more authority we give to govt, the less we hold in the people's hands, the closer that reality comes to fruition.

Does anyone honestly believe that the Germans would've been able to do what they did to their populace without taking guns out of their hands first? Actually, a better question would be do you honestly think they would've been willing to TRY to do what they did if there was a well armed populace.

So the crux of the matter is this. There can be no peace without total superiority and that is NOT what advocates for peace really are wanting.

The closest thing to peace that the human condition allows for is for individuals and like minded individuals to have the means to resist tyranny and the means to gather together to repel tyranny.

Every time I see people advocate for increased restrictions for the people to do just that, I cringe inside at their lack of understanding of the reality of mankind.

I see people advocate for forced innoculations and I get sick to my stomach. You want people that think spending 1 trillion dollars more per year than they take in and that have amassed so much debt that we can barely pay the interest on it to be able to force people to take a needle and be injected with who knows what under the guise of stopping something that might or might not happen?

Then those people have the utter GALL to call those who don't want to be stuck with needles CRAZY???

Wow. Introduction to the opposite sketches. don't say "I don't know" (dating myself there).

That leads to why people would be so against liberty and the answer that keeps cropping up is fear.

People have been bred to fear. It doesn't matter what it is, acting out of fear is the most wrong thing imaginable. To quote a wise man "fear leads to anger, anger to pain, pain to suffering, suffering to hate." j.k. to quote another one "the only thing to fear is fear itself".

What does that mean though??? Isn't that an oxymoron. I mean you're still fearing something right? I think a better way to put it, though less fanciful and eloquent is, "The thing to be most wary of is acting out of fear".

What fear truly leads to is acting with a lack of reason, it can be paralyzing. What happened to promoting bravery? I just don't get it.

My second sky dive ever, I had to cut away and come down on my reserve chute due to a line over. My first jump was accelerated free fall. I never jumped tandem and I never jumped static line. When I landed, I said, I'm jumping my level 3 AFF right now.

This is because I will not let fear dictate my actions. Why as a society are we allowing ourselves to act out of fear?

I've been in war, it isn't something to be glorified. But to allow injustice out of fear is far worse IMO, especially out of a false sense of believing that peace is even possible. Instead of promoting for peace, let's instead promote for JUSTICE with a willingness to fight those ugly disgusting wars because it is SO much more preferable to the disgusting, idiocy of giving into fear under a false guise of hoping for a peace that is impossible to maintain without totally giving into fear.


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 01:50 PM
So long as Greed governs the heart of man, wars and strife will exist like a tumor that cannot be excised. If you remove one, another will grow elsewhere. War is only a symptom of the disease. Greed is the cancer.
edit on 2-2-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:02 PM
"Is Peace possible?"


edit on 2-2-2015 by whatisurproblem because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:02 PM
I believe it is an unattainable goal, sadly. Resolution by conflict is the human condition.

I can see in the not to distant future an attempt made at forced peace. Where 'problem' beliefs are attempted to be eliminated.
You can see it here on ATS, some blame all the problems on a select few, and state 'if we could only lock up, when they mean eliminate, these trouble makers we would have no more wars.

They are so blinded by hate that they will carry this out enthusiastically, in a delusional attempt at utopia by mass extermination.

Just waiting on the right person to lead them.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:13 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

"MAN" is bad because man made man bad.
If MAN was truly born evil.. Why would we have religion? Wouldnt we just kill each other off like savages?

We can live in peace.. Without people like you telling us that we can't.. Be part of the solution... NOT THE PROBLEM

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:15 PM
Peace is possible, but first you must destroy all opposition.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:30 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

Peace is possible if we seek power, not authority.

Pride is the character flaw at the root of all greed.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:44 PM

originally posted by: NotMoose
Peace is possible, but first you must destroy all opposition.

This basically.

Say "peace" happens tomorrow. Who is the leader of "peace"? The USA? Russia? China? ISIS? So long as so many powers exist, non would just willing submit to the others rule.

Would you be ok if tomorrow Jesus (Suspend belief for a moment) reincarnates and declared ISIS the defector rulers of earth? I think not. We would never submit to their will.

World peace is impossible.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 02:54 PM
a reply to: intunewithmyself

You live in a fantasy land. I didn't say that we inherently evil. I said that mankind seeks control over others. People like you are under the false impression that all men can be perfect, and it just isn't the case.

Corruption will exist for a long time to come, singing kumbaya around the campfire while hoping for peace is a fool's errand.

To have peace like most think of it would require people to accept the injustice of corruption within the authority. There are some, including myself that will never accept that.


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 04:14 PM

originally posted by: Masterjaden

What's the answer then?


Abolish private property.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 05:00 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

The short answer is no.

Most of you seem to be focusing on the 7 deadly sins.

The reality is that we all sit in judgement of one another.

We cant even maintain peace within our own families , so how can we possibly consider world peace?

The only real possibility for world peace is if we all consent to a lobotomy. You first LOL

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:13 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

Peace is more than an absence of war. It is an absence of unanswered injustice. One of the biggest injustices, is the propensity of people to take up arms against another persons nation to prevent injustices there, without having first eradicated injustice and its main sources in ones own country.

For example, going off to thump some chaps from half way across the world in the neck for being savage barbarians toward their fellow man is all very well, but unless I was to first rock up to Westminster, and make a corpse strewn mess of the entire Westminster elite as punishment and pest control for their corrupt and outrageous practices, their nefarious use of our hard, bloody hard earned money, the murder of tens of thousands of people on foreign soil who were not guilty of anything save being in the wrong nations at the wrong time, and the deconstruction of our society and so on and so forth, I would be a hypocrite and a bastard.

If everyone took the same view, at least injustice would be impossible at the sort of scale which takes nations to war with one another, because there will always be another bastard on ones doorstep, waiting to do one a bad turn. No one would even reach the border to another nation, so busy would they be.

Peace then, of a sort, is the state in which government is so terrified of its people, that it performs perfectly, never runs at deficit, never takes a bribe, and accepts its place as subservient to, not ruler of the people. It is also the state in which injustice at home receives sterner handling than injustice abroad.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 06:41 PM

Is Peace possible

In my opinion, no.

Human beings have waged war on one another since man stood up right (or got dropped off by a UFO). We war over food we war over a patch of dirt we war over what color skin or what god I do or don't pray too. So no peace as long as we can't get past these little petty things.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:13 PM
Peace is possible. For humanity it's not. The human ego is a selfish thing. With the introduction of technology, we are losing a part of our humanity. How many of you know your neighbors. We used to know the names of all the families on our whole street and some around the block. We used to have block parties and intermingle. We looked out for each other. Now everyone looks out for number one. Peace is farther than it's ever been today.

Maybe humanity needs a wake up call. A disaster that will make us work together towards a common goal. I feel our way of life only promotes the need for material things. Some get it but the majority doesn't. I don't know if it's capitalism or just human greed. I know if there were checks and balances in ANY system, we might have a chance at real peace. We can't seem to get personal responsibility down pat let alone responsibility for others.

I always talk to a person with the respect I would expect for myself. I don't usually judge a person until they give me reason to do so. The golden rule needs to make a big comeback.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:48 PM
Yes, if everyone sat down and actually discussed things instead of petty bickering and ego plays.

Sadly, the mentally unenlightened "leaders" won't do that. Traitors to humanity.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:49 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

There will be no peace until there is nothing left to fight about.

Sorry to say I can't see that happening anytime soon.

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 07:56 PM
Not as long as there are people who want more and more or think they are better than others because they have more or think they are better than others because they are smarter or more good looking or taller or more talented or think it is their right to take and take and basically, in the end, simply do not have inner peace of their own and seek it via external validation from others who are just like them. Those people are always going to make others suffer and feel inferior because they can. And I'm not sure how to begin to even fix this without a total reset. The only peace you achieve or control is the peace within yourself.
edit on 2/2/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:08 PM

posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:13 PM
a reply to: Masterjaden

In the original "Star Trek" the only reason that peace became possible,
is that the culture was so rich in terms of resources, and could push
a button and poof almost anything into existence for 'no cost',
that there were no more squabbles over resources.

That's what it would take.


posted on Feb, 2 2015 @ 08:16 PM
Peace is completely impossible as long as it's left to mankind. We've been at this for thousands of years and we're lucky if we get half a century without war.

I'm going to give you the answer none of you want to hear: The only way peace will ever reign on earth is when the Prince of Peace himself is king, and every knee bows. Human beings simply don't have it in them to coexist peacefully. MAYBE if you gave us a couple hundred thousand more years of evolution and we managed not to kill ourselves, but that's a big maybe. We could just as easily end up expanding into our own solar system and having inter planetary/colony wars, or doing the same among the stars.

No. Mans nature is flawed, and inherently greedy and violent.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in