Do we really need World Peace?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Aquarius1
I think the first question would be, why don't we have world peace, who is stopping us? There are those who don't want us to have peace and will go to any extreme to make sure we don't.

In order to arrive at that question you would first have to assume that planet earth is meant to be peaceful instead of full of contrast and challenge.

A plot of the Lorenz attractor for values r = 28, σ = 10, b = 8/3.Chaos theory is a field of study in applied mathematics, with applications in several disciplines including physics, economics, biology, and philosophy. Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions; an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

en.wikipedia.org...

Reminds me of Chaos Theory in a sense, may not be exactly the same, but if everything else is random and chaotic why not our thinking about peace, we may go by example and think it abnormal.if we had peace.

reply to post by Skyfloating


It's a good question. But what do you mean by "peace"?

The word "peace" comes from the Latin "pax" and implies one world government:

Ecclesiastical
A small flat tablet adorned with a sacred image that worshippers kiss when offered the kiss of peace.
The kiss of peace.
Pax - A time of wide-ranging stability when there is only a single dominant power. Used with a Latinized name: "Editorials lauding the civilizing influence of Pax Britannica were met with ... a crushing disinterest from most of the public" (Nisid Hajari).
ETYMOLOGY:
Medieval Latin px, from Latin, peace; see pag- in Indo-European roots. Sense 2, on the model of Late Latin px (Rmna), the Roman peace, state of security obtaining under Roman rule alteration of Latin (Rmna) px

...I'd like to develop this and go somewhere else with it, but sorry, am not up for it at the moment.

Anyone else interested in picking up the ball?

reply to post by Skyfloating

Does humanity prefer action to peace?

As a whole, no. But I suspect that adrenal and other hormonal rushes are absolutely essential for many, if not most of us between the ages of about 18-35.

Perhaps the best PAX Plan needs to developmentally tiered? Or the sowing of "wild oats" directed into relatively harmless activities like video games? Oh yeah. Already done. ...Just when I think nobody really knows what they're doing, I catch on!

If there was eternal peace, many of us could do everything we want to without worrying. We wouldn't have to worry about being stabbed when we walk out our house, worry about the economy collapsing, nukes...etc. Focus would be on making society better.

Creationists of anything will create, I believe those of us who are good at heart love creating good things. It pleases us nothing more. It's hard to create when things are being constantly destroyed. Gets very tiring


There are so many things I could think of doing but a lack of peace makes it hard (if not impossible) to accomplish.

That is a good point. Not to mention the burden honestly that a person would have wanting "world peace". I guess wanting it isn't bad, but if you have to put real effort towards it....good luck. That effort would be better spent on a smaller scale more than likely.

I do think we'll come to a point where there is something more "singular", but perhaps its fair to say that it would have to be realized from the bottom first, not the "top".

Originally posted by soficrow

It's a good question. But what do you mean by "peace"?

The word "peace" comes from the Latin "pax" and implies one world government:

Yes, thats precisely the type of "peace" I do not want. The type of peace that requires there to be only one dominant power, at the expense of diversity.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by NuclearMitochondria

There are so many things I could think of doing but a lack of peace makes it hard (if not impossible) to accomplish.

I agree that its easier to be creative in the absence of violence and disaster and war. But can we be creative in the absence of any conflict whatsoever? If there were no struggle and no incentive, would we not become apathetic?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Why would world peace, even in this context, denote universal or personal peace?

Originally posted by sinohptik


Why would world peace, even in this context, denote universal or personal peace?

And why wouldnt it?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Because, even if humans were peaceful amongst all other humans, i dont see how that means we will find peace personally. Finding such a thing can be done without world peace, which tells me it is not contained within it. Which also tells me it is far from an inevitability for everyone to find such a thing because of world peace. It might create an environment that is more conducive and supportive of that personal journey, but we still need to take the steps for ourselves.

Just to use a bit of a stretch exaggeration, if aliens were on a planet say, 10 light year away, how would humans choosing to live in peace amongst each other dictate anything for this other planet?

So, if someone says "world peace," i take it to mean just peace on that level. There are countless other levels though, two of which i included. Using this context, conflict and struggle will still be apparent personally, and throughout the entire universe, but the human body will be working as one unit, instead of the heart and lungs combating each other for attention.

So, if you were meaning universal peace, personal peace, and peace throughout all levels through eternity, then i would agree with the initial statement. However, by introducing world peace, we are not introducing it into any other arena. Individuals will still be responsible for finding their own (it will not be "given"), and other planets will simply not even be affected by it, if they even noticed anything.

So.. thats why

I'd go more with civility.

Global civility is ideal.

There will always be unrest within the minds of individuals, but if we can learn to channel our frustrations and destructions in pro-social ways at all times, we can create a realistic golden age in time.

Creative minds do this all the time.

All emotions are a gift, so use them wisely.