Is world peace impossible?

I think world peace is impossible, atleast the coming 40-50 years

 

I'll be very suprised if the world will ever be in peace.

 

So many people are raised in violent environments, both foreign and domestic, that it would be really difficult to have world peace. If all countries could ignore each other and take care of themselves without involving themselves in foreign affairs, I think there would be a fair chance. But that will never happen, especially how intertwined countries have become.

World peace is a weird concept. Even if countries were isolated to their own business, there would still be inner-country issues to cause tension.

 

World peace is definitely impossible, there is no doubt. Take WW2 for example, before that there was a doctrine (Kellog-Doctrine I think? Something like that) that was supposed to "stop all wars", but it was quickly broken by the Japanese.

Well, what im trying to say is that there are too many people in the world for everyone to get along.

 

Be specific, please.

Being raised in today's world if certainly a way to get some good, old-fashioned disharmonious hate instilled in you. That's for damn sure. However, countries ignoring each other entirely seems like a farly unfeasible and sort of useless idea. The great thing about world peace is the unity it creates. We are all a part of mankind, we are all humans. Too often we create the illusion of separation through prejudice based on race, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance, taboos, social status, and so on. If we could simply realize this and unite all countries as one dominating force we could due something like turning our billions-of-dollars-per-year military expenditures towards ending world hunger or better yet space exploration/colonization.

Couldn't find anything on a Kellog doctrine, but I think you're spot on here. Too many people = too many differing ideals = conflict = violence.

 

I think it will be impossible in this life time. You have tons of conquer and divide. Race vs. race, homos vs. straights, rich vs. poor, political parties vs. political parties. Honestly if you take away all this world peace could happen overnight but there's a lot of factors that would make it impossible from what goes into your body to the sounds around you.

Honestly no.... at least not in this lifetime.

 

I meant, isolate issues. Not from each other entirely. We're involved with each other too much, like I said. Accepting and expanding all cultures would be nice, but I can't imagine that happening literally ever lmao.

 

Of course it's impossible. As long as people have differing opinions on things and social barriers exist, peace will never exist. World peace? Why not try focusing on national peace, or better yet city peace. Heck, some families aren't even at peace with themselves.

 

Not possible. Some leaders are so driven and thirst for power it's impossible for everyone to be happy with the way they are.

 

No way.

 

We as humans will never agree on everything and will always have to fight about something so no world peace will never happen

 

I agree with your stance but not necessarily your response. The leaders thing is what's happening in the status quo. If world leaders were to be better, would world peace be possible? I personally don't think it has to do with the leaders but rather the people in general.

 

How does conflict prevent world peace? In countries where free speech is protected, there is conflict whilst peace is maintained (by a practical understanding of peace). Why is this impossible to conceive of on a worldly scale?

 

I would argue that a place like the US, while stable, is not peaceful. There is still violence every day, just not in a military sense.

 

The trouble is that if the definition of peace is so tightly understood (aka if there's literally any conflict then peace is disrupted) the concept just becomes a misnomer and something that doesn't exist. Also, when we speak of world peace we are clearly talking about things on a larger scale. So when we speak of the U.S., we should abstract from specific cases of conflict/violence and look at the general framework - which is peaceful. To be clear, the violence that occurs everyday is certainly problematic and I'm sure can be argued to contravene justice; however, I believe the frequency of violence should not be considered to be at the same level of the peace-preserving elements, and that therefore the U.S. is peaceful. I don't see another way to understand peace without simply stifling the discussion.

 

Well peace is broken when small unhappinesses become larger unhappinesses. Look at what has been happening in Ferguson. With a less measured response and wider unhappiness that could easily lead to a very bad situation. The US is fairly stable which helps loads but in a less stable and less well off country it could have been the sparking point of a larger conflict.

 

Yeah. But the reason the US is stable and the reason this crisis will (eventually) settle down is because the country is generally peace-preserving. So basically I'm making the difference between a peaceful country and a non-peaceful country as involving the nature of the legal/civil system. In both cases there will be cases of non-peaceful actions; it is only the overall foundation of a peaceful country that allows it to overcome these occurrences.

I also don't think peace is dependent on happiness or anything like that. Such a relationship is far too haphazard and generally not rational.

 

But we do have outbursts of non-peacefulness. We were attacked on 9/11 and have been fighting wars since then. Look at the LA riots. Even in a stable country there are outbursts of violence. That doesn't bode well for unstable countries.

 

Man is naturally rival with one another. It's human instinct to survive and be the best. History shows us this through the fallen tribes, kingdoms and empires all at the hands of man.

All of these separate countries are just ingredients for this big funky recipe we haven't cooked yet.. seriously, think about it:

Tribe A has 1,000 members. They're the dominant tribe in the area, and begin to conquer the tribes around them. There's seven tribes in total, with a population of 1,900 combined (including Tribe A). These 900 conquered men are then part of Tribe A. They may start as slaves or POW's, or however it was during that period of time - but through time the generations after will blend. Tribe A is no longer just Tribe A, but a diversity of all seven tribes, and their offspring.

The conquered 1,900 would eventually grow to 19,000 and form a Kingdom, which would conquer the smaller kingdoms around it... and just as it occurred with the tribes, will soon grow and diversify.




Skip ahead to the future - what would the outcome be if intelligent life is discovered and we are no longer the dominant life forms? Through time, wouldn't a common form of communication be developed to interact with this life? Wouldn't the nations task this as a WORLD issue, and not a national or international one? If trade is developed, or travel, or war - wouldn't the world become a conglomerate?

It is no longer the interests of France, of the interests of the White Guy, or etc... it is now the interest of Earth. We would no longer be the biggest tribe (or maybe we would - with smaller tribes for us to bully).

If life was ever found

 

In a perfect world, where equality actually exists, I believe it's viable. Having numerous races, as well as a very large "container" for us.. world peace just isn't plausible.