Political Crossfire Forums

afroman · Joined: 07 Dec 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Burton upon trent

I believe that no matter what, peop[le of different origins, beliefs etc. can not live in harmony, as somebody will always disagree. Human nature wheather we like it or not is to fight one another for survival, why do you think we have evovled over other mammals to be the most powerful? The getting rid of the weakest. comments

rogue · Joined: 07 Dec 2005 Posts: 9 Location: Branston

Perhaps that is why we are at the top of the leader. but as long as factors such as religion stands in the way it will always be us and them.
However i disagree that we have to fight to be number one the ant colonies for instance are universally equal you could take an ant from britain and take it to germany and they will greet each other and live harmonously. why is that?

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:22 am Post subject:

The answer to this is No.

F'losrix

afroman wrote: I believe that no matter what, people of different origins, beliefs etc. can not live in harmony, as somebody will always disagree.
It depends on whether you mean the kind of peace where everyone completely puts aside differences to work together, or the sort of peace where people will ignore differences temporarily to co-exist while still maintaining their personal biases and prejudices toward those who think/look/believe differently from them.

The first kind of peace is unattainable. The second is practical reality.

Quote: Human nature wheather we like it or not is to fight one another for survival, why do you think we have evovled over other mammals to be the most powerful? The getting rid of the weakest. comments
I don't buy the survival idea. That might be at the root of why people fight over their differences, but humans are far removed from a need to kill off anyone who disagrees with them in order to survive. Or at least we ought to be.

F'losrix · Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:47 am Post subject:

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: The answer to this is No.
Mostly true. The trouble is that people view it as an excuse not to try at all. I think the goal is worthy of our attempts, even if our success is minimal.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 1:42 pm Post subject:

Skeptical Mystic wrote: TheGrandmaster1 wrote: The answer to this is No.
Mostly true. The trouble is that people view it as an excuse not to try at all. I think the goal is worthy of our attempts, even if our success is minimal.

Indeed. I wouldn't say this is a reason to altogether abandon the idea of living in peace, simply because the propagation of such an idea will lead to a more peaceful existence overall. For example, if people believe we can all exist peacefully, and other are taught that we can, more people will do so, and not infringe on the happiness of others. Overall, the world, or whatever group in question, will live more peacefully than without this idea in place. Unfortunately, by the very nature of humanity, there will simply always be people who will upset the applecart. Theft, rape, murder, intolerance, and things like this will simply exist and cause disputes, fights, and wars I believe forever.

afroman · Joined: 07 Dec 2005 Posts: 13 Location: Burton upon trent

Then why for example are we fighting over oil supplies? is this not concreating our future energy consumption? As for the ants, they will greet each other as they meet as they look the same, their are many different races in our world,and there will always be a racist

the_lizard_on_the_wall · Joined: 17 Nov 2005 Posts: 43 Location: undisclosed

"world peace" is impossible. there will always be a person who wants to kill some one else, and so there will always be people to protect those people, and there will always be poeple ready to fight THOSE people in case THEY go bad, and so on and so forth. Humans are evil. they always will be. remember, "utopia" means "no place" . the price of the nearest thing we could ever achieve to world peace is far to high.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

Conflict may be natural, it may be instinctual, but it also may be helpful. Is struggle not good for humanity? Where would humans be now if our ancestors had a liesurely time living in the caveman day?

EugenicHegemony · Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 4658

Not perpetual peace.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

EugenicHegemony wrote: Not perpetual peace.

Not typing on this computer, eating fillet mignon, getting immunization shots, getting treatment for diseases, or looking at this post through reading glasses either.

The Grandmaster · Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:14 pm Post subject:

Johannes wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Not perpetual peace.

Not typing on this computer, eating fillet mignon, getting immunization shots, getting treatment for diseases, or looking at this post through reading glasses either.

What are you saying? We have to deny ourselved everything? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

TheGrandmaster1 wrote: Johannes wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: Not perpetual peace.

Not typing on this computer, eating fillet mignon, getting immunization shots, getting treatment for diseases, or looking at this post through reading glasses either.

What are you saying? We have to deny ourselved everything? I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I was replying to the fact that we wouldn't have perpetual peace from...
Quote: Conflict may be natural, it may be instinctual, but it also may be helpful. Is struggle not good for humanity? Would humans be where they are now if our ancestors had a liesurely time living in the caveman day?

We wouldn't have perpetual peace, but we wouldn't have any of the comforts we have today either...

Jesucristo · Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 27

afroman wrote: I believe that no matter what, people of different origins, beliefs etc. can not live in harmony, as somebody will always disagree. Human civilization has constantly become more peaceful. What are you proposing will step in and interrupt this pattern? Quote: Human nature wheather we like it or not is to fight one another for survival, why do you think we have evovled over other mammals to be the most powerful? But the civilizing of man has primarily been the story of man's embrace of peace over warfare. Quote: The getting rid of the weakest. comments
To stray temporarily from my theme, if we truly do always get rid of the weak, what's left to fight about?

Jesucristo · Joined: 12 Dec 2005 Posts: 27

the_lizard_on_the_wall wrote: "world peace" is impossible. there will always be a person who wants to kill some one else, and so there will always be people to protect those people, and there will always be poeple ready to fight THOSE people in case THEY go bad, and so on and so forth. Humans are evil. they always will be. remember, "utopia" means "no place" . the price of the nearest thing we could ever achieve to world peace is far to high.

Humans might not ever refer to their own society as "peaceful," since standards change along with conditions. But humanity of the future, were you to view it, would be indistinguishable from your concept of "peaceful."

gordon1 · Joined: 17 Dec 2005 Posts: 33

living in peace we would be an almost impossible feet. there are so many different cultures and beliefs about life and ways of doing anything. so it is possible but unlikely

Johannes · Joined: 28 Nov 2005 Posts: 834

gordon1 wrote: living in peace we would be an almost impossible feet. there are so many different cultures and beliefs about life and ways of doing anything. so it is possible but unlikely

Anything is possible...With the current leadership around the globe oriented to their respective provinces and countries, it won't happen. With great leadership however, things could begin to shift in a different, better direction. However, I don't know of any candidate or organization that could pull this off.

The UN is a good start, and it has done amazing things for the world. However, the UN being the political offspring of competeing world players, wouldn't do anything but complicate the situation acting like a middle man. NATO also would act as such.

There needs to be an organization completely devoid of any political attatchment, bent soley on peacefully uniting people. Without national support of any kind however, the organization would be underfunded and unable to interact with the big hitters of the globe. Even the world's richest couldn't support such an organization. Even more complicated would be the location of their base of operations. They would need to be close to a major city where leaders of the world meet. However, you couldn't do this without getting a favor from a European country, and therefore they would expect one in return, therefore voiding the no political ties ideal. This could go on and on.

You see the dilema...