Agnostic.com

22 1

What do you think of Peace?

If you were given a choice.

  1. leave the world in its current state
    Or
  2. end all wars and end the future possibility of any wars

Which would you choose & why?
Is peace really what we think it is? Is it good and war bad? If so then we as humans would have chosen peace over war. But we still choose to fight in wars that have no meaningful reasons to exist.

View Results
Lancer 7 Dec 18

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

7

Not to be Debbie Downer, but I don't believe humanity is capable of maintaining peace.
I don't believe there is a rational choice to be made. Human nature makes many of us competitive. Power begets power, greed begets greed. We are still animals at our base core.

I agree with what you say. There is a very specific reason that human beings have not been able to abstain from warfare.

I like to think that peacetime isn't any better or worse than wartime for some people. In war there is death and destruction, in peace there is death & destruction. The only difference is that in peace we can rebuild faster than people can kill or destroy. Which is why it isn't much of a problem.

Part of that is because basically we are great apes. We are a collection of various size troupes and various members of the troupe want to be in charge. Civilization is in many ways a very thin veneer. Many people do not like to think or admit that we are really just animals. And overall human behavior points this out pretty well I think.

7

The only benefits of war are economic. Life is more valuable than wealth.

6

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

? Albert Einstein

6

The human species will never be without war given human greed, competition for limited resources, demagogic leaders of total system ideologies willing to create wars and enough "true believer" followers. etc. The best we can do is try to limit wars by any and all legitimate means.

Your approach is very pragmatic and probably one of the most accurate comments I've seen so far

6

As a Retired Warrior, Sibling of Warriors, Uncle, Nephew, Father of Warriors... I Value Peace at All Cost.

Hear! Hear! Brother.

3

religion and power and disagreement over these things are the reasons for war which with all mixed beliefs etc will never end. war is stupid and we do fight for stupid reasons as we believe in fairytales with no evidence. peace would be amazing with no borders and no ownership and trust but though possible im now talking fairy tales.

3

I think war should become ritualized in the following manner:

Any leader who wishes to go to war with any other leader must file a written declaration of war outlining all the reasons for the conflict and the expected spoils should he/she/it win the conflict.

The other leader then has the option to either accept or reject this declaration. If he/she/it accepts, then a similar document must be provided explaining why the challenge has been accepted and what spoils are expected if the invasion is successfully defended against.

If agreement to wage war is reached, the leaders in the agreement are each given a baseball bat, stripped naked, and turned loose in a closed arena. The winner of the conflict is the last one standing.

It is conceivable that following this format would eventually end all wars.

You realize as well that everyone else would be doing the same, right? We'd have genuine clashes of the Titans, but I think after a while, even the Titans would realize the folly and stop taking steroids.

@evidentialist LOL

@FortyTwo - Now that's a pleasant thought. Thanks. I will begin digging my bunker tomorrow.

I could imagine countries abandoning their research on firearms and attempting to create a Chuck Norris - Steven Seagal hybrid to defeat their enemies.

Then there'd be a face-off between America's hybrid and Russia's Putin/Lenin hybrid. Germany would create a karl marx / hittler hybrid.

World war 3 in a 1 v 1 v 1 3 way of humanities strongest.

The the words uttered in the audience would be "Whoever wins, we lose..."

3

all to often its political, and not humanitarian driven. america has made it a money grab. for the rich . they try to sell us that crap about protecting american freedom. while they send young kids to die, to line there pockets with money. none of these countries we are at war with pose any real threat to america. if we stop bombing them and killing them, i would bet there would be far less terrorist.

That's a very good observation.

north korea, won't be taking over the world with a war with all of europe. iraq and iran are not anywhere near the threat the old ussr or stalin was. the circumstances are nothing like we had during the time of hitler and stalin. nor is america geared to being a defensive army like we were in the 40's . i am pretty sure the entire world knows the american army is the largest on the planet. hardly weak. so this makes no sense, being in current day . we have all the corruption in our government, that the waging war, has gone from humanitarian , to profit and political.

3

War is the rich and powerful game and using us as pawns.

Hence why I would never be a soldier. I have no problem fighting to protect my loved ones, but fighting in a foreign country under the guise of "defense" or "peace keeping" is just plain wrong. My country only has a defense force and yet we have overseas military bases. How does that make sense?

Not attacking you. Just using a rhetorical question. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, I just sounded a bit aggressive in that last part.

2

I don't see how people think the world is okay as is. I just dont.

The grass is always greener on the other side.

Sure the Earth might not be in a great shape but it could be far far worse.

2

I think we have war as a way of depopulating as well as for obtaining land.

That's 100% correct from a purely logical basis. The only thing that war succeeds in doing is transporting nutrients to desert areas in the form of dead bodies, much like bees germinate flowers as they move along to collect pollen. Population control & Environmental rejuvenation.

2

I voted to replace war with something.

The question wasn't why we think ending war or changing the way things are won't work.
It only asked what we would prefer if we could change it.

Replace it with better communication and mutual humanitarian causes is what I would do.

I voted the same, as humans would still need some way to vent their differences - imagined, or otherwise !

Good job to both of you. I was hoping someone would come up with something new 🙂

2

As long as the human species retains a caveman mentality wars will continue .Evolutionary psychology ,and discoveries in genetics,neuropsychology,among other science hold that human beings today,are ingrained with the mentality of Stone Age hunter gatherers ,in other words culture not brains have evolved .Clubs and Spears to Nuclear Weapons.

2

If we no longer had the impulse for war, I think that would be a good thing. I'd love to see a day when we all manage to share the earth with some universal goals for all humanity to thrive in an age of scientific discovery and technological marvels. If we just had some restriction where we couldn't engage in war, I think that would probably be miserable because it says nothing about human rights violations and crimes against humanity, so some people could still be awful and others couldn't do anything to stop it.

I too wish for a day when we as a society focus on scientific research and promote morals & values consistent with maintaining peace between each other.

1

Peace is necessary in order for humanity to progress.

Gohan Level 7 Jan 7, 2018
1

Peace is not the absence of war, peace is real, it is embodied in every human as a real alive entity, full of the same elements which make up the whole universe, it is not something you can learn about by reading or talk about, but you have to feel it in your own body, a tranquility, which has certain elements which have a special effect on the body and the whole individual.

I was just talking about the definition of the word.

1

Until human nature changes war will exist, nothing is going to change that fact.

1

I would replace war with The hunger games arena and let the country leaders fight to the death!

That'd be mildly entertaining. I'd watch that.

But only the bad leaders. Like say a country votes whether or not their leader partakes in the battle royal.

1

You know, I see a lot of negativism here. Comments such as '...the way it has always...' and '...a natural instinct to...' are exactly why we still engage in senseless and costly conflicts. The words we use and the manner in which we speak them is a clear indication of what is going on inside. A window onto our thought processes, our attitudes, prejudices, and so forth.

It is possible to change ones way of seeing and doing things simply by becoming cognizant of the types of words and phrasing one uses in everyday life. It is difficult to be aware of what one is saying and how it is being said, but it can be done and over time the results are guaranteed. The reason for this is the same reason we get into struggles in the first place. We tend to perpetuate negatives because we have lived with them so long they go unnoticed.

As old Al said (paraphrasing): You can't fix a problem using the same thinking that created it.

War is just ugly... it is so bad... it puts thing in spiraling vortex and sucks the life out of people. I hated it but I would do it again because it's all about the mission...not me.

We aren't the cause of conflict, we only make observations of the truth. Speaking about war in a different way doesn't really matter at all. If we change the way we speak, it doesn't change the fact that people are dying in other countries, I think that's a bit off the mark.

Talking about conflict doesn't cause it. If we went to the extreme and stopped talking about war completely then that's the same as pretending it doesn't exist.

@Lancer -- I can't believe you missed the point by so much. Changing the way one speaks to a more reasonable line is not intended to end war or misery directly. It is intended to change the person doing it so they won't be as prone to participate and/or perpetuate such behavior. I will grant you that it would take more than just a few to cause any substantive change in the world, but isn't that worth the effort?

I understand that you intent. But regardless of how we talk about war, it will not indirectly influence a persons mentality significantly enough to cause them to change. I understand you are talking about small changes to spread over a large number of people but the fact remains that no matter how much we convince people to aim for peace. We will always end up with war.

This is why what you are saying won't work. It is habitual for human beings to engage in conflict. War is just the climax of such action.

1

You will never have peace as long as countries have a readily available military.

The military isn't the problem. They are a means to an end.
The problem is war mongering politicians who pay people to start a war and send their countries children to fight and die, killing the children of other nations.

Politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush are no better than common Warlords in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The military doesn't do anything unless the government tells them to do it. I trust the military way more than I trust any government. Soldiers don't want to go to war, they don't want to kill. They are forced to because politicians want to sell guns, ammunition, vehicles, oil, etc.

Warriors just want to protect their people. Politicians just want to protect their assets.

0

This is a silly poll. To say "we as humans would have chosen peace over war" if war is bad and peace is good is way too simplistic.

Why? War is generally bad for the majority but good for a specific minority.
Peace is generally good for the majority and can be less beneficial for a specific minority.

Human beings don't like peace, otherwise we would make more compromises to maintain it.

The only way I can think of peace being bad is for financial reasons. For governments. Peace and war don't just occur because humans just "make a choice" to have peace or to start a war. It's a bunch of different things that happen that will lead up to a peace or war coming about. If money and power were out of the equation I could think of no minorities that would not choose peace, unless psychopathy was still in the world. But the world is too complex to think of peace and war as just choices. They are outcomes.

You make a good point. I agree with what you're saying

0

Man is man's only predator. If we don't kill each other, something much worse will kill us all. Elbow room will cause war. Oh man, I just went into a School House Rock commercial...hehe

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:9071
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.