Is Peace Possible?

[gaia.plateau]

So this week I'm writing my Statement of Purpose for my application to the University for Peace, where I will be undertaking my Master's Degree in Media, Conflict and Peace Studies. It needs to be between 500 and 1000 pages long (that's about 2-4 pages), and application deadline is the end of February. If I can get at least $35,000 in financial assistance I can begin next August. So I'm looking for ideas.

In Hookah Forum's Serious Discussion, the notion of whether peace is possible has been danced around frequently, and I think that most people in Western civilization believe that world peace will never be possible. I disagree, and I may write more on that in this thread if you respond. What do you think? Are we just violent creatures, doomed to bash each other with sticks until we're all injured beyond repair, because the stick has proved so often to be the easiest and quickest solution to the challenges we face? Or are we capable of more than that, and are the obstacles to peace not people themselves, but the Westphalian state system that makes the imperative for national interest more important than an imperative for international interests?

[popcornkid06]

People are what their surroundings have made them to be and their actions are the consequences of that. Genetics has a little to do with it but as far as nature vs. nurture goes, nurture wins.

Humans aren't inherently good or evil - also that brings the question of who has the right to decide what good or evil means? Who decides what is normalized to the point of people thinking their behavior is inherent (trivial ex: girls like pink, boys like blue - that is socialized, not "natural").

Western society (all I can speak to because it's all I have studied from a theory standpoint) depends on constant imitation of social roles making sure that anything that varies is ostracized. (ex: we can also apply that logic to sexuality - heterosexuality sets itself up as the "original" and homosexuality is the deviant "copy" but in reality, there is no original - even heterosexuality is a copy of some other behavior as well). It is a mechanism put in place patriarchy remains as the system in control, perpetuating more ideas that it created and sells to us as the norm. But it's not all patriarchy's fault - we do buy into it and continue it, granted, it's very hard, if not impossible, to break the cycle.

So my answer - No, humans aren't inherently violent, greedy, etc - we have been socialized that way to believe that we are inherently violent, greedy, therefore it's "ok" to start wars because it's "natural". We have been socialized to the point where if we we believe if we don't fight a war it's considered shameful and "woman-like" (like we have something to prove) - thanks a lot "manly" men.. it feels good to be a woman when it comes with extremely negative connotations.

Also, especially as a capitalist society, the outlook on peace is very grim. The only focus is profit, profit, profit. If people die, who cares? There is $$ to be made! Or at least, that has been the mindset of this country for the past 8 years. Peace might be possible with a little change


wow.. I sort of talked all over the place but hopefully my roundabout points have helped.

[gaia.plateau]

wow.. I sort of talked all over the place but hopefully my roundabout points have helped.

Thanks for your input popcorn, I don't know if I've seen you post before~

Humans aren't inherently good or evil - also that brings the question of who has the right to decide what good or evil means? Who decides what is normalized to the point of people thinking their behavior is inherent

I thought we figured that out by who is wearing white and who is wearing black?

I think that dualistic thinking is a major reason for the violent conflicts of the last millennium, especially since Westphalia in 1648. The Iraq war is a brilliant example- "we're on God's side, and they hate us because we're free. therefore it is okay to commit mass murder". And of course we see it everywhere, Rwanda comes quickly to mind, and etc. Obviously it's a tall order, but there would be world peace tomorrow if suddenly everyone started to be objective, and realize that there are no sides, that no one can ever be completely right.

Say your car gets broken into over Christmas. Do you have the right to be mad, because it was your property and the thief had no right to take it? Does that make you "right", and the thief "wrong"? It would probably seem so to most people. The facts are, that by choosing to live in a society that holds up material success as the goal in life while at the same time socioeconomically marginalizing people based on wealth, ethnicity, the area you live or grew up in, and etc., that society is directly forcing people into crime in order to meet those goals. Ergo, but living in such a society, every one of us is at least partly responsible. As you said:

It is a mechanism put in place patriarchy remains as the system in control, perpetuating more ideas that it created and sells to us as the norm. But it's not all patriarchy's fault - we do buy into it and continue it, granted, it's very hard, if not impossible, to break the cycle.

Also, especially as a capitalist society, the outlook on peace is very grim. The only focus is profit, profit, profit. If people die, who cares? There is $ to be made! Or at least, that has been the mindset of this country for the past 8 years. Peace might be possible with a little change

Well, capitalism is inherently conducive with conflict as long as there exist scarce resources... just wait until they get even scarcer! I'm reading Monbiot's new collection of essays that largely revolve around this problem- very good stuff.

So my answer - No, humans aren't inherently violent, greedy, etc - we have been socialized that way to believe that we are inherently violent, greedy, therefore it's "ok" to start wars because it's "natural". We have been socialized to the point where if we we believe if we don't fight a war it's considered shameful and "woman-like" (like we have something to prove) - thanks a lot "manly" men.. it feels good to be a woman when it comes with extremely negative connotations.

Soc major? Edited December 30, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

I rather think that I would like a definition of 'peace' [I may have missed in Gaia's OP]

If we are using a traditional sense of brotherly love and a world without malice or unpleasantness I rather
suggest that it's an impossible dream.

If your definition of peace is a world without War then I think that it is achievable, but probably not in my lifetime, but how you would go about it would be difficult.

Quite possibly using Definition #2 then 'a world without borders' is probably the way togo. However this would also mean a one-world government, a one-world judicial system, one-world banking & currency.

How are you going to achieve a one-world system? Probably by mechanism of war

JD

[gaia.plateau]

I think that we definitely can't define peace as simply the absence of war... peace requires some degree of equality. I don't think that the Aboriginal peoples of Canada living on reservations have "peace", living a few hours North of swimming pools and often going days without access to drinkable water. You can also have oppression and animosity without war- look at Pakistan or Chile. Personally I define peace as the ability to live without fear. I still need to get over my fear of sock monkeys, then I can be at peace

I tend to think of "world peace", as an aspiration, to be the point when the international interest is just as important to people as the national interest. We'll never get to the point where we care as much about some old dude in Niger as we do our own friends and family- that would be to defy an evolutionary imperative. But I do think it's possible to reach the point where Tom in Manchester cares equally as much about that old dude in Niger as he dose about some old dude in Liverpool.

The problem is states.

At some point in this thread I will disclose my super secret, ultimate world peace plan. Hint: it involves Jedi. Sort of. Edited December 30, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Johnny_D]

Nicely put Gaia.

However I rather suspect that to live without fear is to live without any rules. Social or Moral.

For instance - I am dreadfully afraid of Prison. Seriously. I can't think of anything worse than
being 'locked up'

This simple, yet powerfull, fear ensures that I conform to the laws of the land. So if we remove all and any fear then this it's self could lead to a social problem...

We are actually experiencing a society without fear in England. Chav's. Ned's. Spiv's ect all live without fear from the judicial system. So they don't care and behave without care or fear.

They are also without fear of poverty of loss of housing as we will continue to provide money and housing to these...people...

Just something to throw into your melting pot!

JD

[gaia.plateau]

Nicely put Gaia.

However I rather suspect that to live without fear is to live without any rules. Social or Moral.

I made a typo dose = does, haha.

That's an interesting perspective, certainly with something to it. Even though it's sort of my vocation in life to try and help people live without fear, I'm probably the worst person in the world to do it, because I don't have morals or fears (sock monkeys aside). Instead I have principles.

I don't refrain from killing and stealing because I think it would be morally wrong, nor because I'm afraid to go to prison... I refrain because we're all individual people, we deserve equality, and to think I have some special right to infringe on someone else's equality would be arrogant. I don't want to be arrogant, therefore I refrain.

I'm sure it's idealistic, but I hope that someday principles can come to replace morals- that people will behave in everyone's best interest because it's really in their own best interest, not because of socialized norms and mores.

For instance - I am dreadfully afraid of Prison. Seriously. I can't think of anything worse than
being 'locked up'

And yet you never have a problem when I handcuff you to the bed... interesting...

This simple, yet powerfull, fear ensures that I conform to the laws of the land. So if we remove all and any fear then this it's self could lead to a social problem...

We are actually experiencing a society without fear in England. Chav's. Ned's. Spiv's ect all live without fear from the judicial system. So they don't care and behave without care or fear.

They are also without fear of poverty of loss of housing as we will continue to provide money and housing to these...people...

I guess that would just have to be the last fear to be tackled, making the impossibly hypothetical assumption of an eventual Utopian world, haha. Naturally I think it would be better if we didn't need that fear, but you're absolutely right, it serves an important role in society for maintaining order.

Then again, look at capital punishment in the United States. Statistically states that have it have tremendously higher homocide rates. What most sociologists believe, is that by the state legalizing murder under certain, controlled circumstances, they make violence and brutality legitimate and acceptable, and the facts show that this outweighs the fear of death for perpetrators.

Or look at the Grameen bank- they lend micropayments to people with no collateral or tangible reason to pay the loans back. But if they don't pay it back, their friends can't get loans. They have a 95% return rate, better than any bank in Western countries, and a 99.9% rate amongst women. These people have no reason to fear not paying back the loans, and yet they do anyway out of social solidarity.

But fear of punishment isn't really what I mean when I define peace as the ability to live without fear- nor is it reasonable to expect people to be able to live without fear of natural disasters, disease, and other unavoidable tragedies. Living without fear is when you know that you can criticize people who have power over you without being punished for it, being able to know that you are likely to have enough food and water to survive the next year, being able to conceive a child without the probability of infant mortality. Ultimately, living without fear in the way I mean, is the freedom to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[popcornkid06]

excellent points all around what a great subject, gaia. i'd love to read your essay.

i'm actually a film/video major with a women and gender studies minor.. so thats where that comes from

i have posted before - mostly asking questions. i try not to post unless i feel i have something to actually contribute.

[Hippo_Master]

I'd say if everyone dies, peace would be possible.

[gaia.plateau]

excellent points all around what a great subject, gaia. i'd love to read your essay.

All 1000 pages? Haha, that was a typo, I meant words I kind of wish it was 1000 pages.

[tinyj316]

Because we don't live in an utopian society/world, true peace will never be possible. Whenever there are differences between people, whether it be racial, socioeconomic, ideological, etc. there will be people who will do whatever it takes to get things they do not have. Even at that, there are people who are flat out greedy who want more than they need.

To achieve peace, we would need to sacrifice free will, independent thought, and all seven of the "deadly sins"

tl;dr... Peace can only be achieved when everyone is lobotomized and/or dead

[NickReppinThe909]

i really wish peace was possible but like the quote on blackhawk down "so long as there is man there shall be war"

so my answer is no to be brief

[Johnny_D]

Because we don't live in an utopian society/world, true peace will never be possible. Whenever there are differences between people, whether it be racial, socioeconomic, ideological, etc. there will be people who will do whatever it takes to get things they do not have. Even at that, there are people who are flat out greedy who want more than they need.

To achieve peace, we would need to sacrifice free will, independent thought, and all seven of the "deadly sins"

tl;dr... Peace can only be achieved when everyone is lobotomized and/or dead

One assumes this means 'Too Long, Did not read'. Which is a shame that Gaia spent all that time typing it to induce another interesting discussion!

It's interesting your point regarding states with severe capital punishment having higher severe crimes. That would be an interesting debate... However I rather suspect that It goes hand-in-hand with the uk's decision to not wide-spread arm the police. More police with guns=more scumbags with guns.

At least with a knife you have at least a fighting chance....maybe

So can peace be achieved under the ideals as laid out. You know I rather think it can be. But however we would have to reduce or re-tune some basic unpleasant human behavior.

If we are talking about peace being a wider large peace (IE World) rather than local, so criminality will/can still exist then I still think we are going to have to ensure that a One-World system is established so that there is a fair and proper system of equality throughout the world.

Gaia - this is just a bloody precursor to your taking over the planet isn't it

JD

Ps - the handcuff's left painful marks

[Bulldog_916]

In order for there to be world peace, you need to fulfill everyone's basic needs. Food, water, shelter, sex. 4 basic needs in the human species. I think it's possible to fulfill those needs in humanity given the right set of circumstances and the spreading of global trade.

For example, Nigeria has oil fields that the West want access to or resources from. The West has food and medical care that Nigeria can only dream of. You open up a limited medical facility and trade FOOD in return for oil (instead of money, which is worth something today, worthless tomorrow). Will you get as good of a return on selling the oil? I think so, with oil only down because the economy is down, selling gasoline for $2.50 to $3.00 a gallon on average looks like what it's going to go for during the last half of '09. It may cut into profits quite a bit, but a steady profit is better than a wildly fluctuating profit any day. Africa has largely been burned by Western countries since its colonization. If we begin to mend those wounds by actually being honorable and fair to them, I think it will go a long way in healing the violence. Greed will largely stop that from happening though, unfortunately.

There has to be a globally agreed-upon road map for fulfilling those needs that I listed for most, if not all human beings. Without a real addressing of the problem of greed and intolerance, there will be no peace.

[erufiku]

Where are the Power Rangers when we need them?

[erufiku]

Hint: it involves Jedi. Sort of.

Way ahead of you. You want their number?

[liquidglass]

I don't really have the time to flesh this out but here's the long and short of one of my points of view


NO, peace is not possible.

You could say it's because of definitions and someone will always see or interpret actions as conflict.

However, I believe it is because of balance. There is peace all around us and conflict all around us, but absolute peace or absolute war will never be possible. If it does happen (which so far it never has occurred 100%) then it would be balanced out by it's opposite and equal reaction. You can call this view scientific or you can call it belief, either way, it's still right.

That's not to say you should give up hope because we should always strive to be apart of the peace in the world.


Everything balances.

[Dr. B]

This of all topics persuaded me to register.

It seems first I must define the word peace which I will continually use. When I speak of peace, I mean simply a reciprocated feeling of respect. A feeling so strong it compels us not to infringe upon others' abilities to do what they wish barring activities which stop us from doing what we wish. In the real world yes, we do face shortcomings, pitfalls, diversity, pride, and a host of other obstacles which separate us. The peace I speak of is not about avoiding quarrels and grievances; it is primarily about knowing, with certainty, that your life is never in jeopardy because of the actions of another.
I can't, without writing pages on the subject, exactly iterate HOW peace is to be achieved; but I do believe in it. The problem I encounter most often when discussing issues of this nature is simply selfishness. The rewards of peace are largely immaterial, at least initially; and therefore, for reasons of cultural conditioning, not easily realized by the average human in a short period of time - despite the potential for magnificent rewards in the future. We can never realize the reward of peace unless we are all committed to it for some duration of time. Once we can take peace for granted (I know, I sound crazy) we can divert our attention from how to protect ourselves or how to take what others don't deserve to more noble endeavors.

The problem arises when just one individual is so strongly devoted to material gain that he is unwilling to forgo any short-run benefit in favor of a long-run benefit - Unable to defer gratification. Not that material wealth is necessarily counter-intuitive of peace, but the tendency of the materialist to take advantage of the man committed to different ideals throws a kink into the gears, so to speak. The different man must either suffer, potentially upsetting the cost-benefit analysis so drastically that he abandons his ideals; or retaliate and contradict himself. Only the selfless man, faced with the strife of opposition, fails to degenerate the whole process because he is aware of the true worth of his actions and is willing to sacrifice some personal gratification for a greater good.

Kant discusses more thoroughly how inconsistency can disrupt the pursuit of utopia and Plato questions how we may be rewarded in the short-run for promoting adherence to the form from which all others, including harmony and peace, come. Though the argument can be made that it is actually selfish to be selfless for sake of some reward, most arguments of that nature fall short of being convincing, especially when put into perspective or quantified.

To sum it up: Yes, peace is possible. However, lacking some sort of realization of short-run incentive to promote peace or the presence of some awesome force which exists to convince us all of its merit (IE: The Messiah) it will be a troublesome road toward global practice. While efforts may seem fruitless, the naturalist in me thinks compromise and baby-steps are the appropriate mechanisms by which to achieve global willingness.

[Giant Ninja Robot]

Just throwing this out there:

Have you considered that as "advanced" as we are the result of war and death is a natural method of population control, keeping our species balanced with the ecosystem at large?

Frankly without conflict we'd be waaaay further depleted in our natural resources and further up the creek than we already are.

Not that I believe this as an excuse for death of course...

Also realistically take humanity's drive for success and triumph, which neccesitates a loser and you will inevitably come to war/fighting. WHY? Not everyone is a scholar. Some people don't live in a place or culture in which one can debate and verbally joust, or even come to an understanding of compromise. When a physical person wants something they take it by force. And sometimes a man will have a cause believed worth fighting for whether brute or scholar. You have to look at the idea of preventative "defense" as a cause also. Example - I will kill you who has shown obvious contempt and ill intent towards me and mine before we can recieve harm from you and yours.

Oh and then there's women, and our constant fight over love and lust, which alone unto itself will always keep war and fighting alive. I'd kill for my wife and daughters. When I see the girl at work I have feelings for (which are personal and I will never act on of course) hug another coworker I want to brain him. And I'm a fairly antiviolent person, at least in action.

I don't think war will ever disappear, as long as there are class systems and inequality which will always in place so long as we have that desire to conquer and triumph, the previously mentioned drive for success.

Frankly I think it's great to live ones life for love and peace and spread these great values on a small scale, but it's pure naivette to suggest that we could EVER have total world peace bla bla bla.

Yes we are capable of more than stick weilding skull bashing but will we ever get there? nopers.

I mean just look at all the variables, heres a hypothetical situation: You live in a Utopian Society in which SOMEHOW world peace has been achieved and violence is considered a thing of the past. Then one of your friendly neighbors gets a brain tumor and those violent tendancies are brought to the forefront of his psyche again, overtaking the reason he once had. He snaps due ONLY to uncontrollable neural impulse and kills someone. Not only do you now reintroduce murder but you have people condemning and in defense of the man, thus creating tension and splitting things into factions of moral belief. More death ensues.

random thoughts ima go vomit now.

[TheScotsman]

So this week I'm writing my Statement of Purpose for my application to the University for Peace, where I will be undertaking my Master's Degree in Media, Conflict and Peace Studies. It needs to be between 500 and 1000 pages long (that's about 2-4 pages), and application deadline is the end of February. If I can get at least $35,000 in financial assistance I can begin next August. So I'm looking for ideas.

In Hookah Forum's Serious Discussion, the notion of whether peace is possible has been danced around frequently, and I think that most people in Western civilization believe that world peace will never be possible. I disagree, and I may write more on that in this thread if you respond. What do you think? Are we just violent creatures, doomed to bash each other with sticks until we're all injured beyond repair, because the stick has proved so often to be the easiest and quickest solution to the challenges we face? Or are we capable of more than that, and are the obstacles to peace not people themselves, but the Westphalian state system that makes the imperative for national interest more important than an imperative for international interests?

In two words...
fuck, no.


As long as human kind is human there will be a struggle for wealth, or perceived wealth, be it real estate, natural resources, or the right to determine who gets to pick the rules for everyone else, there will be conflict.

I think we are doomed to bash each-other with sticks until the last stick-bearer is all that is left.


Damn, isn't that a depressing thought. Thanks allot Gaia.

[zeppyrkr]

HAHA seriously u guys are talking about WORLD peace???? imo, we will never even see peace in USA. We are still very segregated and people seem to take a blind eye to it, so if you ever get rid of that then we maybe have a small chance but the thought that it will only take 1 person to ruin it makes me believe a perfect 100% peace will never happen.

[liquidglass]

Exactly Scotsman and Giant Ninja Robot. Peace is not possible because there will always be someone who isn't 'peaceful' which in my opinion is because of balance. GNR makes a great point about advancement. War and disease are the worlds way to balance things out with population etc, plus it's there to help just as much as hurt (aka balance ). This is of course speaking about peace logically.

People that believe in world peace are only thinking about their local world. And not the entire planet. Even if the whole of the USA were completely peaceful the rest of the world would still have conflict. And in fact we would probably be attacked if we were "completely peaceful" not because people hate peace (some do) but because they would see it as an opportunity to take advantage of us.

[ryno]

Until people learn to be free with themselves, love their fellow man, and learn how to help others instead of themselves, I dont see it happening. It'd be great if society would forget about money, forget about possessions, and just be happy in life, but we live in a monetary culture, where money and possesions are everything that seems to matter.

[NUBBS]

Conflict comes from having differences. There are too many different cultures and societies in the world to EVER get along. And also in those different cultures not everyone is happy, not everyone is working as hard, not everyone is free. One cannot please everyone let alone just one person. I dont ever think peace will be possible because even that culture or society isnt peace in itself. And I can take it one step further, in the culter a single family does not get along properly.

[NUBBS]

The only way peace is possible is if everyone is the exact same, and nobody even wants that. Everyone wants to be treated fair and equaly but then when they are they just wnat more. To this day in America, do you think females are still treated equaly? I dont. As people we just do things differently, whether its a big deal or not. When it comes down to it, we will all have equal rights and be free, but then men and women will still be to different to get alone all the time.


I believe Hitler want peace. We all what happened there.