World peace?

It isn't man that disrupts peace. 'Peace' in unachievable. There will always be competing species, Bears and fish will never be seen sitting around a campfire hold hands and singing.
It is the natural order of things. Humans are animals; we compete. But just between Humans, the concept of us 'all getting along' will never work. For that to happen, everyone will have to have the same mindset....and that is really never going to happen. Not everyone wants the same thing...And furthermore I'm sure there are WAY more people that want money than peace, and far less people that have a realistic idea of what sort of 'peace' is actually attainable....
All in all, everyone is always going to be different. Wanting peace is wanting people to be the same, wanting the same things...and that won't ever happen.

 

amen :cheers2:

 

once religion is eliminated maybe

 

it's true

 

What does "world peace" entail? No violence?

 

That's what I'm sayin'.
Everyone might have a different idea of what it might be.
Having 'world peace' would meaning having ONE idea of what it is, so only those that it apply to will be happy.

 

yes I would agree too many agendas, but, all species in general eat others, defend themselves and kill each other just as humans do. We go about it in much more radical ways simply because we have a brain and much more effective ways of doing it. So despite that fact, I think there could be an attainable variation of "world peace," no more disputes won't be achieved. A unified world on the other hand, I would say that is perfectly achievable. The U.N. is an attempt at that, and has yet to dissolve, like the league of nations had decades ago.

But as an example, even a forum of fairly likeminded people are arguing about world peace... case and point

 

interesting you brought up the UN. I agree they are a great attempt on uniting nations and bringing about advancements in human rights. It is however ironic that The Vatican would be the only independent state eligible to join the UN has declined to do so.

 

This is an argument? Besides the people calling the thread gay, it seems to have been a downright civil discussion so far... I get your point though, agreement does not come easy, and total agreement is impossible... without the borg or something

 

or with a dictator... while complete agreement won't be achievable, fear causing people to agree works, it does keep a kind of "pseudo peace". Wow, I feel dirty for even saying that.

 

this thread needs to disappear. no offense to o.p.

 

so the reason you think war is sometimes necessary is purely because of religious matters?

 

actually youre right vig. forget i said anything to pat and everyone just shut up and stop being such fags.

 

In order for world peace to be achieved, a drastic upheaval might be required. It would so fundamentally threaten many people's psychology, that it might require a gigantic war in the first place. Possibly not a lot of people would be left..

 

Like i said, i wanted to hear peoples opinions on the whole idea of "world peace", Dont bother posting if you think its so "gay"

 

how the fuck did you conclude that? I think religion shouldn't exist. It's all a big crock of shit


I believe war is neccessary if your country is threatened. talking doesnt always solve your problems

 

I don't see as to why

Could lead to some intelligent discussion

 

Agreed Pat..


I have to many family member over seas to sit here and SAY yeah yeah world peace.. No bullshit, As long as North Korea is around there wont be any world peace anytime soon.

 

Or jews and middle eastern countries...

 

Well yeah, because Muslims believe that if they kill non muslims they will go to heaven where there's 40 virgins or how ever many waiting, so they hate America because we have freedom of religion and had a dumbass president, so lets go fly planes into American buildings and piss them off, or people say that bush set that up, either way its true as long as religion is around there will not be world peace.