is world peace possible?

[Elegiac]

I did. No need for insults. Maybe you can phrase what you said a little differently so I can more easily understand

But I think I did understand. You say an either peaceful or violent competitive environment is not a good thing, as in, you don't think it's good to have a situation where both are choices. I think that's fine, I agree with you. And I'm also saying that we can have a situation where peaceful competition is the only option

And I'm saying that it's neither possible nor desirable.

[Underverse]

And I'm saying that it's neither possible nor desirable.

Why?

You already said it's possible to have peaceful competition in situations where the competition can also be violent. I thought we've already agreed on that.

And why not desirable? Isn't that the whole point of this thread, having peace?

[Elegiac]

Why?

You already said it's possible to have peaceful competition in situations where the competition can also be violent. I thought we've already agreed on that.

And why not desirable? Isn't that the whole point of this thread, having peace?

I've said that peaceful competition can exist. World peace, however, cannot; human nature precludes it.

Furthermore, competition created by war tends to accelerate the process of technological development far more than in peacetime because conflict creates -necessity-.

[Hooked]

Absolutely not, they cant even put an end to street gang violence in a city, let alone put an end to violence between nations. Wherever there is greed there is violence.

[Underverse]

I've said that peaceful competition can exist. World peace, however, cannot; human nature precludes it.

Furthermore, competition created by war tends to accelerate the process of technological development far more than in peacetime because conflict creates -necessity-.

Why does human nature preclude world peace if peaceful competition can exist?

And yes, war does accelerate tech development, but so does peaceful competition. We're not at war with Chine, for example, but they are trying to compete with the US in terms of scientific development. Also, we don't need any internal competition to drive tech advances; we could have external competition (humans against the universe, or against aging, or against entropy), or no competition at all (tech development mandated by law)

[Elegiac]

Why does human nature preclude world peace if peaceful competition can exist?

Because human nature has been selected for its destructive impulses. I would go even as far to say as that even peaceful competition stems from those same impulses.

And yes, war does accelerate tech development, but so does peaceful competition. We're not at war with Chine, for example, but they are trying to compete with the US in terms of scientific development. Also, we don't need any internal competition to drive tech advances; we could have external competition (humans against the universe, or against aging, or against entropy), or no competition at all (tech development mandated by law)

Uh, no. "Peaceful competition" does not accelerate the technological process like war. And the US and China is an awful example precisely because the competition stems from the threat of a future conflict which is a form of wartime development.

That sort of thinking is the same garbage that Marxists toss around. World peace is as much of an undesirable fallacy as Communism for exactly the same reasons.

[Draketh]

Yes it could, if the word and the act of "religion" wouldn't exist, I'm pretty sure there would be a system every human can work around. Maybe not a valid answer because religion is a act of nature. Don't take it like I hate religion, I just think it would be very much possible to have world peace if all those big religions wouldn't exist.

[checking facts]

in theory, yes. if there can be peace, there can be world peace. all that has to happen is to have peace on every place in the world at the same time.

it's not anywhere near probable, though. the odds are veeeery small.

[ghrolt]

No. And the reason for this you may ask?
Because you asked.

[Speaknoevil]

-

Now you're just arguing terms and definitions.

-_-

We are extremely unlikely(understated) happenstance. One day we wake up we're aware, born in hyperspace, made of stardust, finally we exist, eons of predetermined chemistry in the making. Your view is simplistic, embracing the most basic tenets of what it is to be human; the animal.

[Mifuyne]

Not aslong as man-kind continues to exist.

[Hitei]

Yes it could, if the word and the act of "religion" wouldn't exist, I'm pretty sure there would be a system every human can work around. Maybe not a valid answer because religion is a act of nature. Don't take it like I hate religion, I just think it would be very much possible to have world peace if all those big religions wouldn't exist.

Religion has not been the main source of warfare or violence for a very, very long time.

[Nathreim]

No humans are just too violent by nature.

[gamhacked]

Yes, perhaps for a brief period of time. We'd need one hell of a unifier to get it done, though.

[Mikael123]

Humans will always fight eachother in one way or another - either for resources or over differences in opinion. So there will never be world peace as long as humans exist. I think war and strife will always be present among intelligent races. Strife and "war" also exist between the most intelligent of other species such as gorillas and chimpanses.

[Faesroll]

Yes, it just involves everyone being dead.

This is the only way.

[Stir]

Everything in nature is always at war. World peace is impossible as long as life itself exists.

[jahasafrat]

Yes, it just involves everyone being dead.

Agreed. So long as there are humans, there will be strife.

[Maxilian]

Well that depends what you mean by "wolrd peace" but if you mean a world without war... then yes is possible but if you mean a wold without crime then No...

[Cybran]

Judging by the pointless bickering going on in this thread I'd say it's impossible.