is world peace possible?

[Dezerte]

Not infinite copies of your wife. Your wife provides things to you. Sufficient supply of the things supplied to you by your wife is what I mean. But these things, under innate circumstances, can be supplied through multiple vectors. We think it's only our wife, husband, significant other because we live in a monogamous society where notions of love and soulmates are reinforced on a daily basis.

I touched upon this in one my earlier posts

It's very hard, but not impossible. We'd need a massive shift in society values, to see our whole society as an extended arm of yourself. Or, we could possibly turn to genetic engineering to slowly erode away aggression, fear and the like.

Infinite resources, while it may play an integral part (or it may not be needed at all). It still requires that massive change in the way we think.

[Underverse]

No, nor is it desirable. Competition promotes progress.

Competition is good, yes, but does not have to lead to violence. It's possible to have peaceful competition. Peaceful competition is in fact integral to human existence and a major drive of evolution

[Deleted]

is world peace possible?

I don't think it could ever be attainable.
A) Humans, due to the fact that they all belong to different groups/cultures, have an extremely small amount of tolerability against what they consider "abnormal". Being part of a group, albeit as big as a continent, already stetches that amount to its limits, a fact that is psychologically balanced by belonging to a group that shares at least something with you. Something that you can use to stabilize yourself and accept the differences that would drive you mad if you felt yourself alone in such an enormous group of beings.
B) All humans are fundamentally violent beings, since nature is always poking us with an evolutionary stick in order to create a better human. If you feel that you are the most gentle and loving person on the planet, it doesn't take away the fact that in case of extreme danger, if not for you, for your family or most intimate friends, instincts will kick in and prevail. We can consider ourselves civilized and well-mannered only because we created a gigantic "buffer" (the society) that reduces the amount of stimuli leading to a violent reaction, be it for self-defense or plain survival.

TLR --> a human stranded in a fantastically large pool of similar beings will always tend to side with those whose subtle nuances he feels most reassuring. This will eventually create groups, and there will always be one whose ideas are in direct contrast with another group's ones.
Either that, or you go for an older (and succesfully tested!) trick: give people a Coliseum where they can get their violence fix, and they'll more likely be at peace. Leave them alone, and soon enough two opposing groups will come into contact and start beating each other's heads with clubs.
Peace is possible only if you can provide a way of venting the unavoidable frustration increasing in each human being, be it after human contact or plainly exhisting. Frustration/being unable to cope with increasing (and more threating, as it soon are perceived) differences leads to violence, and unless you can vent the frustration, you are going to grab that club.

[dercaderca]

Why does everyone keep insisting on this? It's not human nature. Even animals fight. It's just nature. Difference is that animals don't want to stop, whilst people can but aren't willing.

People are animals. People need to just accept this and quit trying to change what is.

[Very Tired]

"Long as there are two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead."

[Underverse]

People are animals. People need to just accept this and quit trying to change what is.

Bonobos don't fight, and resolve all conflicts sexually. So there are other options.

[Elegiac]

Competition is good, yes, but does not have to lead to violence. It's possible to have peaceful competition. Peaceful competition is in fact integral to human existence and a major drive of evolution

Rubbish. Human technological development has more often followed the sword than the ploughshare.

[Underverse]

I touched upon this in one my earlier posts

Are you talking about the biological engineering of emotions thing? Cuz I'm talking about social engineering

[Deleted]

Lots of negativity inhere.

I say yes, even tough progress is slow.
If we do not kill each other in the coming centuries then maybe eventually ...

[Underverse]

Rubbish. Human technological development has more often followed the sword than the ploughshare.

Yeah. But you realize that by saying this you acknowledge that it's possible for peaceful competition to exist. Unless you were to say:

"Human technological development has always followed the sword than the ploughshare."

[Speaknoevil]

I tell people how they are, as dictated by observation. Truth doesn't need a check, or a balance. If you want to change my mind, I'd love it. I relish change. These are not my opinions; my opinions are different from what I say. For example, I want a monogamous relationship. However, I can recognize that this is not an innate desire, and I can see the effects of its implementation on other social systems.

You can only express truth as you see it(psychology isn't as exact a science as you seem to think.) You also don't seem to recognize the combination of empathy and self awareness as grounds for any responsibility when it comes to right and wrong. Pieces of our psyche developed by evolution can be used differently than nature intended with higher(human, maybe dolphin) sentience.

[apepi]

I doubt it will ever happen. We're all too different to ever completely agree with each other.

I disagree, most of us I think want the same thing, it is those radical people that generally mess everything up.

[Elegiac]

Yeah. But you realize that by saying this you acknowledge that it's possible for peaceful competition to exist. Unless you were to say:

"Human technological development has always followed the sword than the ploughshare."

I'm saying that an either or scenario is undesirable.

[Tychus]

In theory? Yes. In practice? No. People are too sociopathic.

[draykorinee]

And again, if you think religion is the core root of all wars then you don't know history.

Are we talking about world piece here or are we talking about the root of all wars in history...dont go creating strawman arguments, I never claimed what you said. Asinine post making me reply pointlessly.

If you think Religion isn't a factor in world piece then you don't know history...strawman up in here.

[slime]

I would say yes possible. Will it actually ever happen, I'd say no barring some extreme change in situation on Earth.

This pretty much sums up my feelings on it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLjrD-oXkhA

[Underverse]

You can only express truth as you see it. You also don't seem to recognize the combination of empathy and self awareness as grounds for any responsibility when it comes to right and wrong. Pieces of our psyche developed by evolution can be used differently than nature intended with higher(human, maybe dolphin) sentience.

I feel like a twat trying to condense this idea into so few words, but whatever, you'll get what I'm saying.

Empathy can be triggered under different circumstances - its triggers can be changed. This should be self evident when one considers that two people who share an experience are more likely to express empathy for one another.

Higher sentience is like saying we're a higher form of biology. There is no higher or lower form; these are human descriptions. There is complexity and simplicity, but this is not correlated with perceived intelligence. An octopus, for example, has highly complex camouflage, but has no centralized nervous system.

But you're right to say that we can evade our nature if we want. Well, sort of. We can control the expression of our nature. But, organisms do best when filling the niche they evolved to fill. Thus approximating our nature will increase our fitness, both mentally and physically. So it would be prudent to follow the social conditions of our evolutionary niche.

---------- Post added 2013-05-26 at 03:54 PM ----------

I'm saying that an either or scenario is undesirable.

Peaceful competition is ok, no? We do it all the time. Raising kids. Going to work. Having sex. All forms of peaceful competition. And integral to being human/a living organism.

[Dezerte]

Are you talking about the biological engineering of emotions thing? Cuz I'm talking about social engineering

That was another idea, but not what I was talking about. I was talking about changing ourselves, and social engineering may be a way of doing that.

[Elegiac]

Peaceful competition is ok, no? We do it all the time. Raising kids. Going to work. Having sex. All forms of peaceful competition. And integral to being human/a living organism.

Stop being obtuse and actually read what I said.

[Underverse]

Stop being obtuse and actually read what I said.

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