Some people think love makes the world go around and that is something an individual alone can be responsible for. Some people think that distribution of wealth would bring more peace and that is something the governement would be responsible for. Should we strive for both? Does anyone really care anymore?
2006-10-13 08:12:49 · 8 answers · asked by Milo's Mom 1 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
I still care.
Along with my rose-tinted glasses I take them off & put on the Reality check gauge.
Greed & the pursuit of Money does seem 2 motivate the world now, praps a bit 2 much.
But no matter where U live in the world nothing comes 4 free.
Water costs money.
Food costs money.
& if U want 2 breathe fresh air, U could end up having 2 pay 4 that 2.
Distribution of wealth would B a start but UR 4getting about Religion.
That's our down-fall 2day.
2 many gods & not enough practicing what those Gods preach.
2006-10-13 08:20:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Conflicts and war happen when different people have different ideas, goals, and objectives. If you want to eliminate war, and in effect create peace and harmony by default, you have to ban individual ideas and thought. George Orwell's "1984" was all about that. You would need to have the "Thought Police" to control what people think, and you would need television cameras in all their rooms to watch everything they did and everything they said. In short, you would need to strive to make everyone just like everybody else, a homogeneous society with no free thinking or new ideas. if you could do this you could eliminate conflict because there would be no basis for conflict. Human nature being what it is, some would undoubtedly question the status quo, and that is exactly what happened in "1984". Karl Marx thought equal distribution of wealth was the answer; time and events proved him wrong, again, he did not consider the vagaries of human nature. Because all people are not all alike there can never be peace, there will always be struggle and conflict and war.
This is also why there are divorces. If just two people cannot get along, what about the whole of humanity? Can you imagine infinitely more problematic that would be?
2006-10-13 16:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by Kokopelli 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Redistribution of wealth is socialism, which is, for all the good press the liberals give it, completely antithetical to peace; just look at the experience in the late, unlamented Soviet Union, or in Cuba or China. Peace is spread through love and kindness towards others, by understanding and tolerance, and by following the word of Jesus Christ; you don't need government action for that.
2006-10-18 18:19:44 · answer #3 · answered by nacmanpriscasellers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Targeted assassinations in Tehran and Pyongyang. Either an individual or a government can be responsible.
2006-10-13 15:50:14 · answer #4 · answered by Einmann 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1 FREE TRADE - Countries that engage in free trade NEVER go to war.
2 Distribution of wealth is poppycock. That would require big strong centralized governments. Nothing has created more destruction and carnage in the history of this planet that big centralized governments. That only results in people being equally poor and completely unpeaceful.
3 FREE TRADE
4 FREE TRADE
2006-10-13 15:27:51 · answer #5 · answered by Zak 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Each person has to committed to it. It would definately not be from the governments, they just want to rule the world
2006-10-13 15:20:46 · answer #6 · answered by littleblondemohawk 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
play john lenon's-dreamer world wide
2006-10-13 15:14:46 · answer #7 · answered by eddie k 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
be peaceful and peace will surround you..........the answer is in you.
and oh, I still care.. regardless if other people do or don't
2006-10-13 15:14:54 · answer #8 · answered by stumped 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋