English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

i just need more logic instead of saying the world would be at peace

2006-10-29 08:27:28 · 12 answers · asked by Apocalyptic 2 in Arts & Humanities Philosophy

12 answers

But that's all there is: if there is no war, there is peace.

2006-10-29 09:11:18 · answer #1 · answered by Richard E 4 · 0 0

Here are my ideas about what could have happened

If the people in the world wars would not have died:
- we could have a new leonardo da vinci
-a cure for cancer could have been found by a med solider
-we as countries could have learned to nogoseate peacefully
-moms and dads would not have lost only children and been sad
-we could have cars fueled with something other than gas by an inventor who died
-some musician died and he could have been the next Morsart

Children of the world would not know hunger, pain suffering, lose of parent, and learn to hate others not like themselves

Children of the world would have been blessed to be raised in peace and harmony

2006-10-29 16:40:33 · answer #2 · answered by Wicked 7 · 0 0

The intractable dilemmas that nations get into could not be resolved for any period of time. A classic example of this is Saar Region between France and Germany. It took many wars, two of which we world wars to finally resolve the ownership of the region. It was finally given to France. It now looks like it may become a moot point on several levels for the foreseeable future.

2006-10-29 16:40:32 · answer #3 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0 0

First of all Bush would be out of a job....., but without war, there would be no control..ironic as it sounds war is the way the world gets what it needs and for the people to get what they need. Eventually, chaos would bring one about because people would revolt. In the event that there was no war...the world might just be worse than it is now...

2006-10-29 16:38:03 · answer #4 · answered by chelleighlee 4 · 1 0

Conflicts would arise, of course. But in a world where war was not an option, only dialog would be left. So conflicts would be talked through and negotiated instead of fought over physically. This method, of course, is a lot more consistent with the idea of human dignity.

2006-10-29 16:34:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

What war is? if you mean what is happening in Iraq or such, well, this is just the outcome.
Whats wrong with peace by the way? It would be a sing that humanity has got somewhere, and finally got over all the animal instincts.

2006-10-29 16:51:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Humans would grow complacent and stop developing somewhere in the stone age. By 20th century 20 to 30 thousand humans still drag out their existence in the middle of Africa by hunting and gathering with stone tools.

2006-10-29 22:25:29 · answer #7 · answered by hq3 6 · 0 0

Logically, no war means there's harmony, oneness.
Naturally, people can't be one because of our different beliefs.
Eventually, having no war is close to imposibility.

2006-10-29 16:58:53 · answer #8 · answered by Ann 4 · 0 0

We could become the prey of the predators and parasites among us. There are worse things than war. Dishonor, slavery, rape and arbitrarily conduced death; for a few examples.

2006-10-29 17:31:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If there was no war then we would not be humans. Humans disagree, Humans with higher authority start wars when they disagree

2006-10-29 16:35:11 · answer #10 · answered by gopistons 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers