I think the factor contributing most to our lack of world peace is exemplified in the posts thus far: a fundamentally negative view of human nature.
Perhaps that negative view stems from Abrahamic religious tradition, as well as, the misunderstanding, misuse, and abuse of Darwin's theories. We are taught from birth about human frailty, about sin and redemption, and competition, and a host of other things that imply that we are inherently bad, selfish, awful beings who will do whatever it takes to meet our own needs and, moreover, there is nothing within our power we could do in order to behave otherwise.
I disagree, STRONGLY. Inasmuch as we have the capacity to perpetrate great evil, we also have an equal capacity to act in and on behalf of a greater good - that we have a concept of "greater good," I think speaks volumes in itself. "Being good" simply requires discipline and attention, two traits Americans in particular seem to have lost, especially when it comes to humanitarian endeavors. We are perhaps the worst offenders in terms of the soil of sin paired with a penchant for instant sensory gratification. And don't give me any crap about how the US gives blah-blah-blah in humanitarian aid to third world countries. That's not true, and I'll argue a strong case. Try me.
The other factor that contributes to the state of the world right now is that most Westerners (US citizens, in particular) have forgotten that our identity and our success, especially now, is intimately tied to the failures, poverty and death, in other parts of the world. No one cares about pathetic third world peasants because they are far away, we don't see them, we don't connect their misery to our contentment. And if we do, the reigning mentality is, "better them than me." Unh-uh. Their misery IS our misery... and if we don't feel it now, we will someday, and for the rest of our lives.
The first thing that has to happen in order for world peace to ever be a possibility is coming to the following realization:
"... we are all swimming in the same water..." (Aristide, p. 50)
We are all infinitely more connected than most people, especially in the U.S, acknowledge. Co-identification must be encouraged and realized. "You and I together, fingers of the same hand, are called to build a more human world in this new century... so the hand may be strong and whole." (Aristide, p. 80) Co-identification and acknowledging interdependence does not mean homogeneity, either. Far from. Identifying with all of creation does not preclude autonomy or sovereignty of nations of peoples. There are people in this world not even regarded as people, as humans. They are considered lower than dogs. None of us can really be free, we will never be a peaceful world, if we do not recognize the full humanity of every single person on the planet!
Insofar as we are fragmented communally, we are fragmented internally (and vice versa). As I've said in so many of these silly answers I leave on this website, we MUST reconnect with our own humanity; (only) then can we connect with others, next door and the world over, through our mutual humanity. Our humanity is the one thing that unites us all, and it also bestows upon us a great responsibility. It's high time more people took notice and stood up.
"Beyond class, beyond color is the human being." Aristide, p. 72
2007-03-18 12:00:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
There is no such thing as peace. For there to be peace, there has to be equality, and humans are born with an ego. Now, for those of us who claim all egos are bad, then you need to re-evaluate your thoughts because without the ego we wouldn't build or fly or sing or do anything to benefit our society. To be equal, we havfe to think the same of everyone, but we cannot becuase the ego can also form a feeling of superiority. We cannot resolve this, becuase without this, there would be no individual, so.......there is no such thing as peace. Look at a volcano:destroyer and creater, the same for wars and inequality. We would like peace, but once you evaluate what would happen, we can only strive for it. What would we have left? After peace, is nothing, and then the human would collapse. where would life be? Where would debates be? with peace, we wouldn't question the bible, or strive for betterness in life or artistic fields. We wouldn't live the fundamental life of a human, we would be animals, and we would be bored, becuase there wouldn't be anything to live for. That is why we can't have peace, and why we shouldn't.
2007-03-18 17:32:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Evan 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
There are a lot of people who want to do harm to others. There are many reasons for that; emotional reasons, chemical reasons, sexual reasons, etc. The person has needs, and that person will feed them no matter what. The evidence supporting this idea is all around us. As long as these people exist we will need to fight in order to beat these evils back. To put them away in prisons and graves. In order to make a safer future. No law can stop the human need for evil, it will always find a way around rules. The only way is to make a stand and fight back. World peace would be nothing but a playground for the evil inside the human race.
2007-03-18 17:52:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dred 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
We need to start educating children from a very young age on how to understand, tolerate, and get along with different kinds of people with different kinds of culture and beliefs. Currently we tend to teach our children to be overly patriotic, ethnocentric, nationalistic, and culturally ignorant. Children grow up thinking that their country, religion, race, gender, or culture is better than all other cultures, and the anyone who is different is inferior. This is unhealthy, illogical, and foolish. It is the cause of war and poverty. The day we learn to accept one another for how different we are, instead of scorning those who are different, is the day we'll find a little bit of peace. But it starts with the children. They are the only ones "wise" enough to learn this important concept. Once you're an ignorant, racist idiot... it is usually too late to change.
2007-03-18 17:28:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. Taco 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
All we can ever obtain is a state of relative peace. Our aims and purposes are at such odds with one another that they are mutually exclusive. One or the other must triumph and it would be such a dire weeding out process that none would likely survive. But one thing would result from it, homogeneity. And that is the real secret to peace.
2007-03-18 17:37:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Sophist 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Human beings are inherently flawed by design!
Its not possible for world peace to exist. Nor even country by country, nor by household to household... Simply not possible.
Everyone is unique and different and percieve every aspect of life differently from one to the next.... NOT possible!
2007-03-18 18:36:10
·
answer #6
·
answered by Izen G 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
first, everyone not pay taxes. no body. i think if we toppled the government, that would be the first step...then legalize drugs....
2007-03-18 17:23:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by dr.macgruder 4
·
0⤊
2⤋