How to end wars all over the world and prevail peace instead?

Question

Why all such inestability all around the world ?
Why don't people and nations live in peace and raise money of wars for charity and the welfare of humanity instead of all such havoc and terror?

Answer 1

ONE word is responsible for all wars my friend. SIN! No one is ever 100% right or 100% wrong( although Hitler was close)
War is one of those nasty human inventions used to spread an idea or take what others have. The only modern day country to ever win a war and not take the lands as a territory is the United States. And we,ve done it on several occasions. No war is a great idea. The only thing that will stop war is a world wide interest in each other. Free Trade is doing that, but there are still some areas of the world that don't like that way of thinking and they resist, through threats, terrorist craziness and war. Man will always war until Gods will is done. Very complicated and we as humans will never understand totally. Keep reading, keep loving and follow the Golden rule that's the only thing you have control over. if more people follow the golden rule, the more hope we have.

Answer 2

Well, there is only one way to end all wars and establish peace. Seek out the what causes wars. 1. Money, 2. Power, 3. Religion, and 4. Land. Those are the four main reasons that wars start. Well, let's see what we would have to do to stop all this: Establish one religion, give every country and equal part of land, establish a communist-like world order where everybody in every country has an equal amount of money and power. Although, that's just saying it. It will, would, and hasn't ever in time worked. And it can't work. Because of the facts that people are "politically correct", smart ellics, and they just don't have common sense. Well, I hope that this answered you question.

Answer 3

Peace does not exist "in vain" there will always be conflicts there will always be man made death it is inevitable humans can't live in equality with all others like them it is impossible even if the "nicest , kindest most warm hearted person" would have at least one person he hates even if he hasn't even met him Peace on earth is considered as a fictional story or a mirh there will never be peace...until life ends that is...

Answer 4

Theoretically conversing, the 1st international conflict led to 1918 and the 2nd international conflict started out in 1939. although you may argue that the 1st international conflict by no ability relatively ended. It purely simmer down somewhat. It replaced into probable the top-rated reason of international conflict 2. as a results of unreasonable Treaty of Versailles that Germany replaced into compelled to signed after it surrendered in 1918, the German u . s . replaced into as stable as bankrupt. Political instability paved way for communism (or better conventional as Marxism decrease back then) to infiltrate the rustic's politics and replaced into at as quickly as gaining attractiveness. Adolf Hitler who replaced right into a soldier during international conflict a million accepted the Nazi occasion. An excerpt from Wikipedia suggested: "To rescue Germany from the end results of the great melancholy, Nazism promoted an financial third place; a controlled financial equipment that replaced into neither capitalist nor communist." as a manner to entice fellow Germans to the Nazi occasion, Adolf Hitler necessary a elementary floor hence the have faith that Germans are decendants of the grasp race replaced into manifested. From right here on, Nazi occasion have been given very usually happening and Adolf Hitler replaced into named Chancellor. genuinely everyone is familiar with what exceeded off next. So, who's to assert that international conflict a million relatively led to 1918? For all all of us comprehend, it replaced into the reason for international conflict 2. in short, if the Treaty of Versailles replaced into no longer imposed on Germany, the rustic would not be in one in each and every of those undesirable shape as to ask Communism in. Adolf Hitler would not be required to establish the Nazi occasion and there could be no 2nd international conflict.

Answer 5

Well, you see, it all started when Kane killed his brother Abel. Ever since then, there have been near-constant fighting and wars all over the globe at one time for another.

When will all wars end? Well, it's always worth a try, but I frankly think it never will.

Answer 6

Wish your idea was possible but it would never happen. Greed will prevail in all situations. The biggest problem is that there are too many people making decisions for everyone else.

Answer 7

Because the drive for success is inherent to the human condition. For as long as one man stands in the way of another (purposely or inadvertently), conflict will exist.

Answer 8

Not too long ago, just in passing, my friend pointed me to a famous case in game theory called The Prisoner’s Dilemma.

Now we need to really understand this, because if we do I think many of our present troubles will become clear.

Here’s how Wikipedia presents the case:

Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both stay silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a two-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act? The dilemma can be summarized thus:

Prisoner B Stays Silent Prisoner B Betrays
Prisoner A Stays Silent Each serves six months Prisoner A serves ten years
Prisoner B goes free
Prisoner A Betrays Prisoner A goes free
Prisoner B serves ten years Each serves two years

In deciding what to do in strategic situations, it is normally important to predict what others will do. This is not the case here. If you knew the other prisoner would stay silent, your best move is to betray as you then walk free instead of receiving the minor sentence. If you knew the other prisoner would betray, your best move is still to betray, as you receive a lesser sentence than by silence. Betraying is a dominant strategy. The other prisoner reasons similarly, and therefore also chooses to betray. Yet by both betraying they get a lower payoff than they would get by staying silent. So rational, self-interested play results in each prisoner being worse off than if they had stayed silent.

Okay, we can simplify this:

If I screw you, but you don’t screw me, I win very big and you lose very big.
If you screw me and I don’t screw you, I lose very big and you win very big.
If neither screws each other, we both suffer mild punishment.
If we both screw each other, we both suffer medium punishment.
The Prisoner’s Dilemma, therefore, is an analogy we use to test the results of how people treat each other.

Now, if this game is played one time, the winning strategy invariably is to Screw the Other Guy. If he doesn’t screw you, you get off free. If he does, you serve two years. But if you didn’t, and he decided to screw you – ten years. No one wants to risk that. Screw the Other Guy is the only smart position, and when the game is run thousands of times on computers it comes out the very clear winner.

But! What happens if the game is played again and again, against the same person? Does Screw the Other Guy continue to be the best strategy?

It does not!

The best strategy for a repeating game (called the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma) is not Screw The Other Guy, and -- surprisingly at first glance -- it’s not Always Cooperate With The Other Guy, either.

The winning strategy is Tit-for-Tat. That is, you do to the guy what he did to you last turn. If he cooperated, you cooperate. If he screwed you, you screw him back. Over thousands and millions of computer runs, using every strategy from complete aggression to complete forgiveness, Tit-for-Tat “wins” every time – that is, it results in the least jail time for you.

Robert Axelrod examined this outcome in a book called The Evolution of Co-operation. (That word ‘evolution’ having great power in this context, as we will see in a second.)

Wikipedia again:

By analysing the top-scoring strategies, Axelrod stated several conditions necessary for a strategy to be successful.

NICE

The most important condition is that the strategy must be "nice", that is, it will not betray [Screw the Other Guy] before its opponent does. Almost all of the top-scoring strategies were nice. Therefore a purely selfish strategy for purely selfish reasons will never hit its opponent first.


RETALIATING

However, Axelrod contended, the successful strategy must not be a blind optimist. It must always retaliate. An example of a non-retaliating strategy is Always Cooperate. This is a very bad choice, as "nasty" strategies will ruthlessly exploit such softies.


FORGIVING

Another quality of successful strategies is that they must be forgiving. Though they will retaliate, they will once again fall back to cooperating if the opponent does not continue to play betrayals. This stops long runs of revenge and counter-revenge, maximizing points.


NON-ENVIOUS

The last quality is being non-envious, that is not striving to score more than the opponent (impossible for a ‘nice’ strategy, i.e., a 'nice' strategy can never score more than the opponent). Therefore, Axelrod reached the Utopian-sounding conclusion that selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious. [And, they will hit back when they are hit first, and keep hitting back until the opponent stops Screwing the other Guy; upon which they will revert to cooperation.]


One of the most important conclusions of Axelrod's study of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is that Nice guys can finish first.

Now things get really interesting. In The Prisoner’s Dilemma, these behaviors are expressed as choices made by individuals. But now substitute entire cultures, where the cultural norm is made up of these choices, and what do you see?

You find the easy, knee-jerk reaction is to form a society where everyone tries to screw everyone else. It’s the short-term approach, and it makes sense in the short term. Presumably all robbers and cheats want to maintain short-term relationships with their victims. If they had to meet them again (if the game was iterated) this strategy would be, shall we say, somewhat less successful and the victims would begin to Hit Back.

When I look out into the Third World, this is what I see: short-term strategies for immediate gain at the cost of long-term success. A swarm of trinket vendors on a beach in Mexico all need to make an immediate sale in order to eat that day, even if the cost is being so annoying and frustrating to the tourists that it prevents them from ever returning. Short term gain, long term loss.

I make no value judgement on that behavior, because it works on some level or it would not be so prevalent. In societies where short term values trump long-term ones, it is easy, safe and stable to Screw the Other Guy. But in the long-term, nothing of consequence grows, because nice, forgiving and non-envious are advanced strategies that require a topsoil of general goodwill, trust, and respect for the rule of law.

Societies that embrace these qualities will always out-compete those that don’t.

Answer 9

Because human greed trumps all else.

Unless you want to get into the scary idea of a one world government

Answer 10

there is no good answer to this question. Some people are born evil (sociopaths), and some people are made evil (the abused), and they will always have a voice in the world.