World Peace

To me it is incomphrensible that we, as humanity, have not figured out a way to stop killing eachother.

Is world peace desirable?
How would you go about attempting to acheive it?
What problems would your system create?


I'll go first.

Yes, world peace is desirable. My system would be as such :

The creation of a group of nations (called the U.N. here) which has two policies. You must be a democracy with a bill of rights to join and any member state has the freedom to be safe from any hostility.

The bill of rights would include :
Universal suffrage
Fair trials
Freedom of speech
etc.

On application to join the U.N. will enter the country militarily and hold a referendum on whether the country wishes to join. If it does, the U.N. will then hold internal elections and add the nation to it's military alliance.

All armies from these nations will not be seconded but rather firsted to the U.N.

Of course this is just a rough frame work, but that is how I would do it.

How would you?

One of the ideas behind the U.N., IIRC, was to bring nations together that weren’t in agreement about anything. That included the non-democratic countries. Your exclusion of these people doesn’t sound good. I’m not arguing that having these countries in the U.N. gains anything as things stand now. But, like LBJ said, “I’d rather have a snake inside my tent and pissin’ out, than outside my tent and pissin’ in.”

Your bill of rights, or the U.S. BOR, is acceptable to most nations. Not, however, to all. How can you force, for instance, Iran or China to agree what constitutes a fair trial? Or freedom of speech? Universal suffrage is admirable, but a country has to first believe in the equality of men and women.

The U.N. does not have an army, per se. If the referendums you suggest are to be held, each country must do that on their own. And doing so because you’re holding guns to their heads doesn’t sound like a good idea.

No country is going to give up control of their military. Period. Membership in the U.N., no matter how you construct it, is going to guarantee, to Country A’s satisfaction, safety from attack by Country B. Fact of life.

To bring about world peace, the attitudes of everyone on the planet has to change. Acceptance, tolerance, education, etc., etc., etc., are ideals. Not facts of life. And not embraced by everyone. Hell, the definitions aren’t even universal.

I tend to be cynical/skeptical. I like to think I’m also pragmatic. And pragmatically speaking, wonderful idea, not humanly possible.

[Darryl_P]

As long as there are significant numbers of humans who see other humans as the major stumbling block to achieving freedom, nobility, and dignity, there will not be peace. It doesn't matter what system you set up IMO.

[theweatherman]

World peacde cannot be obtained as long as there are well defined nation states. Inherrent nationalism will prevent the kind of cooperation needed to create a world peace type senario. If nationalism was to fall, as it seems to be doing in Europe then unification is possible. But as long as I see myself as an american and the chinese as chinese there is a barrier to total cooperation.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

To me it is incomphrensible that we, as humanity, have not figured out a way to stop killing eachother.

Not to get all anthropological on you, but -

We have teeth for eating meat and the digestive system to support eating meat. That means we're by nature at least somewhat predatory.

Predators have aggressive tendencies.

The concept of human rights is really a very, very new idea (on a geologic scale).

Overcoming certain forces that are basic to our nature is by definition difficult.

"World Peace" may not be a pipe dream, but it's a massive undertaking. people fight over resources. How do you keep people from fighting over resources without coercing them?

I suggest you don't really understand the depth of the problem or even if it is a problem. I know I'm going to get flak because of my screen name for this, but if we human are warriors by nature why is peace a good thing?

The only part of your response that I can't answer / don't agree with is the last one.

Why is peace a good thing? Because it leads to more resources for everyone and less suffering and death.

[jt1]

I see two major barriers preventing world peace this century. A) Immigration B) Nationalism

A) Freedom of movement is necessary to create a universal middle class. A large middle class seems to be a prerequisite for stability. Most of the worlds middle class, right now, live in 3'rd world dictatorships or struggling democracies. These peoples governments are either too weak, too corrupt, or just to evil to influence world events. So right now it is only the worlds upper class that is deciding the worlds direction. Upper classes tend to be callous, arrogant, and zenophobic. BTW, middle class is defined as a formal schooling from early youth to middle adolescent or later, and steady enough employment to secure 2-3 meals a day while sending children to school.

B) Nationalism prevents open immigration and the development of a united military for coercing corrupt governments into compliance. Compliance, for starters, means free and fair elections, an open media, and an open market.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
if we human are warriors by nature why is peace a good thing?


[/ QUOTE ]


You can still be a warrior and live in a peaceful society. Ask Allen Iverson, Steve McNair, and any & every enforcer in Hockey. For that matter, you can also ask Martha Stewart and Richard Nixon. (Well not Dick, he's wiretapping Jesus right about now) The strongest and most crafty warriors will still get the best and most mates, the most food, the best medicine, the most deference, the best security, etc.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
World peacde cannot be obtained as long as there are well defined nation states.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. However, you're mistaken if you think moving towards a huge, monolithic, world-spanning government is the answer. Go in the opposite direction.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
but if we human are warriors by nature why is peace a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think we are (primarily) warriors by nature. However, even if that is the case, peace is still a good thing because war consumes an enormous amount of resources and produces very little gain (as can be seen today in Iraq). War is -EV (some particular individuals might gain, of course).