There is only one way to achieve peace.. that is in family, in neighbourhood, inside the country and worldwide.. Every single human have to be strong enough in itself to not only know and accept its own inner self, and stand for it, but also to accept the same thing in everyone else. Every human also have to accept the meaning of "what i need in opposit to what i want." And when working to receive it, not step down others. If everyone got this way of thinking and behave, it would be enough for all of us on this earth..and we would be able to compromise in a way that makes the best for all. It all have to start on the personal level.. with what we teach our kids, and how we relate to the nearest around us. How could it be otherwise? From there everything will expand to next level..friends, community, and worldwide. But im sad to say that i dont think its achieved in the near future... We are just too stupid all of us..... and too coward to be honest about what we all need the most.. It shouldnt be this difficult.

---

There is only one way to achieve peace.. that is in family, in neighbourhood, inside the country and worldwide.. Every single human have to be strong enough in itself to not only know and accept its own inner self, and stand for it, but also to accept the same thing in everyone else. Every human also have to accept the meaning of "what i need in opposit to what i want." And when working to receive it, not step down others. If everyone got this way of thinking and behave, it would be enough for all of us on this earth..and we would be able to compromise in a way that makes the best for all. It all have to start on the personal level.. with what we teach our kids, and how we relate to the nearest around us. How could it be otherwise? From there everything will expand to next level..friends, community, and worldwide. But im sad to say that i dont think its achieved in the near future... We are just too stupid all of us..... and too coward to be honest about what we all need the most.. It shouldnt be this difficult.

Ture Arizona.

That, unfortunately, is the nature of homo sapiens. Supposedly intelligent, but, in practice, inherently stupid.

If all practiced altruism, then progress may be made.

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Conflict is human nature... We all have different beliefs that we are willing to fight for. In order to have world peace we will all need to be the same which will not and cannot happen. We are all different so peace will never happen.

~BoB

---

Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957
Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957

Conflict is human nature... We all have different beliefs that we are willing to fight for. In order to have world peace we will all need to be the same which will not and cannot happen. We are all different so peace will never happen.

~BoB

But why do we have these beliefs that we fight for where did that all come from? From people who want to control us? In religion or government? Isn't that the problem - those that instill this fight into people, rather that people being what they are when they were born - peaceful.

---

flaming balloons

In other words, place several peaceful infants into one play pen, and sooner or later all hell will break loose...Darwinism.

---

Account frozen...

So is that what wars are about. To impose peace?

---

flaming balloons

So is that what wars are about. To impose peace?

Wars and skirmishes are about anything. Such as land grabs for example.

But they don't try to achieve peace?

---

flaming balloons

wars only start out of either greed, or false pride (or both). So let false pride and greed get out of the heads of all humans, and there will be no more war anymore :P

---

Account frozen...

So is that what wars are about. To impose peace?

Wars and skirmishes are about anything. Such as land grabs for example.

I'm going to be really cheeky.. Sorry :o)


Darwin = People fight
Freud = People fight
Marx = People fight
Hitler = People fight
Nietche = People fight
Adam Smith = People fight


Does anyone notice the similarity between these historic people?

It's not that they all argued that people fight but that they are all from the same tradition however differently they argued their ideas.

They are all people who were born or effected by the imperialist notions of categorization, structuralism and linear control.

They are all saps to some overbearing belief in a heritage that stretches back to Plato...


Oh and all of them are dead.


I am happy to listen to early thinkers but they died and the world they told us they were trying to make better ended up in several world wars.

Not really a good resume hey!



I don't think it is the nature of individual humans to be aggressive.

I don't think it is the nature of communities to hate.

I think by and large humans are neither good nor bad but by nature always move towards creation within their own societies.


Most humans move towards the good although at times there are elements that pervert their path.

Humans are still here after thousands upon thousands of years regardless off all the evil and bad things we have been told about them (us.)


Peace in our time is possible. Its just not likely.

Not because the majority of people are evil or agresssive but because we still haven't ensured the well being of all our fellow people and people without security will always fight and will sadly listen to those who promise something they may never deliver.


Maybe those who suggest that humans are naturally aggressive should ask themselves if they too are naturally aggressive and whether their own perception of humans is aggressive per-se.

Kind of makes a self-fulfilling arguement.



I have no clue how to encourage world peace but may be there is a different approach other than believing we as humans are incapable.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

SNIPs my stuff..

My fiancee got a good laugh at you (maybe) calling me a naturally aggressive. :)

All I know is that in the past 200,000 or so years a peaceful solution has not came forth. And things are getting worse overall IMO. I think that speaks volumes. Blame it on religion, government, greed, and/or false pride but that is what humans have chosen for themselves.

I still stand on my viewpoint that humans (as a whole) are incapable of world peace. If anything, you could call it pessimism on my part. Now excuse me while I go outside and kick my dog and flip the neighbors the bird for daring to park in front of my house. :)

I'm not suggesting humans do not have an aggressive element in them.

The reality of us exists in your own life.

Do you think you are a more aggressive person or a more co-operative person?


If you a more aggressive and less co-operative person I doubt you would even be a member of this forum..

SETI exists and if we think humans are more aggressive than peaceful it stands to reason you believe that SETI is a product of human aggressive and destructive tendencies.


As to the arguement that we haven't yet achieved world peace after 200,000 years.. Well do you really expect people in mud huts to be able share the concept of world peace without the technology?

What you are missing is that over those 200,000 years there has been more peace than war.

It's only now that we have the technology and ecconomic power to make a difference world wide.

It's not really fair to ask cave men and women to make world peace using a few drums and bones...


Of course if you want to believe your basic human essence is aggressive or violent who can stop you.

No doubt humans who feel they have no other choice but to be aggressive will never have peace.


Problem for me is that almost everyone who proclaims humans to be bad invariably are talking about someone else.


But if people here think their own essential nature is bad then I guess they agree with the bible which says people are born in sin.


To some degree that is a comfortable place to be.

People who think they are bad from the start never have to try as they will always assume failure to start with.

Hence for those who think humans will always fail then any attempt at world peace will also fail.



As humans we are certainly volatile and often difficult.

I'm not sure that is the same as aggressive or fatal.

....
It's only now that we have the technology and ecconomic power to make a difference world wide.

Ok, going with that... so since we started on this technological age, how has the state of the world been the last 100 years? Acceleratingly toward more and more war. One can read the newspaper or watch the evening news as to how peaceful we are becoming.

We also live longer, feed far more people than have ever existed on this planet before, have the ability for far more people to communicate and have saved more lives with medicine in the past 50 years than were ever saved in the whole of human history prior to our technological age.

No doubt bigger weapons mean more deaths but having a big weapon does not make someone more aggressive. It just makes their single action more devastating.

Of course if you want to believe your basic human essence is aggressive or violent who can stop you.

Ok let's review what I stated earlier: "I believe the "fight" is an inherent human trait. Take away religion, remove government, disallow any other controls and yet another human (not all necessarily but some) will gladly take a stick and bash another's head in (or use the larger cc brain power to effect a more subtle means) for personal gain."

Survival of the fittest. I would sum it up as "drive". I'm not going to quibble about what I plainly stated. Did you notice the "subtle means" bit? Why are you zeroing on the violent aspect? I was using it as an example.

You are free to interpret it how you wish. People inevitable read into things what they care to see.

People do have drives. People do want what suits them best.

If peace suited them best then the drive arguement suggests we would have peace tomorrow.


If I zeroed in on the 'violent' aspect it is because the thread is about achieving 'peace' and violence is the antipathy of peace.


I guess I am argueing a different underlying concept of human drives.

I know I will be on my own arguing this given we have had millenia being told and believing that we can never achieve peace because of our supposed essential competitive or fighting nature.


I don't believe we will ever achieve total peace but I do believe we could achieve something close to it.


Though often peace costs and we need to be willing to pay the price.