TED Conversations

Mikey Lee

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

World peace is unattainable - and to think otherwise is naive

Is it just me, or does anyone else cringe whenever someone talks about "world peace"?

It always reminds me of a beauty pageant where the contestants naively wish for "world peace", without much thought into how, or even why?

What exactly does "world peace" mean? No wars, no fighting, no conflict at all, whatsoever? Everybody loves each other, and accepts each other?

As long as personal conflict exists, there will never be world peace. Wars are built from the ground up. Fighting over scarce resources, territory, food, mate (husband/wife) is inevitable.

Discuss.

Topics: World Peace conflict nirvana war
0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb

    Ken Gettys

    • 0
    Jul 9 2012: World Peace is possible however only if there is World Law (World Police Force, World Courts, etc) and that means a collective world communtiy rather than souvenir nation states. Like the 13 colonies of Great Britian, those colonies became the collective nation called the United States of America. Now the individual states of the United States do not war against one another because there are laws and law enforcement in the form of a national army. The United People of Earth would have a World Peace Force too. This would not end all volence just wars between nations and ethnic groups. So think and act outside of the box (fences, great walls, and national boundries too)!

    • Mark Meijer 100+

      • +1
      HostAssociate
      Jul 10 2012: So you propose to end wars between nations by just doing away with nations? Gosh, if only people knew how simple it is! You should file for a patent or something ;).

      Or you could run for world Ceasar, erm... president.

      Wait, hasn't this been tried before?
      • thumb

        Ken Gettys

        • 0
        Jul 10 2012: Nothing in my reply stated anything about doing away with nations. What I did site was the example of 13 colonies in the Americas gathering together into making the United States Of America. These 13 colonies still exist and were join by 37 states. Isn't it time we evolved into thinking beyond the (boxes, fences, walls, and) boundaries we call nations? We are all on this planet together and we do have the intelligence to build a world better for all!Of course not a Caesar however a panel of scientists, including social scientists, would probably be better able to make decisions for the best of everyone. We do not have to do what has been tried before nor keep on doing what doesn’t work!

        • Mark Meijer 100+

          • 0
          HostAssociate
          Jul 10 2012: Believe it or not but I wasn't arguing in favor of nation states. I agree we might consider trying something different, but what you're suggesting doesn't sound like anything different at all. Did you know the Roman Empire was a Roman Republic before that?

          The formation of the United States wasn't to unite any states, but to deny British rule. And smack in the middle between then and now, there was the civil war because some wanted to deny U.S. federal rule also. Now again individual states are looking for less influence from federal government in favor of more self rule.

          And that's just your finest example of attempts at unification. History is replete with examples of such attempts, which are probably among the pitch darkest pages in it. Nation states are themselves attempts at unification. So yes, let's try something new. Maybe some hints can be found in here (although this is actually a rediscovery of the oldest principle in the universe):

          http://www.ted.com/talks/don_tapscott_four_principles_for_the_open_world_1.html?c=491024

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.