TED Conversations

Arthanari Chandrasekaran

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

Instead of war, If we become friends won't it be of more benefit for either parties.

Why are we fighting with neighbors, neighboring states, or neighboring countries. Why wont people understand that becoming their friend will be of greater advantage than fighting.

What could be the reason people are so tempted to fight and get something when we can get more by becoming friends.

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • Jul 18 2012: Friendship, love and mutual respect would be benefitial. This is so obvious and hardly needs to be stated.

    But human nature will always have its negative parts. Greed, pride and selfishness makes peace a distant ideal. These negative attributes can not be removed by law.
    Some people will not just admit that they are wrong. Even if it is so obvious.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: I do think that it is in the nature of human to fight for some reasons especially on the basis of their believes like Jaun Elia once said that the people of literature or artist never killed another artist on the behalf of that the others painting is more beautiful or his philosophy is getting more repute but people who have believes (especially talking on religions) kill hundreds of people every day who belong to other school of thoughts. They are making the minds of ordinary people that if they do this job they will be directly in heaven without a pass.

    And I also think that countries all over the world must be kind to their neighbor ones especially Pakistan and India but somewhere there are our wrong foreign policies are involved like I always heard that you follow the policies of philosopher Chankaya (according to my little knowledge he was against the good neighbor relationships of states) our Govt. should also accept that now you are the superpower of Asia. so hoping a good relationships between us and all other neighboring countries of the world. cheers!
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2012: How do
    It might be better for all but then you would have to cut man out to make it work. Because someone has to be incharge the one wiith all the power and then there greed (never learned to share as a child) let's not forget the golden rule for men such as these do.it to others before they do.it to you (distrust) its what they were taught.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: Only if all resources and the use of it would be equally distributed and steady. At least this was a major condition...
  • Jul 18 2012: I wander if such an idea is possible with so many boundaries, like, with so many countries, cultures and governments the idea that we can all be friends, which would be based on us all having the same interests which we clearly don't, seems a little hopeless and naive. But that's not to say that it is impossible. It's just that while while seperate governments and countries exist people will only do what's in the interest of their own nation and that undoubtedly will clash with the interest of others. So maybe what we need for peace is a break down in barriers ans borders, and end to everything that makes an us and a them. But then if that is possible is it worth it?
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: Yes, I think so.
    War, however is more than just a consideration of friendship (or it would not continue - look to the Christmas cease fire in WW1 for an example of what is possible). It remains a weapon for economic superiority. Many politicans and economists seem to think it is quite OK to start a war to take their economy out of the toilet of their own making. Lets hope that the next generations to power know that and forebid it.
  • thumb
    Jul 18 2012: The problem comes from the those who benefit from conflict, what is not observed for whatever reason is that conflict is caused, it does not just happen, and the instigator is neither one of the waring parties. An example is in the move Seriana where the war benefited the defense contractors. In the case of WW2 there were quite a few money people and others such as Prescott Bush who benefited by the war. Or the Rothschild s benefited by lending money to France and Prussia to fight with and against Napoleon.