This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Your Idea: A Weapon that creates Peace
Let's face it; War is a business.
How, then, do we create a product of war, that doesn't hurt, maim, or kill, but rather does the opposite and heals, prevents, and stops conflict that a corporate company can patent and therefore make money from, keeping not only innocent people from being harmed, but also feeds the corporate companies' bottom line of keeping investors happy?!?
The idea is simple in effect, and promotes peace whilst still increasing worth.
I just have little idea on what the war product could be, so I'm crowd-sourcing from you, fellow TEDsters, to help build the perfect weapon: A weapon of peace.
Should it be just one weapon of peace, or, just as there are many weapons of war, perhaps there should be multiple weapons of peace that can each be patented by the companies listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufacturers and allow such companies to make money from peace?
as always, I'm awaiting your thoughts.....
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Raul De Maio
Now this means a lot of thing. I distinguish two possibilities: fear of someone and afraid of something.
Either bring peace in a certain area only if they are an enemy / danger in this area and , in my opinion, only for a short period of time because react is our nature.
(when i was child, I thought that playing cards could be a good way to resolve conflicts. I was a child but now i don't think this idea so stupid, naive, probably.)
However it's an interesting problem (i studied war of 900th from the economic point of view as last exam of high school) and I suggest you to read 1984 (probably you've already done) and watch
griffin tucker 10+
living in fear would be considered comparable to the 'fragmentation' phase of war, and although a method of control, has disastrous impacts on the credibility of governments that take upon means of labeling an individual or group 'terrorist' of whom is simply an enemy of the government, but the government is not an enemy of the individual or group.
the general public shouldn't fear the government - ideally, the government should fear the general public. in this way the government is held accountable for it's actions, and allows for change in the government where change is due, instead of what i would refer to as political 'power-trippers' who don't want change, but instead want more power, or their existing power to last longer.
i've said something similar to this before, where upon a politician or leader is in power for the sake of greater gain for themselves, ie. "i know better" or for the greater good of the people, ie. "according to [x] amount of people, [y] should be accomplished to address the concern of [z]."
http://www.ted.com/talks/sean_gourley_on_the_mathematics_of_war.html - check out the fragmentation phase of war - this would be considered the same as 'living in fear' because the people never know when an attack is going to occur, all the people know is that a lot of people will get hurt or killed, at some unknown time.
change the meaning of war, and change the minds of those who want to go to war.