TED Conversations

Mark Kurtz

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed.

Toward Planetary Peace

Each person throughout the world likely would have a personal peace definition and would hold ideals for achieving, even if one’s experience is limited. For each person there is a test: “Which do you truthfully, honestly desire—peace or war?” It seems reasonable to assume the vast majority would choose peace, as the world has had too much war; humankind is learning a better option is desirable.

We will not have peace until the majority population from each nation desires peace and as nations, give up sovereignty to a one world authority granted by the majority of nations. Any nation refusing to give up sovereignty would face the threat of world authority to comply. There must be strong incentive to join the larger group.

Nationalism is a concept developed over long time periods and is a natural evolution of thought. Nation favoritism is prejudicial, racist and is loaded with superiority lacking love and respect. We cannot avoid evolution of thought, but we can visualize and work toward a better world with love at the heart of technical, scientific, educational, financial, religious and social improvements. The details would be extensive, seemingly beyond imagination and overwhelming, but slowly we MUST work toward high planetary ideals of quality relationships.

We will see much tribulation, conflict, and sadly earned wisdom if nations fail to abandon national superiority and if we fail to learn the greater wisdom of group discussion. The United Nations is not large enough and is not constituted as a final world authority to give us real peace. Sooner or later people who resort to terror tactics will finally learn there is no gain with bloody terror. The larger wisdom from men and women who desire peace in their hearts is the pathway to world settlement in peace and this larger wisdom must come from nations gathering together in world authority for common planetary benefit.

Eternal peaceful benefits are too numerous to ignore!

Share:
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2013: 7-billion people act according to their beliefs and conditions regarding; 1) Gender; 2) Intelligence; 3) knowledge; 4) the Metaphysical; 5) values; 6) Tastes; 7) Manners; 8) living standards. You say peace can only come when one government rules over all 7-billion? The only way you could possibly be right about that is if that government ascribed zero importance to the will of the people. Don't you see, that is why Man has always broken-up into like minded groups . . . because pleasing everyone is impossible. So, unless you are advocating forced government domination, your plan for one, big happy world is doomed. With freedom diversity comes naturally. The view of humanity you portray is unsettling at best.
    • Sep 15 2013: No Ed, I am not advocating forced domination by government by any nation. The idea is simple: the majority of people in each nation want peace and the only way peace will actually happen is if all nations give up sovereignty to a one world government. Any nation proposing war would be subject to this world government. Nations seeking to dominate another would be subject to reprisal and discipline. We will not see this achievement in many hundreds of years, but working toward peace will involve work toward a planetary WBFA (whats best for all).

      I suggest we all stay on the point: peace is worthy of working for and in this world we have a very complicated situation. It will take strong leadership of men and women with the highest of ideals, ethics, morals, character and perseverance. People of the highest caiber will eventually emerge to bring our word to a peaceful situation. It will take a long, long time. Again, it is the direction of movement that is important.

      Don't assume anything of what I said, Ed. I am not naive to think we can please everyone. The "big happy world" you mention is not a description of peace we humans can now fully envision. It is a situation of real world peace that will allow people to flower and grow. War robs people of security, money, and other ways. Peaceful nations are worthy to consider for grandparents of all nations.

      Everyone, I allowed a full month for people to think about this. So let's take the time to think clearly and without emotion to find ways to encourage people to want peace and use their lives and resources in better ways.
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: I am not opposed to peace. I am opposed to a one-world government.
        • Sep 16 2013: Very understandable, Ed. This will not happen in our lifetime nor will it happen in 500 years, or so. It is possible for high quality leadership to emerge and situations to change to allow people to see the benefits of a representative world government in which all countries have a stake in world size decisions. A high quality representative world authority would give all nations equal representation. Peace would be a highly sought after and admired achievement. It would be far superior to the alternative of continued war!

          Never say never, they say.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2013: The solution to a peaceful world does not lie in the area of finding better schema of agreements between ego-centrism-s of different people.
        The solution lies in the area of building such culture that does help to resolve own ego-centrism to the preadult age for everyone.

        For me is absolutely evident, that such culture will be built earlier or later. The question is only how much pain for humanity it will cost.
  • thumb
    Sep 20 2013: The Only Thing
    Necessary for the
    Triumph of Evil is
    that Good Men Do
    Nothing
  • W T 100+

    • +2
    Sep 15 2013: "........ must come from nations gathering together in world authority for common planetary benefit"

    Mark, what if there comes a point when the nations do gather together in world authority, but instead of bringing about peace, they want to force those who are peaceable to contribute to the warring efforts?

    Isn't that happening now?

    Aren't there peaceable humans sitting in jails all over the world because they will not lift up arms against their fellow humans?

    Down deep in these individual's hearts they view life as precious, and so they are willing to suffer the consequences of being peaceable. Who is doing something about this great injustice in today's world??????? WHO?????
    • Sep 15 2013: Hello Mary,
      I don't have fast answers for you. It will take a long time to convince people, leadership included, that peaceful methods are better than arms. Nations have been working on this, to wit: League of Nations, then United Nations. The interest is there.

      Nations grouping to defend a cause isn't new, re the talks about Syria.

      There are peaceable people sitting jails. People think, make decisions according to what they believe to be true and its easy to forget those who are put away. But, I am certain the majority of people in each nation must want peace and it is this message about what the people want that is important. I think it will take a strong world leader to put this high on agenda in ways we have not seen before. I don't see such a leader now.

      Regarding this injustice you cite, reality is there will be more, sad to say.

      If we cite the benefits of peace, can nations overcome the military-industrial alliance and create the conditions for bringing peace? Time will tell. I do not have concrete answers, but I am certain we must work this direction.

      Promote the benefits of peace. What TED readers would like to enumerate them?
      • W T 100+

        • +1
        Sep 16 2013: Mark, it has been said by some who believe, that a one world government is coming.
        The subjects of this government will be peace loving citizens.
        The ruler? The prince of peace.

        Millions earth wide see peace on earth as a sure thing.
        Some have already adjusted their lives to fit right in with the new government once it is reigning.
        Right now, they are paying the price for loving peace.
        In the future, let's all hope that their efforts pay off.

        Here's to a bright peaceful future, let's hope we see it in OUR lifetime. :)
        • Sep 17 2013: It is coming, but the timing certainly isn't now, as comments on this topic clearly indicate. People need to prepare for peace. Turning to political non-violent methods will not bring inner peace, different than military peace. People all around the world must want the higher levels of peace benefit and their leaders must be realize the greater benefits of peace. Even though many are in jails and many more will suffer, the people must tell leaders to work for peaceful methods, for all countries to enjoy the benefits.

          Are we able to visualize, imagine, and forecast all the benefits of peaceful relations? Maybe not, but we know peace is better than killing. President Eisenhower was very aware of the massive loss of life from war. He understood the dangers of a powerful military-industrial complex of dependency in nations. This will be a major stumbling block in all economies heavily dependent on military spending. Its a jobs thing! More could be said. However, rising to higher ideals and greater promises are the benefits of a peaceful world economy based on love and balanced consumption-need. There is more to this conversation than just political or military peace. We need to give time for TEDsters to seriously consider and imagine.

          Jesus was hailed as the Prince of Peace and maybe if he'd had come later when the world was becoming peaceful, we could crown him so. But, he did not come to announce peace. Has anyone noticed that? It is his efficacious teachings that will empower people to desire peace.

          Likely we'd be very interested to observe our Mother Earth and its peoples thousands of years from now as former Earth residents looking back. We may applaud or be terribly disappointed.
      • W T 100+

        • +1
        Sep 16 2013: Here is a picture of a monument that sits in front of the UN........a gift from Russia

        http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/untour/subswo.htm

        The words etched on the monument come from the scriptures.
        The second chapter of Isaiah and the fourth verse, which reads in it's entirety:

        "And he will judge between the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they LEARN WAR any more."

        I have always found it curious that this monument sits in front of the "United" Nations.

        I am not much into world politics and the like.
        But in my mind, if humans truly were in control of the earth, then all that is required for them to do if they want peace, is to tell their respective governments they will not bear arms.

        That would end wars....imho

        Now, who will end crime? And racism? And oppression? And homelessness? And hunger? And disease? etc....etc....
        • Sep 16 2013: "Now, who will end crime? And racism? And oppression? And homelessness? And hunger? And disease? etc....etc...."

          Actually, there are a great number of people working on all of these problems, including the UN, many governments and many nonprofit organizations. The work will likely take decades, but the situation is far from hopeless.
      • W T 100+

        • 0
        Sep 17 2013: "However, rising to higher ideals and greater promises are the benefits of a peaceful world economy based on love and balanced consumption-need. There is more to this conversation than just political or military peace."

        I couldn't agree more.

        And as some have brought out, it starts with ME.

        Peace in all it's forms must be something we practice in our everyday life.
        With our loved ones, our neighbors, our classmates, our workmates.

        These higher ideals of living based on love are very lofty.
        Not everyone appreciates it.

        Or have you forgotten that a great many individuals believe in survival of the fittest?

        Could the lack of love in the world have a lot to do with the fact that people just want to survive and get the heads up on others?

        I can't help but connect the two......lack of peace....and survival of fittest.
        Is there a connection Mark?

        What do you think?
        • Sep 18 2013: I think you identified one reason some persons are not at peace with others. I have not forgotten there are those who believe in survival of the fittest. We are all connected in this world, as others have said here.

          Peace will come with spiritual growth. The past is not absolute prolog for our planetary destiny, but some situations repeated will cause great harm. I said it before and I fully accept---progress is the intent for this world. It will come as you say above, to practice in our everyday lives. The fact that some do not is not proof it will not happen.

          My original question on this conversation pins personal responsibility to each self. We cannot escape self. To oversimplify, either we want peace or we do not. We cannot go backward. The details of forward movement to peace are not fully known, but as time goes on the details will be known, provided people do want peace.
      • W T 100+

        • 0
        Sep 18 2013: "Peace will come with spiritual growth".

        Yes, I think too that inner peace, and by extension, peace with others, does come with spiritual growth.

        One of the things I have appreciated from participating on TED, is that there are many peaceful individuals from all cultures that enjoy coexistence and tolerance.

        Once an individual finds this 'peace', it is very likely that he/she desires others to have it as well.
        Different individuals go about helping others in different ways.
        Some help others purely by their fine example.
        And others are more proactive, taking a very hands-on approach through organizations and such.

        Humans have always wanted peace Mark.
        But it is elusive.......why?

        Why haven't humans been able to establish peace and security earth wide?
        Why haven't humans been able to develop a system of distribution of resources (food, shelter, etc..) that is fair and just?

        These are important questions.
        Few people like to spend time delving into the root of the problem.

        Others think it is just human nature to be selfish, and that's just the way it's going to be.

        I think Nadav mentions something important.
        He says "...unless you change.....human nature itself".

        That, in my humble opinion, is the key to peace, and to other problems.
        Human nature has to change.......Humans need to become humane.
        That is what we need to evolve into......humane beings.

        But who has the power to change a human?

        I agree with your statement, "The details of forward movement to peace are not fully known, but as time goes on, the details will be known...."

        It's all a matter of time.

        We'll we live to see a peaceful earth Mark?
        I sure hope so!!
      • W T 100+

        • 0
        Sep 21 2013: Hi Mark,
        Have you seen the news today?
        Look,

        http://news.yahoo.com/shooting-nairobi-shopping-mall-injures-least-two-witnesses-102641790.html

        and here is the New York times report.
        The slide show of 16 pictures is very sad to see.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/world/africa/nairobi-mall-shooting.html?_r=0


        And by the way, PBS is broadcasting "Eisenhower's Secret War" this coming week, it's a two part series. Have you seen it? It's supposed to be very good.
  • Sep 15 2013: I like this quote.........It seems we suffer from a limited View....thus, the tribalism...thus, the separatism....thus, the suffering

    "A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. She experiences herself, her thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest in a kind of optical delusion of consciousness. The delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection of a few persons nearest us. Our task is to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty" (A Einstein)
    • Sep 15 2013: Evolution of thought---Einstein contributed mightily. As higher ideals are realized and experienced, more people will want to spread. Ideals are fine, but we will progress only when men and women act on ideas!! Philosophy is a great tool of mind.
      • Sep 15 2013: I can dig that. Here's my idea:

        See Me as You.
        If you cannot, then simply entertain the possibility.
        Perhaps ask Why you do not see this way.
        Then be silent.
        Tribalism and violence emerge from.......Ideas.

        Ideas of Separateness. Violence on ALL levels of severity is A symptom of Misperceived Separateness.....of a misperceived Separate, Fearful Self.

        This is a tough one to swallow :-)
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2013: Nice Scott.....I like it:>)
  • thumb
    Sep 20 2013: While reading this I visualize George Soros and his one world government that he wants to head. Any nation refusing to give up sovereignty would face the threat of world authority to comply. Kinda like saying support mental health or I will kill you.

    I would be concerned that whole cultures would disappear. Brave New World could be suggested reading as well as any books suggesting Big Brother themes.

    Bob.
    • Sep 20 2013: Hello Bob, seems sort of harsh. Not what we'd hope for as a long term solution. The real power for positive change is spiritual and no religion anywhere contains all knowledge nor do us humans have the ability to ultimately solve our planetary problems. It is the direction of movement that matters most. For us humans to always look backward for proof of future seems futile. No matter how intelligent, we do not have the capacity to prognosticate as well as the Original Mind or angels.

      Peace is far more attractive than war because of many reasons, one being greater freedom and security for all national leaders to talk, negotiate, get to know one another better. Try that in a boiling kettle of hate and see who survives! It will take work and lots of living faith to achieve.
  • Sep 17 2013: We need more than a universal desire for peace. We need a much larger discussion about what peace would look like. What would peace require of each of us as we live our daily lives? A world without conflict is not possible and, I would contend, not desirable. What we need to become is what I have called "Peace-Able." We need to learn first how to live in ways that support a more peaceful world, ways that support individual as well as societal choices that are nurturing and healthy; that support positive relationships with others, that are inclusive of the many diverse voices in the world; that seek just resolutions to conflict and thoughtful, workable, non-violent solutions to problems. We cannot have any reasonable degree of peace in the world until we have begun to develop our ability to recognize and make peaceable choices.
    • Sep 17 2013: Hello David,
      It may not be possible to foresee all possible conditions or relationships of a truly peaceful world at this juncture. Certainly human beings would have conflicts, but armed resolution of conflicts, as has been our history, is far less attractive than peace. Political, war-free peace would look like people talking together to attempt a fair resolution of conflict. Courts with judges known to be of high caliber would be appointed by high commissions to resolve conflicts or issues at planetary or regional scales.. It would look like final resolution with what is best for all. This will take a lot of time to achieve and would result in greater personal and national security.

      Peace without possibility of armed military conflict would be possible. Why give up so easily? It is the direction the world must accept before wars destroy humanity!

      ".....live in ways that support individual as well as societal choices that are nurturing and healthy...", you have the right concept that will lead to peace. Recall the question I offered at the beginning of the conversation?

      And your final statement is profound. You got the point! Its the details of getting there that will be vetted and tried and severely tested.

      We are told man cannot live by bread alone. Humankind needs "pressure from above" from divine resources to progress. We've had so much trouble that the pathway is seemly hopeless complicated, but have faith. We will get there despite naysayers. The only pathway to lasting world peace devoid of armed conflict is a planetary authority over all nations. Nations would still have their authorities and freedoms and that would be free of the ability to make war without severe retribution.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2013: Hi Mark:>)
    Planetary Peace is a GREAT idea. I think when an idea is presented, which asks people to give something up (sovereignty, as you mention) it sometimes frightens people. I agree that we will have peace when the majority of people in our world choose peacekeeping practices and work together toward that goal.

    It seems like one path toward peace is to accept each other with our differences, and discourage practices which oppress, abuse, and violate the rights of some people.

    If the majority of people realize that real power is in accepting, encouraging and supporting each other, we may be on our way to a more peaceful world?
    • Sep 15 2013: Thank you Colleen. I would say yes to your last paragraph question. Its not knowing all the details of getting to peace. However, if we truly want peace, what are we as individuals willing to give up to achieve? We don't have to give up anything to see movement as you suggest in your question. It is the giving of self working on higher ideals that gives real power of the whole.

      Achieving peace will not be automatic. We need culture understanding, greater world trade that doesn't destroy resources and environment, one official world language, growing realization each person is valued and policy for WBFA (what's best for all).
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: Mark,
        You ask..." if we truly want peace, what are we as individuals willing to give up to achieve?"

        I suggest that we give up the illusion that we are all separate.
        • Sep 15 2013: Yes, we are planetary people with planetary wide connections! As individuals we think and make choices, but we are one planetary family. The sooner people realize this, the sooner we will see peace. Evolution of thought is mightily important. Thank you!
  • Oct 13 2013: I'm not quite sure that the majority of people "really want" peace. Sure, people say they want peace - when "war" is the only alternative mentioned, but when you look at what people actually do with their free time and money, it seems that what their [indoctrinated] wants are: to be comfortably numb, & to have their basic nasal-itches scratched. As we've been taught, "If you can't see beyond your nose, it's because nothing else is out there; so don't worry about trying to slowly and carefully build strong relationships & societies which may actually be beyond your personal sight - just buy a coke and a smile, eh."
    You see this wish for a peaceful world in the number of people who have quit their anti-personnel mine-making jobs in favor of driving ice-cream trucks.

    When will we have peace? When we learn to consider others' needs in lieu of our wants; maybe when we learn to roll with the punches and look for value in our attacker's own humanity; and maybe when we see that we also hurt others - and decide to change that.
    What are you sacrificing and what of-you are you willing to sacrifice? Because you don't earn anything or spend anything; everything you "have" is ripped out of the earth, and anything in your bank is empty ones and zeroes, (with no gold or silver or silver-greyishly-tinted tinnish-sounding flatware to "back" it).
    • Oct 13 2013: Steve, you may very well be correct that the majority of people do not want peace, perhaps because of the reasons you cite. How many people have given careful thought about the pathway to peace, or thought about what peace could achieve?

      Achieving peace means no war; rather, conflicts are resolved by mutual negotiation and judgments of higher courts for the benefit of all. It is planetary wide benefit that must be sought.

      I don't have faith in selfish human priorities; my faith is built on spiritual ideals. Man cannot live by bread alone, which as I understand means relying totally on the material aspects for meaning and satisfaction. Mind is the arena in which we experience life and it is within mind we have thoughts and ideals. Mind ministry from "above" is needed to drive and also to attract mankind to higher life values. Destroying one another in war is fruitless and leads only to more war.

      We need leaders who will brave up to higher ideals and stand firm on progress to peace.

      Consider how valuable is peace when we would use resources for other than war purposes. Consider the greater personal and national security in homes, jobs, communities, free time recreation, creativity and other life aspects if we would achieve peace. We need leaders to help people of all nations to see the benefits.

      Your questions seem to affirm the baseless waste of war; we are robbed of hope if we do not see a spiritual way out of purely human methods.

      Peace is worthy of prayer for guidance.

      Thank you for your comments!
  • thumb
    Sep 17 2013: Yes, I think everyone should be peaceful with themsleves and the whole world, being necessarily friendly and tolerant to different people. We should be united ---Who knows whether there won't be any aliens who will intrude and launch wars against earth-humans in the future ?
  • Sep 17 2013: I hope you are right and the human race can learn to love peace. Unfortunately, I also believe that there was some truth at the end of the movie, "Anzio" - the war correspondent told a general "Now I know why there are so many wars. We like it and we like to kill each other."
    • Sep 17 2013: Hello Wayne, My take is that movies are a producer or writer's opinion. Movies are produced by people and entertainment currently is a motivational influence. We all are limited in knowledge and therefore all opinion, regardless of methods of expression, is partial. Would movie producers like to promote war by saying "(sic) people like to kill each other? Or are movies entertainment? Would you say there is a popular appetite for war story entertainment?

      I prefer to seek inner strength through quiet time and listening to the best of thoughts for confidence in direction of life movement rather than to rely on entertainment. I like to listen to others who like this daily quiet time.

      Books, movies, text messages, and other methods come from human mind, which is the arena in which we live or die. All media for expression could be used to positively motivate people to love peace. After all is said, peace is a condition of relationship; war is not an attractive manifestation of relating. Peace is worth spreading because the hope for its benefits is strong world wide. If it is not attractive, then why is the agony of war or the events in which people kill one another worthy of news coverage?

      The benefits of peace would be a great agenda for leaders of all nations! Non would be excluded!

      I noticed you started your comment by stating you hope I'm right. I hope you never give up hope for what is good.
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2013: The way to peace is to realize that war IS CREATED. Look at this article .to understand more of why there is no peace:

    http://www.ted.com/conversations/20278/ken_mentioned_he_was_dumbfou.html

    Edit in response to Marks no response.

    Mark you need to grow a pair. What I have posted is the in your face truth. Which may go against your
    Kumbaya philosophy but none the less is the facts despite your myopic lets all hug BS.
  • Sep 15 2013: Its a neat idea, but ultimately naive.
    There is too much bad blood across the globe, too many fanatics for whom human life holds little value (at least life that belongs to a group they don't like).
    No nation would give up on its sovereignty either--no one signs away his rights like that.

    As long as there is competition over resources, and as long as there are people willing to kill to achieve their goals, there will be no global peace.
    The first is unassailable (as communism demonstrates, everybody sharing doesn't work) and the second entrenched in human nature (made its way there long before the start of civilization, and before we were even biologically human, seeing as most animals also have it; the killers are in power because they killed or subjugated everyone else). Unless you manage to fix both, its not happening.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2013: There's that "but" again...............
    • Sep 15 2013: Nadav,
      I know this idea "seems" naive, but my position is-----the idea is good; it is not original with me. Our human capabilities are inferior to the Origin of life and mind and we are not able to see all the possibilities. Seeking peace is noble for all of us and giving in to "bad blood" in the world is to concede defeat. We are wise to seek higher ideals and diligently work to achieve them. There will some day be global peace; it will not be in our lifetime because of very extensive complications that only the Original mind can untangle. it is us human beings, in quiet, reflective thought with a sincere desire for peace, who will benefit if we work for same.

      Giving in to bad blood is like telling a thief breaking into your house, "Take anything you want!" Why not talk to the thief and attempt to rationalize better behavior! If someone smacks you to the ground, get up and talk to your mortal brother and attempt to save him from his wrongs. You BOTH would win by a change in life.

      Its not naive; its working toward whats best for all!
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: Mark,
        You say we are "not able to see all the possibilities"?

        I suggest it is more like some people are not WILLING to see and experience all the possibilities:>)

        When we (humans) hold onto the idea of separateness, we may work toward maintaining that separateness and it is less likely that we can imagine working together toward a goal.

        You say..."our human capabilities are inferior...."

        We are supposed to be the most intelligent and most evolved creatures on this earth. We could use our intelligence to see all the possibilities:>)
        • Sep 15 2013: Well Colleen, I don't want to debate various posits with people. The pathway to desiring peace and improved relations certainly would be different for people. It is the direction we are moving that is more important than a present posit or situation. Analyzing, assessing and evaluating various rationale and methods are normal mind activities. World improvement has taken a long time up to this point. I see no sign of sudden acceleration.

          Yes, I agree we are the most intelligent and most evolved creatures here. I see a dead end if we rely totally on human resources. No one has claimed omniscience. I see humankind must rely, his only choice, on the Original Mind of All (whatever name seem most appropriate for your life experiences)

          .
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2013: Mark,
        You say...... " I don't want to debate various posits with people."

        Ok.....why did you present this idea?

        I DO see a sign of acceleration, and I believe our communication technology has contributed to the acceleration. I see no "dead end" when addressing the issues with the resources we are aware of as humans. The name that seems most appropriate, is what we are here and now....humans.
        • Sep 15 2013: Colleen, I am not a debater. I presented this because it is worthy of spreading.

          Thank you for your interest!
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2013: I am not much of a debater either Mark, and I joined the conversation because I have a great deal of interest in world peace. I address the idea of peace quite a lot, so it seems apparent that I support peace, which I wholeheartedly agree is worth spreading:>)

        I questioned some of your statements for the purpose of learning more about your idea of creating peace, and submitted some ideas of mine. You wrote..."I don't want to debate various posits with people." That suggests that you have your own ideas and do not genuinely want to consider other's ideas?

        If you really believe, as you wrote, that you see a "dead end if we rely totally on human resources", I'm not sure how you move beyond that, because we ARE human, and it is as humans that we may contribute to world peace.
        • Sep 16 2013: Colleen, asking questions is OK with me; I do the same in many verbal conversations. Time available for TED is limited so I don't get involved in many.

          I do not agree with your second paragraph question--"genuinely want to consider other's ideas". I listen all the time and is the primary reason why I check TED a few minutes of every day. There are many profound ideas and questions presented here and I find many to be interesting. I can't justify getting involved in nearly all.

          Debating with the aim to win is not attractive to me. Presenting ideas I believe beneficial to humankind is very attractive. It is attractive when anyone presents ideas worth spreading. It is the feeling of worth in anyone's heart that impels a person to share, among other reasons, perhaps.

          I would prefer to respect your views and that of others rather than to debate. Let the goodness of every worthy idea fine fertile soil in the hearts of people worldwide.

          We will eventually evolve a world peace and this change will also change what we do with our resources and time and virtually all aspects of life for people of all nations. There will be positive and radical changes we may not yet imagine possible.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2013: Mark,
        Presenting ideas that may be beneficial is very attractive to me as well....on that we seem to agree, and that is what I am doing:>)

        I wholeheartedly respect your perceptions, and agree that every worthy idea will find fertile soil in the hearts of people worldwide:>)
      • Sep 17 2013: Problem is, the mechanism of "giving into bad blood" is typically less along the lines telling him to take whatever he wants. Its more along the lines of slitting his throat so that he could never take anything from you ever again. Which of course leads to more bad blood if he was part of a larger group.

        Some people simply can't be talked to, either because they're fanatics, or because they've rationally come to the conclusion there is more profit along a violent path.
        If you look up a history of pacifistic societies, you'll find that they were/are all weak and insignificant on the world stage, or plain and simple were eradicated by force of arms. More successful pacifists can typically only be successful because they're at least well armed enough to defend themselves. Thing is, the line separating self defense and a preemptive strike gets blurry (it really is a very pragmatic form of self defense after all), so they typically don't stay pacifistic for long.
        The ones who do stay pacifistic, will inevitably be walked all over by someone of greater power. Might makes right in this world, I'm afraid.

        Throw in shortage of resources and various less rational reasons to decide to fight (everything from religious or national fanaticism, to a lust for power, to simple circles of revenge), and I highly doubt we'll ever see the end of violence between societies on this planet.

        That is, unless you somehow solve the resource problem and change human nature itself. Of course, once those two factors are shifted, all the old rules go out the window, not just the violence bit.
        Changing human nature will in of itself likely involve a fair bit of conflict. I'm very much for transhuman science and research, but I know others who'd bleed their last trying to stop such things.
  • Sep 15 2013: Mark,
    As someone said, "the majority of people in the world do not want war. That, in every country. Thus, in order to have
    a war, the people, these very same people must be tricked, deceived, fooled and lied to in order to get their 'approval' to go to war.
    That means lies, lying, propaganda, brainwashing, fear-mongering and demonizing of others we call, "Other".
    First, IMO, people have to be woken up from the brainwashed slumber they slum around in each day, during their so-called 'waking hours'.
    You said, " Sooner or later people who resort to terror tactics will finally learn there is no gain with bloody terror.,.."
    I think you are mistaken. They keep doing it. The only course of action the people can take that is not of itself violent or aggressive, to force those in power to give up their ways, is to refuse, no matter what, to engage in whatever they demand, command, threaten with or even do to those who refuse. Children began to do this in Ireland, when they told their fathers and mothers they were not going to fight their fight any longer, or even take that job on as passed down to them. It is one power the so-called 'people' can avail themselves of.
    But, I know a Christian, a true believer of Jesus and the New Testament. He gave up his trust in God and his son, Jesus, to join the military because he was homeless, poor and had little in the way of choices. So he chose money over trust in God. He chose the military over Christianity. He chose killing over the 6th Commandment and he chose Fascism over religion.
    However, for him there is a silver lining. His direction was sent by God, as Christianity is a blood-spilling religion, and it was all right for him to willingly and knowingly subject himself to military brainwashing, to following orders, just like Christianity, whose followers thirst for spilling the blood of others.
    Once there are boundaries, there is fear and something to defend.
    Nationalism ends in i...s...m. I...self....and me.
    • Sep 15 2013: Your comments are yours, Random. It will take foresight, ideas and courage to forge ahead. It seems defeating to say terrorists will never quit. Such a view isn't attractive for me. Greater powers than what you and I have will prevail for humankind. We are not able to see the Big Picture, but we can recognize what direction to take.

      There are millions of stories to tell about people and groups. History is not prolog for those far seeing visionaries who will become our planetary leaders. Not one of those stories is final determination for the whole.

      Have faith in something higher than our minds!
      • Sep 21 2013: Mark,
        In my own convoluted way, I was agreeing with you. I think it is possible and needs to be continually put out there as being possible. I was just making a comment as to what came into my head and the response that formulated inside me.
        I run into the same things from people I know: "it's naive, it can't be done, it will never happen,. etc, etc."
        Well, I believe it can and as you said, it is becoming clearer and clearer that peace is the only way we will have left to go and we should go now!
  • Sep 15 2013: Isn't this everyone's goal, but ...............................................................
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2013: ......we are :)
      • Sep 16 2013: I would like to be more optimistic,but....................... Democracies get along pretty well.
      • Sep 17 2013: What?
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2013: everything must change one day ,the birth become the death and the right become the obligation.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2013: Perhaps we need to let go of the "but"?
      • Sep 16 2013: Sorry I am jjust concerned about the practicalities, esp. with dictators in the World..
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2013: I understand George. When we think about the idea of peace in our world, it sometimes feels overwhelming, and it is common to say.....sure......I would love to see peace in our world but.......where do we begin?

          I believe we begin with each of us as individuals, in the little space we occupy. I KNOW that I personally don't have any influence with the world leaders, so I cannot change that aspect by myself right away.

          However, what we focus on expands, and where attention goes, energy flows. I believe that if enough people want to change our world, we focus on that intent and do what we can in our little corner of the world. If enough people truly want this idea to spread, it will happen.

          I don't think it helps to talk about and encourage one world government, or everyone speaking one language, because it is obvious that some folks balk at that idea, and the organization of something like that is overwhelming.

          If the majority of people take small steps toward creating a peaceful world, we can be on our way to reaching that goal. In my perception, one of the first things we need to do as individuals, is let go of trying to change others, and realize the changes we need to make in our selves as individuals. What do you think about that?
      • Sep 17 2013: Exactly
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2013: lovely ,thank you :)