TED Conversations


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!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • 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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.