TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

A plan to end poverty and bring World Peace

I've learned that World Peace and ending poverty are actually the same goal. The two go hand in hand. The same thing is needed to accomplish both, and neither can be accomplished without it.

The people are the true power of any nation. The leaders must to some extend do the will of the people. Even a cruel dictator must to some extend do the will of the people. So, if the people hate, the nation makes wars, and its children die. If the people love, the nation has peace.

How can a nation with a 2 billion dollar defense budget defend itself against a nation with a 700 billion dollar budget? There is only one way, and that is to make the people of that nation refuse to allow that war.

We need to accomplish two things to make this work. One is that small nation will need to give a billion dollars, or half of its defense budget, to my project to help end world poverty. That money must have maximum efficiency in its poverty reduction effect, and I have just the project for that.

The problem is, the other thing. I can not do this without the support of the people. That, I need help on. How do I get the support I need.

Once one country does this, other countries will see how smart it is, and they will start to do it too. Soon, every country will stop making weapons, "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. "

Anyway, here's a link to my new video, which might help you understand. It's called A New Hope for Mankind.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Oct 29 2013: There's too much to say for a short video. I've been trying to think of what to put into a short video, for a short promo video.

    Having governments heavily armed actually endangers the people far more than it keeps us safe. We (and everyone in every country) are always in greatest danger from our own governments.

    Those dangers include nuclear war, as well as a military take over, and just plain old fashioned government corruption.

    As far as one nation trying to take over, there is one thing which make that possible, and that is the military draft. If there was an international law that banned the military draft, and required all nations to immediately attack any nation attempting a military draft, then there'd be no way for any nation to get the soldiers needed to go on a conquering spree. Then, soldiers would only fight for causes they believe strongly in. Nations would have very strong defense, but fairly weak offense, which would make conquering other nations very difficult.

    • Oct 29 2013: Actually, banning a draft would only help to shift the balance towards small, high tech armies as opposed to large, low tech ones. If anything, in encourages the spending of more capital, to compensate for the reduced manpower.
      Modern warfare is more about materiel then about men, at least in terms of quantity.

      As for the government being the greatest threat to its own people, that's nonsense if I ever heard it. That's only true in places where you have civil wars, everywhere else, not so much.
      I'm sure the people of South Korea feel much more threatened by their nuclear armed northern neighbors than by their own democratically elected government for example.

      Having a well armed government is actually crucial for peace. Look up the concept of a monopoly on violence; countries fall apart without it, in a process that usually involves a civil war.
      • Oct 29 2013: Governments do not fall apart because the people have weapons. They fall apart, because the governments become corrupt, and the need to ended. When the people have weapons, they simply end those corrupt governments a little earlier, and with less bloodshed.

        The United States currently spends 39% of all the money spent on military in the world. Several times more than any other nation. The United States is also one of the highest percentage based on GDP. So more percentage of each persons income. Does that make any logical sense? Is that intelligent use of money?

        • Oct 29 2013: No, governments can fall apart just fine because they failed to maintain their monopoly on violence. Look at Libya for example--their prime minister was kidnapped by what essentially amounts to an overly armed street gang just a few weeks ago. The government doesn't have de-facto control over much of the country, and their economy and standards of living suffer heavily for it. Honestly, I'm waiting until parts of the country start succeeding.
          All because they don't have a proper national military. Instead, each militia does as it likes.

          Libya is hardly a unique example either. Lebanon, Somalia, DR Congo, and others are all run by militias as opposed to proper governments. It works about as well as you'd expect.

          As for the US' defense budget, I'll readily agree its overinflated, but there is a big difference between reduced spending as opposed to no spending at all.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.