World Peace is not possible.....

Maybe just before the world dies people might make peace with each other..or not.

 

thats why i said human are weak. they are too scared to take respoisibility for thier own, they need to belive there is some higher power in place, i already explain this point isnt possible in my 1st post.

sure ethics and moral can hold back science advancement like human expirement, but ethic and moral is base on logical reasoning rather then faith.

union base on common enemy will not last long, no matter how big the threat is, once the solution is found, people will go back agaist each other. IF there is a no solution for a threat and the threat isnt going to wipe out us all... then its not really a threat.

 

I don't know, peace is kind of fragile. If one were to lead a unified government, such person would have to be someone of good character...or flexible morals that is willing to kill to preserve the great peace. Then as man is bound by selfishness eventually some fat guy with a bald head will ultimately try to abuse power, people will rebel, peace is destroyed. Then we start again from square 1.

arrgh.. dumb question: If this "peace" is achieved, how would anyone maintain it?

 

you can't have peace in a capitalist world, as long as there is people, businesses and countries out for money there will not be peace.

also human nature stops us from peace. the only way to have the world work would be that everyone becomes equal, you get the same wage and the same housing the same everything and you are given a job to match your skills and abilities.
but this will never happen humans are greedy and stupid, people would rather die/be poor to have a bit of what they think is freedom.

as for religion yes it would make a difference to not have it, the world would be better off (now not if it never existed though)
region brought the conmen man reading and writing and even gave whole countries written language e.g. Russia. but now it serves no purpose (in the bigger picture) and does hold some medical advancements back for example stem cell research.
but please don't relate religion to ethics and morals because that is as stupid as it gets.

if there is piece we'd have to much population growth as seen in the world currently so eventually we'd all be starving and dying but at least we'd have peace.

piece doesn't work anyway we need wars for advancement medically and scientifically,
allot of scientific advancements come from the arms race and the some of the greatest medical advancements have come from the barbaric experiments done on people during war.

the only way to have true piece is for nobody to have an opinion, all be equal, no politics, no trade, no money, no control over your actions, no freedom

as suis said we'd be little more then robots but at least you'd have peace.

 

Do this, and the streets will be littered with bodies. Don't do this, and the bodies will be found inside houses. Dillema, indeed.

 

I don't know, but I'd hate to live in a world without inequalities, peace and religion. If it were not for the religious people, racists and warmongers, life would be boring. Not only on the world scale of things but personally. A life without much conflict would be boring and we would be almost robots. Boredom is the bane of our existence.

 

Thank god for the US military, huh?

 

DARPA do indeed exist http://www.darpa.mil/
Also DARPA invented Freenet, a weird and wonderful world akin to the Tor network.


Peace is subjective and over-rated.

While I understand conflict can drive innovation, so can exploration. Conflict itself can result in much less innovation, as funds are diverted from incomplete projects such as deep-sea exploration, space exploration and dealing with the food and energy crisis.
Having said that I think conflict can be a force for good, conflict can cause needed change in the world. Conflict may not mean killing, for example the Velvet Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution ..; although mostly non-violent this was an act of conflict and not peace.

We all want to live in peace, but a world without conflict may mean a world where change did not happen but should have. Murder can rarely be justified, and people like Ghandi would have no part in murder but Ghandi was adept at stirring conflict in his enemy and hitting them where it hurt.

A velvet revolution may be the ideal when it comes to righting a wrong but the Iranians tried it to get rid of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the liar head of state, using Velvet tactics with some international support, and nothing has changed; perhaps a bullet in his head would help, who knows.

My point is; conflict can be a force for good, though peace should always be the desired result. But in the real world........

 

i'd still argue that all that you listed has had it's greatest leaps during/after/before/because of conflict.

deep sea submarines and the technology around it came from conflict or the possible event of future conflict.
and the space race was a conflict in it's self although i agree that now it is thankful to exploration it may have taken longer to get there if the technology was originally created for peaceful intent.

 

I agree but the exploitation of said tech is hampered by spending on conflict, and there has been little new tech arising from current conflicts. Sometimes it is good to push for innovation and sometimes it is good to look back at how progress can be further exploited, for example radio and infra-red tech. As you say the greatest leaps in tech can occour during/after/before/because, do we have a pause button now like we did after WW2 to exploit the tech gains made in current conflict? Are we just snakes chasing our tech tail?

 

In other words, as long as we are human, there will be no world peace.

How would you go about doing this?
Would you force everyone to get interracially married, until there was just one race?
Or would you go the eugenics way?
I don't see any other way to go about achieving this goal without affecting peoples freedom.
I guess we could just wait for a few million years, and maybe, just maybe, all races would be converged into one naturally.(You know, millions of years of interracial sex)

Absolute power absolutely corrupts.
A one world government is something we are definitely not ready for.
I do believe in some form of world governance, but with limited power.
Nations would still retain their sovereignty.
Again, this idea is something that can only work in a very distant future, and that's if we are lucky to become better people, instead of reverting back to the middle ages.(the latter seems more likely to me)

I'm an atheist.
I hate it when people try to force me to believe in their religion.
What you are suggesting is the same thing.
You can't force people to think logically.
I believe atheism will one day be in the vast majority, especially with the vast amounts of information we have today.
Unless some major crisis comes along which reverts civilization to a more primitive state (global warming, peak oil, attack of zombie nazis, etc)
But until then, all we can do is wait.If you try to force someone to stop believing in something, all you will be doing is reinforcing his/her belief.
Everyone must make up their own mind, and everyone should be free to believe what they want.Religion should simply be kept out of government.
So, i guess what i'm trying to say is, i think there is a very, VERY small possibility that your ideas will happen naturally, many many thousands or even millions of years from now, and without forcing anything upon anyone.
But even if they do, it doesn't mean world peace will be attained.
Why would you think that a world of same colored atheists ruled by one government would never find a reason to fight?

 

kill every religion lol what about kill every atheists

 

Generally not, maybe some of the terrorists but criminals here are most likely atheists and they're the ones who are most likely to lose their sanity.

 

Wow...I assume you live in a country with 99% atheists.
Because if you live in the United States, then what you said is completely false.
Because criminals here are most likely christians.
And IMO theists are most likely to lose their sanity then atheists, since atheists don't fear having demons or angels watching over them 24/7.
That must be friggin scary, lol.

 

they are more likely to lose their sanity because they know there's no demons or angels or santa claus watching over them, so they can do what they want. they believe nothing happens next when you die, you just go straight beneath the land, so if you die it's all over. so they kill to make it over.

 

Ok, this is getting way off-topic.
Do you have any evidence that backs up your original statement?
The one that atheists are more likely to be criminals then theists?
Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?
And....So they kill to make it over???WTF are you trying to say?

 

1) Kill all stupid religious beliefs and traditions, just listen to God and do what God wants you to do.
2) Be kind to your neighbor, even if they are a total jerk to you.
3) Spread love, not hate.
4) Forgive people, don't hold grudges.
5) Treat Others how YOU want them to treat you (Unless you are a total psyco that likes to be treated like a wild animal.)
6) WAR KILLS! Nuf Said
7) THE LAW is nothing but mortals telling other mortals what is wrong and right, THAT'S GOD's DUTY! F**K OFF LAW!

Not only does the bible say this, but also the Beetles and other famous bands!
THE SOLUTION IS IN RIDDLES AND BETWEEN THE LINES! LOOK RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!
Foolish mortals...

Well...that's what I think.