Hypothetical methods to achieve world peace?

[Poly Lingua 37]

What did you choose in the poll? What's your reasoning?

Edited May 26, 2016 by Poly Lingua

[silvadel 1,393]

You see most effective and most desired are two very different things.  An iron-fisted autocracy with massive amounts of power would be able to keep the peace, but obviously that isn't what people would want to live under.

 

Think "The day the earth stood still."  They have robots that instantly kill you if you show any kind of aggression.  That would certainly work, but I wouldn't want to live under it.

[Poly Lingua 37]

You see most effective and most desired are two very different things.  An iron-fisted autocracy with massive amounts of power would be able to keep the peace, but obviously that isn't what people would want to live under.

 

Think "The day the earth stood still."  They have robots that instantly kill you if you show any kind of aggression.  That would certainly work, but I wouldn't want to live under it.

 

You gave me a great idea! I'll try to add a second poll to this, but instead of asking efficiency it will ask about desirability.

 

And true about not wanting to live under something like that... but if you grew up in it and had no idea about life outside of such a world to compare to, then maybe it wouldn't be so bad? Or if you're mind was controlled to an extant, or certain emotions/thoughts were suppressed through some kind of machine, then maybe you wouldn't even care or think about it or notice?

[silvadel 1,393]

On the second one, it was kind of hard.  I went with the first over the second only because with unlimited resources (no need), if world peace were actually achieved, I think at least the option of the second part would naturally progress from it.

[Gestum 2,493]

Kill everyone. Then there won't be anyone wars because nobody who could stay them would be alive.

[Kerberossz 1,929]

There is no way to achive world piece cuz every people thinks differently. Every nation has their own aspect, different cultures and rules. If you wanna world piece you have to unite all the nations and force them to obey your ways. Now this will never happen, there will be always people who will rebel against the law you would create.

[ManaMinori 4,143]

Imperfect race cannot create perfect conditions like world peace. It's impossible

[Guest]

There really is only one condition, but it can never happen: Everyone giving a shit about everyone else.

[I used to be a stranger 7,988]

Most major world paradigms that have latest generations and spanned the globe have elements in common which hint at the single greatest desire in the human psyche: to be fully known, and fully loved. As the OP termed it, compassion, empathy [and the unhelpfully vague "altruism"].

 

The endgame is everyone just being friends. I mean, if everyone was literally friends with everyone else, what else would there be to do, except to enjoy life? There would be no injustice to hunt or prosecute, and no villainy to prevent.

 

A technological singularity would be a pretty disappointing ultimate fate of the human race because we'd just be trading all of the complexity of one way to interact with reality (matter) for another (electromagnetism). It wouldn't do anything to improve our stance in the universe.

 

 

Kill everyone. Then there won't be anyone wars because nobody who could stay them would be alive.

 

You must be a scream at parties.

[Invincible 2,090]

The problem is there are too many of us around. Humans keep stepping on each other's toes, and so long as we won't stop bickering over resources and books we won't be able to look past something as living space. So either our population gets culled down, or we get our conflict removed for us by a technologically adept superpower.

[TriMara 42]

The only 100% infallable way (of the ones listed) is the matrix. If its entirely self contained for the individual even if violence or unrest existed it would be in the matrix and thus impossible. I assume individualized means each has their matrix. Thus meaning you could in essence be giving someone their own personal heaven. To every single person on earth. How could that not lead to world peace? If i had everything i could ever want and need why make conflict?

[cider float 2,535]

Kill everyone. Then there won't be anyone wars because nobody who could stay them would be alive.

It would be called World Pieces.

[SilverStarApple 849]

Kill everyone. Then there won't be anyone wars because nobody who could stay them would be alive.

It would be called World Pieces.

Ow, the edge. It would have cut me, if you didn't already cut yourself.

 

The problem is that too many humans are stupid, or raised to be stupid. Too many humans would rather fight for and die for their beliefs than debate rationally and wonder if they're wrong. Also, too many humans are stupid, panicky animals that'll desperately try to destroy or ban something they don't understand by any means neccesary, such as GMOs, vaccines, and people with opinions different from them.

Edited May 30, 2016 by SilverStarApple

[Malinter 3,064]

The only way you could really achieve world peace is by somehow reducing the resources people require to be "happy". Reducing the needs off the people and by extension goverments and nations. You remove some of the possible reasons for conflict.

 

After this, all that remain are culteral and religious differences. These will fade with time as if we can reduce the hardships we face in life, the need for a believe in gods or an afterlife will become redundant. This won't be easy however as people of faith and those who hold power within it will not just go silently into the night without resistance. You can't wipe away 2000 years of history that easily but it will happen.

[Gestum 2,493]

Ow, the edge. It would have cut me, if you didn't already cut yourself.

Not everyone has the luxury of being the dullest knife.

 

Also, it would work wouldn't it?

[Malinter 3,064]

Not everyone has the luxury of being the dullest knife.

 

Also, it would work wouldn't it?

 

Well no... "world peace" by definition would have to include all life on said world... have fun trying to make a lion not kill a zebra. XD

 

Also, you might be confusing "peace" with "quiet".

Edited May 30, 2016 by Malinter

[Gestum 2,493]

Well no... "world peace" by definition would have to include all life on said world... have fun trying to make a lion not kill a zebra. XD

Then we will just kill them as well.

[Malinter 3,064]

Then we will just kill them as well.

 

and then the birds and the bees and so on untill the earth is a barren, airless rock... a tad extreme but you can't get anymore "peaceful" than that... XD

[Castle Bleck 19,163]

The only 100% infallable way (of the ones listed) is the matrix. If its entirely self contained for the individual even if violence or unrest existed it would be in the matrix and thus impossible. I assume individualized means each has their matrix. Thus meaning you could in essence be giving someone their own personal heaven. To every single person on earth. How could that not lead to world peace? If i had everything i could ever want and need why make conflict?

 

Just be careful not to enter He Who Fights Monsters territory like the Machines ultimately did in The Animatrix, or anything.

Edited November 23, 2016 by A.V.

[yeet 2,026]

The Matrix. Only way I see it ever working. We will never love each other, because we all have different ideals and philosophies. And because of these there will always be wars and conflicts. If we were to remove them I still don't see it working, because you can't just throw religion for example in the trashcan, it would never work. The Matrix is peaceful because the violence in it isn't real if it's the people doing it.

[Sunny Fox 5,929]

1 - You cannot create and provide unlimited resources. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules that out. No conceivable technology would be able to override this basic intrinsic property of the universe. (If rephrased as "distributing our current resources as equally as possible", it might nudge ahead into first place, though)

3- A universal government controlling the population with chip implants is also impractical - firstly, it wouldn't be peace - it would be force overruling free will; secondly, the ones who control the chips would be able to selfishly abuse everyone else for their own gain.

4 - I don't think any one religion / philosophy would be sufficiently attractive to all humans to allow this... and it runs afoul of the same "power corrupts" trap as 3... those who control the religion / philosophy would no doubt abuse it to their advantage.

5 - How would this Matrix be run? Where would the power come from? Falls into the same trap as 1 above. The ones who keep the system running need to be sustained. So it's not just keeping everyone alive... it's keeping everyone alive and additionally providing the energy to keep this Matrix itself running. This just compounds the problem. And there also the question of who would volunteer to forgo a personal paradise for the sake of others? That requires...

 

My final answer:

2 - compassion, empathy and altruism. No true peace can be built upon anything else. And if you could truly feel the pain of those who have no money to support themselves, who have to watch their children starve and be utterly unable to help them... if you could truly feel that as keenly as someone in that position does, you would do anything you could to help those people. The "1%" who control the majority of the wealth / resources of the world would share what they have, and that would go a long way towards creating parity, eliminating the imbalance between the haves and have-nots. Once the need for resources is addressed, the need for strife is lessened. Then we'd just have to eliminate the false division that religion creates, and we'd have world peace.

 

Not that I think human beings as a whole have the capacity to realize true compassion, empathy and altruism, but the more that do, the better things gets for the world as a whole. From a hypothetical standpoint, however, point 2 clearly would be the most efficient and desirable of those 5 options.

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,151]

The recent conduct shown by the last few posts is seriously disappointing. This is a friendly reminder to cut the insults and to keep the thread on topic. A number of posts were hidden and if the insults and/or off-topic discussion goes further we will be forced to lock the thread.

 

Carry on.

[SilverStarApple 849]

1 - You cannot create and provide unlimited resources. The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules that out. No conceivable technology would be able to override this basic intrinsic property of the universe. (If rephrased as "distributing our current resources as equally as possible", it might nudge ahead into first place, though)

3- A universal government controlling the population with chip implants is also impractical - firstly, it wouldn't be peace - it would be force overruling free will; secondly, the ones who control the chips would be able to selfishly abuse everyone else for their own gain.

4 - I don't think any one religion / philosophy would be sufficiently attractive to all humans to allow this... and it runs afoul of the same "power corrupts" trap as 3... those who control the religion / philosophy would no doubt abuse it to their advantage.

5 - How would this Matrix be run? Where would the power come from? Falls into the same trap as 1 above. The ones who keep the system running need to be sustained. So it's not just keeping everyone alive... it's keeping everyone alive and additionally providing the energy to keep this Matrix itself running. This just compounds the problem. And there also the question of who would volunteer to forgo a personal paradise for the sake of others? That requires...

 

My final answer:

2 - compassion, empathy and altruism. No true peace can be built upon anything else. And if you could truly feel the pain of those who have no money to support themselves, who have to watch their children starve and be utterly unable to help them... if you could truly feel that as keenly as someone in that position does, you would do anything you could to help those people. The "1%" who control the majority of the wealth / resources of the world would share what they have, and that would go a long way towards creating parity, eliminating the imbalance between the haves and have-nots. Once the need for resources is addressed, the need for strife is lessened. Then we'd just have to eliminate the false division that religion creates, and we'd have world peace.

 

Not that I think human beings as a whole have the capacity to realize true compassion, empathy and altruism, but the more that do, the better things gets for the world as a whole. From a hypothetical standpoint, however, point 2 clearly would be the most efficient and desirable of those 5 options.

I like you. You feel the same way as me about mind-controlling implants, and you're really thinking about this, instead of just being edgy.

 

Personally, I feel that for this world to get better, the people making it worse should be dealt with. I'm not saying to make them into mordbid modern art fixtures, but if we could stop forcing the bible into science class and give the middle finger when muslim professors say the film Gravity should be banned, call out David Wolfe and FoodBabe on their bullcrap, explain to the antivaxers that vaccines do not cause cancer or autism and the BS they breach hurts people (Then ensure any antivax book published legally has a requisite section where actual scientists, not fat moms with no scientific understanding and a lot of anger, call out the book on its BS), that'd be great. Also, the personality politics where people say "I vote Trump because I hate Hillary" or "I'm voting for Hillary if Bernie doesn't win, so vote for my guy so you won't have to deal with that guy!", that's ridiculous. They divide people into fighting tribes, rather than uniting people in rational BS-free debate.

The recent conduct shown by the last few posts is seriously disappointing. This is a friendly reminder to cut the insults and to keep the thread on topic. A number of posts were hidden and if the insults and/or off-topic discussion goes further we will be forced to lock the thread.

 

Carry on.

Hey, uh... I don't mean to anger anyone by asking this, but did someone hit the report button on my posts?

[Anneal 2,194]

Perpetual war. Orwell describes it well in his 1984 book; "War is Peace" is one of the totalitarian Party's slogans. In the 1984 universe, three superstates wage perpetual war on each other and regularly switch sides for absolutely no reason (because they share the same ideologies and societies) than to distract the populace from issues at home. War becomes a fact of life, and because of eternal world war there is eternal world peace. (It's also related to another theme of the book, "doublethink", but that would be going too far.)

 

That's why utopia is dystopia. It expects people to uniformly follow certain traits but at the same time abandon their personality. I don't believe in world peace. Don't get me wrong; I am usually optimistic but the notion of world peace assumes that everyone is going to follow a set pattern to begin with to avoid conflict. I'm not dumping humanity for that.

[Rainbow Dash 1,471]

I was gonna suggest giving the UN a big ol magnet to suck all the weapons up and the only way we could fight was with fists but who has enough time and energy to travel angry and then get a hotel, check in, then fight.