World peace

[Smote]

Do you think it's possible, practically, eventually? How about within the next few 100 years?

Hobbes certainly didn't think so.
http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/leviathan.htm

What is the best way to achieve it?

Personally, I think we [as humans] need to consistently focus on education and fighting dogmatism. "Question everything" should be the human mantra. With clear reasoning, compromises should be reachable to achieve good outcomes for almost everyone.

 

[Samson]

Do you think it's possible, practically, eventually? How about within the next few 100 years?

Hobbes certainly didn't think so.
http://www.uri.edu/personal/szunjic/philos/leviathan.htm

What is the best way to achieve it?

I think it possible, but not likely in 100 years. I think the best way to achieve it is global freedom of movement for goods, services and labour. Once everyone has friends and relatives in most countries of the world people will not be convinced by the demonisation that is required for war to happen.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. I agree education is the key.

Also trade, and interconnectedness in general, makes peaceful co-existence more likely.

And if the global population levels off at around 12 billion, and the scrabble for natural resources is managed in a reasonably equitable manner, then world peace may be a not unrealizable goal.

 

[Zack]

What is the best way to achieve it?

Spoiler new. world. ORDER. :

 

[warpus]

First you're going to have to define "world peace".

If it means "no more war", then we're going to have to wait quite a while until we get to such a time.. if ever.

If it means "no more violence", then unfortunately I don't think that's ever happening.

But that's not to say that we can't work to minimize violence around the world. One individual human will not have much that he or she can do, but you might as well do the little things: support moderates, reject extremism, vote for politicians who are for social spending and against military spending, and so on. But it might make it feel a bit futile, especially since you know that it won't really have much of an impact on anything..

 

[Borachio]

How about a three step programme?

1. No more war.
2. No more violence.
3. No more individual internal turmoil.

Result: world peace.

And it might be a very dull world, at that. Or maybe a world just chock full of "fluffy clouds and flowers".

 

[warpus]

Yeah, but Americans are always going to have guns, so we should have some just in case somebody drinks a bit too much one night and starts an invasion. So I don't really see violence ever going away I guess.

 

[bhsup]

Do you think it's possible, practically, eventually?

Yep.

How about within the next few 100 years?

Nobody can say with any legitimacy.

 

[Truronian]

I think so. Long distance communication, multi-national alliances, migration and global media will help significantly. Global income disparity needs to decrease as a priority.

 

[warpus]

Global income disparity needs to decrease as a priority.

That won't be very easy... we're headed in the exactly opposite direction.

The middle classes of the world are growing and demanding American levels of products, comfort, and lifestyle. That sort of thing is not sustainable unless a lot of people are helping support it via incredibly minimal wages and usually horrid working conditions.

 

[Borachio]

Oh yes? And why would people working minimal wages in horrid working conditions be sustainable?

 

[Samson]

Oh yes? And why would people working minimal wages in horrid working conditions be sustainable?

'Cos we have managed to sustain it for 6,000 years? Or if you / he means environmentally, people working minimal wages in horrid working conditions have less demands on the environment than people living a "western" lifestyle.

 

[kramerfan86]

No, I think the developed world can eventually have peace but I dont see the undeveloped parts of the world becoming stable and peaceful any time soon.

 

[Borachio]

Yes. But locally, in the West especially, people's working conditions have improved. That's why corporations seek to keep their costs down by finding manufacturing bases in places like Vietnam. But that's only a short-term fix and isn't likely to be sustainable. That's my point.

 

[warpus]

Yes. But locally, in the West especially, people's working conditions have improved.

Depends, working conditions in the U.S. have for the most part been deteriorating, from what I've heard anyway. And since the U.S. makes up such a huge chunk of "the west", I'm not so sure that what you say is factual unless we exclude them, or unless you're comparing .. say.. conditions 100+ years ago.

 

[Zack]

Have they?

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/hours-of-work-in-u-s-history/

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t18.htm

Average weekly work hours have been decreasing for a long time. Relative to other western nations, you may have a point, but I'm not so sure it's true in absolute terms.

 

[kramerfan86]

Yes. But locally, in the West especially, people's working conditions have improved. That's why corporations seek to keep their costs down by finding manufacturing bases in places like Vietnam. But that's only a short-term fix and isn't likely to be sustainable. That's my point.

Automation will continue to improve, once east Asia is run dry they will move on to the indian subcontinent and once that is run dry they will move it to africa and after africa is finally run dry, which is a long ways off, I would be stunned if they even require human labor to do the jobs they outsource to poor countries.

 

[Borachio]

Depends, working conditions in the U.S. have for the most part been deteriorating, from what I've heard anyway. And since the U.S. makes up such a huge chunk of "the west", I'm not so sure that what you say is factual unless we exclude them, or unless you're comparing .. say.. conditions 100+ years ago.

Let's say the last 50 years, then.

Go back ~50 years in the UK (I really can't speak for the US, you might have to go further back), and owning a car was really quite something, working six day weeks was normal, and foreign holidays were exotic.

Things do change.

What I'm saying is that low wage economies, like Vietnam's, are going to develop along the same trajectory, and it's going to be increasingly difficult for manufacturers to find new sources of cheap labour.

I don't know what's controversial about this.

As for the time period for it, who knows? Maybe another 50 years, or maybe a lot less. My guess would be a lot less, since change seems to proceed by leaps and bounds generally.

Now, since 2008 conditions do seem to have deteriorated. This might be the beginning of a new trend or it could just be a blip on an otherwise upwards trajectory. I don't know which, for sure. Does anyone know?

 

[CavLancer]

I do, its down I'm afraid.

 

[Sanguivorant]

World peace is very ambitious.