Peace on Earth?

[whirlingmerc]

Does your belief system involve the anticipation (or hope) of an era of peace and human development here on earth? One in which warfare and armed destruction is either brought to an end or at least seriously mitigated?

Or, do your beliefs point towards future regression, disaster or pessimism about any hope in human progress? Is it a downward trajectory that lies ahead? Is the golden age behind us?

If you believe in an era of peace, what must first transpire before it can become possible?

I'm open to both religious and secular perspectives (i.e. Jewish messianic age, Christian millenarianism, Hindu Satya Yuga, a technological singularity or transhumanist society, Marxist views etc.)

'



God will accomplish His purposes Someday conflict will cease. ‘swords will be made into plowshares’ Isaiah 2:4. But if we refuse enough God may allow (or in some sense decree) nations to ‘make plowshares into swords’ whether in nations or persons till they turn to Him Joel 3:10

Ultimate peace involves peace with God Rom 5:1

Joel two gears in motion, together with one purpose one purpose

 

[ChristineM]

Does your belief system involve the anticipation (or hope) of an era of peace and human development here on earth? One in which warfare and armed destruction is either brought to an end or at least seriously mitigated?

Or, do your beliefs point towards future regression, disaster or pessimism about any hope in human progress? Is it a downward trajectory that lies ahead? Is the golden age behind us?

If you believe in an era of peace, what must first transpire before it can become possible?

I'm open to both religious and secular perspectives (i.e. Jewish messianic age, Christian millenarianism, Hindu Satya Yuga, a technological singularity or transhumanist society, Marxist views etc.)

Peace is a very noble ideal but unfortunately, governments and religions have not shown such nobility throught history. As whether they will pull together in the future... doubtful. Peace does not bolster employment, does not earn tax dollars and doesnt fill pews with sheep to tithe.

 

[WalterTrull]

Hmmm... does harmony necessarily mean peace?
I doubt there will be total "peace on earth", pockets certainly. I feel earth is a functional part of existence just like heaven. It's kind of like life with training wheels.
I've never come to grips with the notion "end of the earth". Maybe I suppose, but more likely not. On an individual basis, definitely.

 

[joe1776]

Optimism is warranted.

Our evolved brains reward us with pleasure when we act with kindness toward others; and they punish us with guilt when we act selfishly in causing harm to innocent others.

We are effectively being trained by our brains, using the reward and punishment method, to become better human beings -- and we can assume that this training has been going on since the origin of our species.

Social scientists build case for 'survival of the kindest'

"Social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive."

 

[Quintessence]

The options in the opening post assume a dichotomy and also a linear narrative. It's not atypical for folks in Western culture to view time as some sort of linear narrative and to couch their thoughts in dichotomous thinking, but that is not my way. I don't follow either of the narratives outlined in the opening post. I think neither of the narratives reflect the reality of things. They both appear to be in denial that relationships are part of the very fabric of reality and that their nature is diverse. Whenever two or more things intersect, that relationship can take a multitude of forms ranging from cooperative to benign to conflicting. I don't see that dynamic ever changing short of the laws of reality being entirely rewritten. I think expecting all relationships to be a particular way is not only naive but a dangerous ideology.

In short, I honor neither utopian narratives nor apocalyptic ones. I find both of them unreasonable.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Does your belief system involve the anticipation (or hope) of an era of peace and human development here on earth? One in which warfare and armed destruction is either brought to an end or at least seriously mitigated?

Or, do your beliefs point towards future regression, disaster or pessimism about any hope in human progress? Is it a downward trajectory that lies ahead? Is the golden age behind us?

If you believe in an era of peace, what must first transpire before it can become possible?

I'm open to both religious and secular perspectives (i.e. Jewish messianic age, Christian millenarianism, Hindu Satya Yuga, a technological singularity or transhumanist society, Marxist views etc.)

Raelians dedicate their life to world peace. The odds might not be good, but they are optimistic about it. For it to happen, people must start acting like adults.

 

[joe1776]

...Whenever two or more things intersect, that relationship can take a multitude of forms ranging from cooperative to benign to conflicting...

Maybe I misunderstand you. However, when we think of two concepts having a relationship, we think of that relationship as being cooperative or competitive. If it's "benign" as you put it, there's no relationship.

If the relationship is cooperative, it has a predictable direction. If the relationship is competitive, the stronger of the two will predictably win out. If they are equal in strength, there will be no change.

In this case. the OP is essentially asking: Will humanity's better nature win out over its bad or not? It's only a false dichotomy in the unlikely event that good and bad are exactly equal in strength.

 

[Augustus]

I think Stephen Pinker might have an argument that violence has been decreasing over time. I hope he's right.

On the other hand, I suspect we'll see a large thermonuclear war sometime in the next 80 years. My only grounds for suspecting it is human nature. Our species tends to do the stupid sooner or later, and then over and over again.

The argument against Pinker's thesis is that the decline in violence relies on there not being a major nuclear war in the future. If we factor in the possibility of such a war, then his conclusions are unsustainable. Unfortunately, we can't rule out this possibility, it's like making an economic forecast that assumes the stock market can't crash.

Have also heard there is a paper in the pipeline which argues violence is increasing, not just that Pinker's argument is statistically flawed. I'm quite interested to read this when it appears.

While I obviously don't know what's in this yet, Pinker's historical stats are at best methodologically dubious, and at worst cherry picked (potentially both). He tends to use unrealistically high numbers for past conflicts, and lower end estimates for modern ones.

 

[Quintessence]

Maybe I misunderstand you. However, when we think of two concepts having a relationship, we think of that relationship as being cooperative or competitive. If it's "benign" as you put it, there's no relationship.

I wouldn't see things that way. Put another way, whenever two or more objects/entities in the environment interact, there is a relationship that can be described. It's possible for such a relationship to be neutral or benign - that is, it isn't really cooperative or competitive. It's also not a singular categorization given the complexity of relationships. From a certain point of view, a relationship can be understood as competitive and from another it can be understood as neutral or cooperative. I see layers of complexity, in essence.

If the relationship is cooperative, it has a predictable direction. If the relationship is competitive, the stronger of the two will predictably win out. If they are equal in strength, there will be no change.

Hmm. I don't see things as being that simple, as is likely apparent from what I wrote above. Cooperative relationships aren't necessarily predictable in my experience, nor do I see competitive relationships as boiling down to strength.

In this case. the OP is essentially asking: Will humanity's better nature win out over its bad or not? It's only a false dichotomy in the unlikely event that good and bad are exactly equal in strength.

Yeah, I can see the logic to that if you believe the things you've been saying. I don't follow your logic, however; things aren't that simple to me. I'm also not a dualist, so I wouldn't frame things as being "good versus evil" either. I don't consider cooperation to be necessarily good, or competition to be necessarily evil. They are what they are, and near as I can tell, they will always be part of reality. There's no "winning" to happen with this from my perspective.

 

[joe1776]

Yeah, I can see the logic to that if you believe the things you've been saying. I don't follow your logic, however; things aren't that simple to me. I'm also not a dualist, so I wouldn't frame things as being "good versus evil" either. I don't consider cooperation to be necessarily good, or competition to be necessarily evil. They are what they are, and near as I can tell, they will always be part of reality. There's no "winning" to happen with this from my perspective.

I don't see cooperation as "good" or competition as "bad" either. But I do frame things as good versus evil. The Nazis cooperated in an immoral cause. In a worthy cause, the Allies competed against the Nazis.

I think cooperation in a worthy cause is humanity's most powerful force. 55 nations cooperated in the Allied cause. If the Nazis weren't morally wrong, that level of cooperation wouldn't have happened.

 

[joe1776]

The argument against Pinker's thesis is that the decline in violence relies on there not being a major nuclear war in the future.

No, it doesn't. A major nuclear war would not in any way affect the level of violence present in human nature. That IS what Pinker's trying to measure isn't it?

Was the average Crusader a less violent man than the average soldiers in modern wars because he fought with swords rather than more effective weapons?

 

[Tumah]

Remember that the reason the Jews rejected Christ was that they expected a King to come from heaven seated on a throne but instead the messiah was born in a manger to the son of a carpenter.

This is false. If anything, the inverse is true. We expect the Messiah to be born of a regular human mother and father, not descending from heaven or born from a god.

Interpretations of the Kingdom of God differ widely. Most think in the same superstitious terms that caused the Jews to reject Christ so it won’t be a Kingdom come from the sky and God will not wave a magic wand and all of a sudden we’ll all be buddies. That’s just repeating the superstitions interpretations the Jews had of Christ

If we sit on our hands like the Jews did, and they’re still waiting, we ignore signs that God’s Kingdom has already come and it is being established now. We should learn the lesson of what caused the Jews to reject Jesus and not fall into the same trap again, but it appears Christians have.

Who is telling you these things?!? We don't expect a kingdom to come from the sky. This is not brought in any Jewish sources.

 

[Truthseeker]

There will be peace but today we are still divided. People want peace, but they are yet some factors like nationalism, which is very strong today getting in the way. We are also divided on religious grounds and race and ethnic grounds. We need to transcend all of that but it will be done because we have to survive ourselves. We need to look at humanity as one family and get rid of all of these divisions and humanity can do this. We have no other option if we are to survive sustainably into the future. There will be a calamity in the future which will bring this home and then we will have a kind of peace involving world government. After this is done there is still a lot of work to be done to make it true unity. The Baha'i Faith will help in this and everyone else can join in this if they want to.

 

[metis]

Gandhi was a firm believer in "disinterested action", namely doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. Seeking peace should be done, imo, because it simply is the right thing to do, even if things don't turn out as we would hope.

So, as the song goes, "...and let it begin with me".

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Gandhi was a firm believer in "disinterested action", namely doing the right thing regardless of the consequences. Seeking peace should be done, imo, because it simply is the right thing to do, even if things don't turn out as we would hope.

So, as the song goes, "...and let it begin with me".

That was Gandhi's very Jain side coming out

Jains and Buddhists both believe in right action without speculating too much to motivations, causes, and other questions that may keep a person from practice.

 

[joe1776]

That was Gandhi's very Jain side coming out

Jains and Buddhists both believe in right action without speculating too much to motivations, causes, and other questions that may keep a person from practice.

I am guided by my conscience in choosing the right action. So, if I must kill in self-defense, so be it. If we don't do that, then we have to hope that our foe has scruples just as Ghandi's foe, the British Empire did.

Had his foe been Adolf Hitler's Nazis, Ghandi's right action, if we all followed it, would have led to the oppression of all the really nice people.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I am guided by my conscience in choosing the right action. So, if I must kill in self-defense, so be it. If we don't do that, then we have to hope that our foe has scruples just as Ghandi's foe, the British Empire did.

Had his foe been Adolf Hitler's Nazis, Ghandi's right action, if we all followed it, would have led to oppression for all really nice people.

You're right that the peaceful course isn't always open to us. Then we have a difficult decision to make rather dying peacefully is better, or taking up arms is better, as Buddhists historically believed can be the case. Buddhists are arguably obligated to fight against mass scale oppression because of the suffering that would result, but this position isn't universally accepted.

In defensive fighting, where Buddhists accept it's permitted- we are not to kill out of hatred or conquest. We are not to glorify the violence undertaken. We're to ever keep before us that we're fighting out of necessity for good to prevail.

A Buddhist must never act in hatred or aversion. We must try our best. From my very traditionally inclined position as a Buddhist- we cannot let a mass oppressor hurt people. Violence is sad, but we cannot let the Hitlers of the world hurt billions of people.

One instance I can think of that no traditional Buddhist thought disagrees fighting is permissible is guarding the Dharma from annihilation. Against a force seeking it's annihilation. Because it is the teaching that leads to salvation, as we see it.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As a pagan, I believe that all humans are born with the capacity for goodness. But we have to learn to put in into practice, just as we have to learn to utilise our capacity for speech. And we have to keep it in good order, otherwise we can become morally numb, as Mencius put it. Consequently, there will always be some people who have and succumb to evil impulses. This means that total peace can never be achieved.

 

[InChrist]

I believe peace will be a reality on earth when Jesus, the Prince of Peace returns and rules for one thousand years and then eternally when God creates the new heaven and earth.

 

[Augustus]

No, it doesn't. A major nuclear war would not in any way affect the level of violence present in human nature. That IS what Pinker's trying to measure isn't it?

Was the average Crusader a less violent man than the average soldiers in modern wars because he fought with swords rather than more effective weapons?

The 'average level of violence' matters not one jot to world peace. What matters is the total destructiveness of the violence.

Would a bunch of 'per capita' stats help you sleep through the night during WW3?