I think to be realistic about peace, we must also be able to stand up and enforce that peace. A hard moral line indeed.
It may be a time will come when no person will want to lead, so they do not have to make such decisions!
Regards Tony
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The End of War
- Thread starter TransmutingSoul
- Start date
I think to be realistic about peace, we must also be able to stand up and enforce that peace. A hard moral line indeed.
It may be a time will come when no person will want to lead, so they do not have to make such decisions!
Regards Tony
Full optimistic mindset requited.
I see it is our potential though. Do you think we do not have that potential?
I rated you optimistic that it is 'Totally Unrealistic'.
Regards Tony
If it is possible it couldn’t be done the way you described.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Iranian is the English equivalent of Persian. Wikipedia says "Iran (Persian: ایران Irān [ʔiːˈɾɒːn] (.. which is technically wrong as it was still Persia.
listen)), also called Persia, ..".
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Our Constitution does not need to mention that. It comes naturally to us.
You are absolutely correct. None were started by us. We are particularly fortunate to have nice neighbors - China and Pakistan.
When are we going to have such an election when people of US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Europe, Middle East will vote en-masse? An electorate of some 6 billion people (above the age of 18). Wake up, Tony. wake up.
"People under 18 years of age made up over a quarter of the world population (29.3%), and people age 65 and over made up less than one-tenth (7.9%) in 2011." - Wikipedia
So, who will lead? Your House of Justice?
Now, from where we get such a mind when your Allah gave us the minds that we have? Your Allah and all his messengers failed completely. How many thousands of years have passed by since the first manifestation of your Allah - Adam?
Last edited:
Would you like to offer anything re the questions asked?
How can we end war?
What about the Goals, what would they need to be?
Regards Tony
Heyo
Veteran Member
I think it "comes naturally" to most everybody. Most people don't like war. The problem is that also most people can be easily talked into starting a war, e.g. by saying that the other side already attacked (or is planning to do so).
Augustus
…
Both of which had minimal powers and failed to prevent wars.
Saying the next step is to move from voluntary membership in an organisation of minimal power, to permanent, militarily enforced subjugation to an international government is a very big jump.
So did Marx, but history showed he was wrong about it.
Augustus
…
That trend would have to exist in the first place, which has certainly not been demonstrated.
The 20th c was one if the most violent of all, and there is insufficient evidence to show any meaningful change since then.
People were saying the same thing pre-WW1, and they were obviously wrong then.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Augustus
…
Doesn't look all that much of a trend to me.
The 'decline in war' is mostly a statistical sleight of hand imo.
1. It assumes violence should scale proportionally with world population, which is a very questionable assumption. Why should we say we are getting more peaceful if war deaths increase at even 0.1% less than population? This is technological progress in keeping people alive, not a reduction in war.
2. Historical data tends to massively overstate deaths in conflict for reasons of a) propaganda b) adding together disease, famine, etc deaths that occurred in the decades surrounding major conflicts and that may or may not have been connected. We also don't add Spanish Flu to WW1 deaths for example, or global COVID deaths to the War in Yemen. As such any analysis of the data will be suspect (even without the flagrant cherry picking Steven Pinker does in his Better Angels by using high estimates for most historical wars, and mid to low for more modern wars. My personal favourite is him using a footnote to say his very high An Lushan Rebellion number of 30 million deaths is pretty dubious yet he still actually uses it rather than choosing a lower one. Not exactly the height of academic integrity
)3. The 20th C was violent even accounting for massive population growth, and the "decline" in violence since will require another 200 or so years before we can claim it as a trend rather than randomness. One single massive war would reverse the trend and show an increase in violence.
If you are interested in a more scholarly argument against it:
Doesn't look all that much of a trend to me.
The 'decline in war' is mostly a statistical sleight of hand imo.
1. It assumes violence should scale proportionally with world population, which is a very questionable assumption. Why should we say we are getting more peaceful if war deaths increase at even 0.1% less than population? This is technological progress in keeping people alive, not a reduction in war.
2. Historical data tends to massively overstate deaths in conflict for reasons of a) propaganda b) adding together disease, famine, etc deaths that occurred in the decades surrounding major conflicts and that may or may not have been connected. We also don't add Spanish Flu to WW1 deaths for example, or global COVID deaths to the War in Yemen. As such any analysis of the data will be suspect (even without the flagrant cherry picking Steven Pinker does in his Better Angels by using high estimates for most historical wars, and mid to low for more modern wars. My personal favourite is him using a footnote to say his very high An Lushan Rebellion number of 30 million deaths is pretty dubious yet he still actually uses it rather than choosing a lower one. Not exactly the height of academic integrity
3. The 20th C was violent even accounting for massive population growth, and the "decline" in violence since will require another 200 or so years before we can claim it as a trend rather than randomness. One single massive war would reverse the trend and show an increase in violence.
If you are interested in a more scholarly argument against it:
The graph is the number of deaths, and fails to account for the increase in population over time. I better graph would have factored that in.
I think the key thing is justice and fairness. ("If you want peace, you must first work for justice.") There must be absolute fairness and equality, no exceptions. I would also eliminate all boundaries between nations, so you don't have to worry about #2 at all.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Good grief, I've agreed with you.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Eight billion (and rising) people to have enough resources and to agree the economic system to live by (bearing in mind by its very nature capitalism increases disparities)?
Given homo sapiens has initiated the sixth mass extinction, do we want a species to continue if it is destroying the biosphere? If it were another species doing that we would be doing all we could to eradicate it.
If 74 million people can vote for Trump, is the species intelligent enough to achieve such a dream?
Given homo sapiens has initiated the sixth mass extinction, do we want a species to continue if it is destroying the biosphere? If it were another species doing that we would be doing all we could to eradicate it.
If 74 million people can vote for Trump, is the species intelligent enough to achieve such a dream?
Last edited:
Capitalists believe that free, unfettered markets will resolve all problems. But people are prone to fighting if they don't think they're getting their fair share. I saw a recent story about an all-out melee at a Golden Corral because they thought the restaurant was running out of steak.
I think the biosphere will eventually recover. The planet will outlive humanity.
Well, humans tend to want to eradicate other humans, hence the original topic of this thread.
I'm reminded of George Carlin's thoughts on the subject:
It's one of these things we tell ourselves so we'll feel noble. Life is sacred. Makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this: if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is gonna die, where does the sacred part come in? I'm having trouble with that. 'Cuz, I mean, even with all this stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don't practice it. We don't practice it. Look at what we'd kill: Mosquitos and flies. 'Cuz they're pests. Lions and tigers. 'Cuz it's fun! Chickens and pigs. 'Cuz we're hungry. Pheasants and quails. 'Cuz it's fun. And we're hungry. And people. We kill people... 'Cuz they're pests. And it's fun!
Probably not. I guess humanity is doomed. In the long run, we are all dead anyway.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
There are conflicting interests. Wars will always be with us. Let us accept the fact. Wars of dominance, economic wars, religious wars, etc.
Secret Chief
Veteran Member
Hopefully, but we are wreaking havoc in the meantime.
Augustus
…
That's not true. Read the Y axis, it shows rate per 100,000 not a raw total.
Rather than a clear decline, what it seems to show is a trend where war deaths per capita have actually increased since around 1600.
Even if it did show otherwise, resting a claim of declining violence on the fact that war deaths have increased massively, just slightly less drastically than populations have increased, is a very dubious way to make the case that war is actually declining.
Over the past couple of centuries there have been more conflicts killing more people than ever before, why should that be seen as a decline in war?