The End of War

[Augustus]

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.

You can't remove borders and have a strong welfare state.

Once we accept wars will always exist, we have to consider the best way to mitigate them, might not be the way we would try to remove them if that were possible.

On size fits all global governance will cause problems. Arguably we need less integration and less centralisation, 'live and let live' rather than 'one big happy family'.

How to end wars is the wrong question. What we should ask is how do we create a world where we can dislike others and their way of life without resorting to violence.

 

[Stevicus]

You can't remove borders and have a strong welfare state.

Once we accept wars will always exist, we have to consider the best way to mitigate them, might not be the way we would try to remove them if that were possible.

On size fits all global governance will cause problems. Arguably we need less integration and less centralisation, 'live and let live' rather than 'one big happy family'.

How to end wars is the wrong question. What we should ask is how do we create a world where we can dislike others and their way of life without resorting to violence.

I agree that wars can't be entirely eliminated, but a large part of the problem is the structure of human society itself.

Maybe we can't eliminate all borders, although perhaps we don't need to consider them to be so sacrosanct either.

Some major wars in history might be attributed to an underlying desire to end war. A conqueror might believe that all he has to do is just have this massive, huge war, which would allow him to conquer the whole world (or at least most of it), and then there would be peace. But, they always seem to fail in the end.

One thing that might bring about peace is a more coherent geopolitical system. I've often thought about the possibility of a regional power system so that the world would be just a few major regional power blocs, without the complications that seem to arise over smaller nations.

The nationalist idea would be to just let the world fight it all out, with the big fish eating the little fish, as it is in Nature. But perhaps there might be a more international, peaceful solution available. Or at least, peaceful in the sense of avoiding conflict among the major powers.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It appears another war may unfold. If it does, the most awful and horrific weapons we have ever seen will be on display.

Regards Tony

I believe the wars must be there, because these wars and difficulties are a way God chastises a people who consider themselves as the best, and are too proud, and consider other people as infidels and misguided. God cannot let them as they are, because they are their creation. So, God has to destroy a broken house , so He can build a new one in place of it. So, I believe we are in the process of destruction, and this will continue for a long time. But that doesn't mean we should stop promoting peace or pray for it. But I believe peace will not happen anytime soon.

 

[ChristineM]

I would say many have thought about it and even offered some solutions, but it appears mankind was not and may still not be ready.

Maybe we have that capacity and chance in our day? I personally see we have got the capacity and chance for peace, but will we take it?

Regards Tony

Do we have that capacity, i believe not, if we had then humanity would have gone that route

 

[ChristineM]

1. I personally think the majority would rather see themselves participating as a global citizen. I think Nationalism is outdated.

How the change will happen may take a wave of more crisis such as covid-19.

2. I see the decisions will be mad by Nations elected representatives.

3. I see many very rich people are already giving up much wealth to the more needy and good causes. I see the majority will choose their path, their hearts will guide, but it will not be easy. Legislation and enforcement of those that can not change will assist.

4. I see it is most important that girls take priority in education and yes, I see it will happen, but how may be another topic. Currently it is underground in these areas where women are denied education.

5. Well I have seen many men change, just as I have and changed immensely. So I see the majority can an will give women their rightful voice and equality will win the day.

The thing to stop all wars may be a push button war? It may be an offence earth object, it may be a shaking the world of men is subdued by? There is no doubt though, war will move way to peace.

Regards Tony

1. I don't believe the majority are ready. We ( Europe ) have just gone through brexit which was a nationalist move. One to rid Britain of the influence of europe over its national policies.

2. Well yeah!!! In a democratic country this is almost guaranteed.

3. Really, i know of a handful of philanthropic rich people, and for those, what they give away is covered by tax deduction and investment interest. The remainder, not so much.

4. In some backwards places i cannot see it happening in the near and not so near future. Yes, in very small groups it is happening underground and when found out they are executed. That tends to keep those groups of brave and determined girls to a minimum.

5. Again, i can't see it. Man (many a man) will always have the need to dominate, evolution has seen to that.

The first world war didn't end war and that was billed as there war to end all wars. Conflict is built in to us. Sure small groups can get along fairly well but even then there is the odd hiccough. National boundaries are jealousy guarded.

World peace is a nice dream but realistically, a dream it is. Humanity are thousands of years from a global lasting peace, just so long as we haven't annihilated each other first.

 

[F1fan]

Wake up to peace would be good. It is already my heart, what about you?

Regards Tony

You're trying to sell an idea to people who already agree with you.

What you don't do is offer a realistic (do you follow me here, realistic, not idealistic) path towards global peace. You keep posting your ideals. It's not an argument, it's not a plan, it's not useful. Perhaps you're frustrated with others pointing out the flaws in your ideals, but that is the real world. No God intervenes. You need real solutions for real people. To say "waking up to peace" means nothing when some think that peace is killing others they see as enemies. It's those people you want to convince.

 

[Heyo]

If you are interested in a more scholarly argument against it:

Sounds to me more like a war merchant is insuring some war customers that their jobs are safe.

And I don't like the defeatist and self-fulfilling premise that there will always be war. Even if that would be true, it isn't a reason to just give up to fight against it. That fatalism is one of the reasons why we still wars.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

. One single massive war would reverse the trend and show an increase in violence.

Or it will be the war to end all wars. It may demonstrate that there is a God that gives us advice, after all.

Well worth considering IMHO.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

I agree Justice and Fairness would have to be high in the list.

Will peace happen if we can not be unified as a human race? I think it would not be likely. To be Just any fair, I think would include the knowledge that as part the human race we are all from the same ancestors, that really none should be preferred above another, would you agree?

Well done for seeing a world without boundaries, I too would like to see that, but I see there would have to be a balance with those that have a very strong national Identity.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

There are conflicting interests. Wars will always be with us. Let us accept the fact. Wars of dominance, economic wars, religious wars, etc.

I personally see that is why there is war, that people accept the 'fact', wheras we can educate, we can change and we can give those that suffer a well earned brighter future.

I agree there will always be levels of conflict, but could we make an effort to educate our children to lessen the gap of the severity of conflict?

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I believe the wars must be there, because these wars and difficulties are a way God chastises a people who consider themselves as the best, and are too proud, and consider other people as infidels and misguided. God cannot let them as they are, because they are their creation. So, God has to destroy a broken house , so He can build a new one in place of it. So, I believe we are in the process of destruction, and this will continue for a long time. But that doesn't mean we should stop promoting peace or pray for it. But I believe peace will not happen anytime soon.

I see you are most likely correct. It will be a very distant future when we see a greater peace, that has no war.

I see the we should still aim for lesser peace, which will indeed have the conditions where war will be required.

@Aupmanyav would agree that wars will continue, though he would see it in a different light.

Sometimes it is nice to dream of a world without conflict. Regards Tony

 

[Augustus]

Sounds to me more like a war merchant is insuring some war customers that their jobs are safe.

He's a uni professor so has no stake in it.

And I don't like the defeatist and self-fulfilling premise that there will always be war. Even if that would be true, it isn't a reason to just give up to fight against it. That fatalism is one of the reasons why we still wars.

Saying we will always have war is not defeatist, its just accepting human nature is what it is.

Utopian thinking often causes greater harm, as it looks for unrealistic solutions.

We should look to mitigate the threat of war while accepting the reasons it will always exist.

The question is how to minimise the threat of war in a world where many people don't like each other, not how can we all get along.

The former requires decentralisation, the latter centralisation

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do we have that capacity, i believe not, if we had then humanity would have gone that route

Maybe all we have to do is to start talk about it and encourage more to pursue it.

Time will tell, Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

World peace is a nice dream but realistically, a dream it is. Humanity are thousands of years from a global lasting peace, just so long as we haven't annihilated each other first.

I think you are justified in that assumption. It will be a very long time before we see a world that has learnt war no more.

I think we will find a better balance before then though, I see a majority, that want naught but peace, will still have to war against a minority.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Maybe all we have to do is to start talk about it and encourage more to pursue it.

Time will tell, Regards Tony

Peace has been talked about fir centuries and guess what?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

You're trying to sell an idea to people who already agree with you.

What you don't do is offer a realistic (do you follow me here, realistic, not idealistic) path towards global peace. You keep posting your ideals. It's not an argument, it's not a plan, it's not useful. Perhaps you're frustrated with others pointing out the flaws in your ideals, but that is the real world. No God intervenes. You need real solutions for real people. To say "waking up to peace" means nothing when some think that peace is killing others they see as enemies. It's those people you want to convince.

That path has been offered, but I do not offer it here, just a few points that I see will need to be part of the bigger solution.

This conversation, this OP is a chance for others to offer a path, to offer some solutions.

I have mine, I am at peace with the world, I am peace with any person that sees I am an enemy.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

I think you are justified in that assumption. It will be a very long time before we see a world that has learnt war no more.

I think we will find a better balance before then though, I see a majority, that want naught but peace, will still have to war against a minority.

Regards Tony

That is always the way, and the majority is used as cannon fodder by the minority

 

[F1fan]

That path has been offered, but I do not offer it here, just a few points that I see will need to be part of the bigger solution.

This conversation, this OP is a chance for others to offer a path, to offer some solutions.

It's like adults discussing some solutions to childhood with 5 year olds. There is no quick solution. There is growing up to do.

I have mine, I am at peace with the world, I am peace with any person that sees I am an enemy.

Regards Tony

I think you are best at finding peace and understanding many in the world are not ready for it.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Peace has been talked about fir centuries and guess what?

As the child would offer "Are We There yet", and the parent then offers, soon, not far now.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

That is always the way, and the majority is used as cannon fodder by the minority

It doesn't have to be. But history proves people do make bad choices that effect the whole and when that happens in the body, a doctor cuts it out.

That is life.

Regards Tony