The End of War

[TransmutingSoul]

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

Yes there is no quick solution, but part of it, I see is continued dialogue about peace and the good of all humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

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

Regards Tony

Thats just a dream based on what appears to be very limited world knowledge tempered with Baha'i teaching

 

[ChristineM]

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

Its not a point of 'doesn't have to be' it is.

And bloody dictatorship to cut out the humanity from humans is a bit drastic isn't it? I though Baha'i was a peaceful religion

 

[Heyo]

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

I had an uni professor who also worked for DARPA.

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.

I'm with you on that one. But unlike you I don't see war as a force of nature. The elimination of war is unrealistic for the near future but I don't see it as impossible. Human nature (at least most humans nature) is not murderous. Most people don't want war. They get drawn into it through stupidity, laziness and fear by a handful of psychopaths. Keep the psychopaths in check and war ends.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Its not a point of 'doesn't have to be' it is.

And bloody dictatorship to cut out the humanity from humans is a bit drastic isn't it? I though Baha'i was a peaceful religion

I personally see that any peace that may happen in the near, or not so distant future will not be instigated by the Baha'i Faith, it will be an effort by the Nations.

It will not be a dictatorship.

I see if it happens, it will be via elected representatives from each Nation.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

I personally see that any peace that may happen in the near, or not so distant future will not be instigated by the Baha'i Faith, it will be an effort by the Nations.

It will not be a dictatorship.

I see if it happens, it will be via elected representatives from each Nation.

Regards Tony

And my views on that is that it ignores much of the reality i (and others) have been attempting to spell out in your 2 threads on the subject. So all i can say is good luck with that

 

[TransmutingSoul]

And my views on that is that it ignores much of the reality i (and others) have been attempting to spell out in your 2 threads on the subject. So all i can say is good luck with that

Peace is not for me ChristineM. It is for those that suffer because of war, neglect and injustices. It is for them I face these topics.

My heart suffers with theirs.

Regards Tony

 

[ChristineM]

Peace is not for me ChristineM. It is for those that suffer because of war, neglect and injustices. It is for them I face these topics.

My heart suffers with theirs.

Regards Tony

As does mine but that will not solve the problems in the world today.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As does mine but that will not solve the problems in the world today.

Dialogue is only the start, action must reflect our words.

That is my choice as to the way to live life, as one person, on one planet, as part of one human race, without predudices and embracing all women as equal participants in life

All the best and may peace be always yours. Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

You're right. I missed that. Sorry for the false read.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

Yes, I would agree with that.

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

I think that may be the root of the problem: Nationalism. Or it could be any type of group mentality where people believe that "our group should survive," and to heck with everyone else.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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?

How can you lessen the effect when you take only one person being as correct and all others out-dated? You slight us. That is why nearly all people write against your philosophy. You have only added to the conflict, your sweet-talk not withstanding.

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

That is exactly the reason why I ask you to wake up.

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.

You see, here InvestigativeTruth talks of destroying our house to build a new. Do you think we will allow that? And you talk of peace? Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Dao, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Judaism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, any kind of paganism, all are broken houses that your Allah will destroy???

 

[sayak83]

That is the discussion.

How can we end war?

It seems easy, let's try peace for a while and if peace does not work we could aways go back to war.

I see it will need to be initiated by a world wide effort, that will set specific goals to prevent war.

What about the Goals, what would they need to be?

Here are some thoughts.

1. A world elected body that has power to legislate and power to enforce what has been agreed to.
2. Boundaries of all Nations agreed to and set, the voice of the people heard in this process.
3. Elimination of extreme wealth and poverty, this may be need guiding legislation.
4. Education for every child guaranteed.
5. Equality of women with men guaranteed.

So let's discuss, what would you add to the list that will need a global effort to implement?

View attachment 59639

Regards Tony

Sorry. I am against any world elected body. Power should be localized and decentralized, with towns, cities and villages... not with big govt or corporations.
My solution is federalize and democratize all nation states and limit the power of central governments in all nation states.

Next is to stop thinking of nations as some sacred inviolable entity and only as convenient unions for administrative efficacy (just as districts and cities are at a smaller scale) and just one level in a hierarchy of levels starting from individual homes to the UN.

 

[Heyo]

Sorry. I am against any world elected body.

I don't understand ...

Power should be localized and decentralized, with towns, cities and villages... not with big govt or corporations.
My solution is federalize and democratize all nation states and limit the power of central governments in all nation states.

Next is to stop thinking of nations as some sacred inviolable entity and only as convenient unions for administrative efficacy (just as districts and cities are at a smaller scale) and just one level in a hierarchy of levels starting from individual homes to the UN.

... how the first sentence goes together with the rest. The UN is the closest thing we have to a world elected body (and its power is too limited to prevent wars). Clearly we must have something like the UN and it must have more power (and should be more democratic and egalitarian).

 

[sayak83]

I don't understand ...
... how the first sentence goes together with the rest. The UN is the closest thing we have to a world elected body (and its power is too limited to prevent wars). Clearly we must have something like the UN and it must have more power (and should be more democratic and egalitarian).

It's not a world elected body (like EU is for Europe). It's an association type entity where joint voluntary actions can be taken, but it does not have the power to force a directive on anyone. I would prefer to keep it that way but remove veto powers.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Visual History of Decreasing War and Violence

As you see, there is some evidence.

I’m sorry, but if a graph describes human events “12000-10000 BCE”, that’s guessing ....it brings into question the rest of its data.

The nuclear threat - MADD - has deterred involved warfare since after WW2, but peoples’ behaviors are more violent than ever before...even with their families.

 

[Heyo]

I’m sorry, but if a graph describes human events “12000-10000 BCE”, that’s guessing ....it brings into question the rest of its data.

This is not a creationism thread.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This is not a creationism thread.

What’s that got to do with it?!

We can’t determine societies’ structures, before written records.
Which, BTW, began about 5300 y.a.

 

[Heyo]

It's not a world elected body (like EU is for Europe). It's an association type entity where joint voluntary actions can be taken,

OK, that a distinction I can live with.

but it does not have the power to force a directive on anyone. I would prefer to keep it that way

I'd prefer that even joint voluntary actions have some accountability

but remove veto powers.

Yep. As it stands now the UN is a club of elitist veto powers with the rest of the world allowed to watch but not act.

 

[Heyo]

What’s that got to do with it?!

We can’t determine societies’ structures, before written records.
Which, BTW, began about 5300 y.a.

We can look at archaeologic finds, e.g. graves and bones, to see how many people were connected with warfare and how many died a violent death.