World Peace? What would we lose, if we had peace on earth? Why do you think war has been such a big part of our history?

Our history is filled with WAR. Is it inevitable? Hate to even think this, but could it even be desirable in some way to our growth and survival?

Asked by RondaFurkidsMomma 41 months ago Similar questions: World Peace lose peace earth war big part history Society.

Similar questions: World Peace lose peace earth war big part history.

I feel sorry for those who... lack the capacity to believe in something strongly enough to fight for. There are such things ad irreconcilable differences. An example from our modern world: There are nations governed by fundamentalist theocracies who believe it their sacred duty to bring the "infidel" nations under the holy rule of their religious dogma.

There are other nations on earth that hold the freedom of religion as a fundamental human right and the separation of church and state a fundamental mechanism to protect that right. Both sides hold their viewpoint as a core value on which there can be no compromise. So... we are left with the choice between abandoning what we believe because we are unwilling to defend it or fighting for what we believe in and accepting that there will be consequences, many of which are unpleasant.

I believe that those without the capacity to believe in something strongly enough to fight for are forever doomed to be adrift in a morass of moral relativity without anchor or compass.

It's the Tragedy Of The Commons ... in economists' jargon. Setting aside arguments based on testosterone, there's another phenomenon at work, which economists call 'the tragedy of the commons. ' Simply put, it means that if there's a situation where everyone could gain if everyone co-operates, but there's an opportunity for one person to enrich themselves at the expense of the others, then most of the time the latter scenario evolves - even if the aggregate gain to he whole group is reduced as a result.

I've seen this myself many, many time in a management game I designed. The way it goes is that each person is given a sum of money at the start (they all have the same); for each round each person has to put some money into a central 'kitty'; Mother Nature - that's me in the game - then doubles the kitty from her own resources, and players bid for the kitty. The winning bid gets the kitty, but all other bids are forfeited to Mother N.

The best way to play the game is for all the players to agree to co-operate, put all their money into the kitty for each round, and then have one agreed low bid. That way, the kitty is doubled each time and they can quickly get from 10 cents each to the whole group having $200. (I play it for real money, and give them the money at the end of the game).

Watching it is quite fascinating. As soon as people get into competitive bidding, one person may win the kitty but the total amount of money in the group is reduced. If someone spots that early on, they may then try to persuade their fellow-members to go down the co-operative strategy.

But even if they do, the tension in the group is always palpable ... and sometimes towards the end someone will break the agreement and bid for the whole kitty. (Thereby guaranteeing ruined relationships with their friends). You'd be amazed at the stratagems that people evolve in order to beat one another, rather than take advantage of the fact that benevolent old Mother Nature is standing there ready to double their aggregate resources ... I actually designed the game to mimic the sort of tensions that become apparent whenever you're trying to get something like the Kyoto agreement put in place (or dealing with acid rain, or global trading agreements) and the really sad thing is to see how much energy needs to go into the business of developing and maintaining trust in one another.

I'm sure that some people will advance theories based on testosterone, defence of territory, 'boys and their toys,' etc. , but all I can add is that I haven't observed any gender differences in 25+ years of running this exercise. (Nor any to do with intelligence or education either - you should have seen the fubar made by a bunch of Stanford graduates). No, I don't have any solutions or any fairy dust.

I hope to goodness that the people who've been through my courses have learned something from the experience, but that's one drop of rain in a very big sea. Maybe we have to wait until the coming generation - realistically fearful for the mess we're making of the planet - decide that it's time to exert some pressure for the sake of their own survival..

Most people want peace War happens because of the heart of man. The greed for power and land is the major cause of most wars, regardless of how they try to disguise themselves. This is closely tied in with the fact today that major manufacturers of war equipment make tremendous amounts of money due to war.

This puts them in a position to encourage the slaughter. But there is another question which must be asked, and the world is going to have to answer it very soon now: Peace at what cost? If each person's every move were monitored in order to ensure peace, would you agree to that?

If a one-world government were established, and death to anyone who disagreed, would you agree to that? That will be the attempt at outward peace, but the result will be fierce turmoil inside of people instead. What we need is that inner peace which allows each of us to deal with the thrashings of a dying world.

Jesus promised that to those who are and I have found personally that He delivers on .

It's not what we lose, it's what YOU lose War happens when somebody decides that they can do better by violence. War is not a global decision; it takes only one country, party, or even person to start a war. If they start a war against you, you have two options: die (in which case they get your stuff, justifying the war to them) or fight back (in which case you can't say that you never fight under any circumstances).

In game theory, they call it the Prisoner's Dilemma. We're all better off if we work together, but as long as somebody can conclude that it's in their own personal best interest to be bad, then it turns out it's in EVERYBODY's best interest to be bad. If you had a magic wand to make everybody agree, we would all be better off.

But as long as somebody thinks they can get ahead, we'll have war. We're all collectively worse off, but they don't care as long as they're better off. Ironically, the best way to prevent that may well be war itself.

A powerful country with a powerful army can declare, "If you make war on anybody, we will make war on you. You will lose. Therefore, it is not actually to your advantage."

The logical extreme of this was the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) that existed between the US and USSR during the cold war. Everybody was terrified of the other, but that unpleasant terror made it impossible for anybody to actually start a war. It felt like a piece of spaghetti balanced on its end, but the logic kept everybody safe.

Unless an accident or mistake happened, in which case everybody died. It didn't happen. Could it have?

We'll never really know. The lesson, however, is still clear: it doesn't really matter how great it would be for everybody if there was no war. We'll have wars, at least small ones, anyway..

The cost of world peace is a loss of variety of thought. We live in a world of limited resources and opposing ideas on how those resources should be used. It is the competition for power over those resources and ideas that trigger wars.

If everyone thought the same way and agreed how the resources should be apportioned at every level (individual, city, state, country, international), there would be no wars or disagreements. There would be no need for military or police. There would not even be any domestic disputes since everyone would agree on who should marry who and how everyone should behave.

Selfishness breeds greed, which causes an imbalance in wealth and power. Disagreement leads to force to reestablish balance, which inevitably leads to a further imbalance, one way or the other, if the object that is being fought over is not destroyed in the process. War has been around forever because of scarce resources and opposing ideas and natural competition between humans.

Humans will always disagree with each other. The only thing that changes is the scale of the disagreement. I don't think war is beneficial.It is a sign we have let things get too far out of balance.

But disagreement is desirable to keep different ideas alive, and keep those in power responsive to those not in power. I hope this helps..

" "Would you rather every nation be at peace with each other or every nation be as one nation, one world?" "King Abdullah says peace with Israel now or Middle East war in two years. US set to make peace deal. Good idea?" "Can you ever have true peace with so much chaos in the world drugs, abuse, war?

" "Veterans, join me in telling your stories from Peace and war" "who proposed a plan for peace after World War 1 called fourteen points" "When peace fails, war results. But when war fails, peace does not result. Chaos and destruction are increased overall.

King Abdullah says peace with Israel now or Middle East war in two years. US set to make peace deal. Good idea?

Veterans, join me in telling your stories from Peace and war.

Who proposed a plan for peace after World War 1 called fourteen points.

When peace fails, war results. But when war fails, peace does not result. Chaos and destruction are increased overall.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.