Is World Peace possible?

[TheAlchemist]

Definition: "World peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and/or people. World peace is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare. The term is sometimes used to refer to a cessation of all hostility amongst all humanity."

 

Additional question:

If you think world peace is possible, what practically needs to happen for it to become a reality?

In other words, how will world peace be actualized?

[PurpleTree]

3 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Definition: "World peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and/or people. World peace is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare. The term is sometimes used to refer to a cessation of all hostility amongst all humanity."

 

Additional question:

If you think world peace is possible, what practically needs to happen for it to become a reality?

In other words, how will world peace be actualized?

either every country needs nukes so it's too much of a cost to attack another country

to have a real honest world peace, with countries actually reducing and scaling back their military capabilities, spionage, coercion etc. seems impossible

maybe after an another devastating world war.

there is just too much posturing, ego, greed and fear going on

[Preety_India]

No. 

 

[SQAAD]

World Peace is possible in a society where almost everyone is advanced and conscious as Leo, Vishen Lakhiani, Deepak Chopra, Shunyamurti and etc. 

That's a tall order to fill but in 3. 000 years we could definitely get there. 

First we would have to identity as global citizens of this Earth. When we  start seeing ourselves as Earthlings and not as Americans, Greeks and all this sort of crap this will eventually change everything. 

We need everyone on this planet Stage Green and above for World Peace. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by SQAAD

[Space Lizard]

There's no reason to think so. This world is a violent struggle for power at every level, and we can't escape it. The world is Satanic, imo. The one thing Christians got right is that the Devil is the lord of this world.

Edited January 13, 2022 by Space Lizard

[happyhappy]

1 hour ago, SQAAD said:

We need everyone on this planet Stage Green and above for World Peace

6 minutes ago, Medhansh said:

Each individual should be stage green or above. Below green, not possible.

true! 

[Gesundheit2]

If you make me president, maybe.

[Carl-Richard]

Survival is at some level inherently violent.

[Nahm]

15 hours ago, TheAlchemist said:

If you think world peace is possible, what practically needs to happen for it to become a reality?

In other words, how will world peace be actualized?

Peace can not become a reality or be actualized because it’s already the default. If we all just stood still for five minutes and didn’t do anything to the contrary, there’d be five minutes of world peace. 

[Wilhelm44]

Yes, it's inevitable. If there are advanced civilizations in other galaxies, which there undoubtedly are, they would have had to reach a certain level of peace in order to advance. Think of those advanced civilizations as being like earth's future selves. 

[silene]

26 minutes ago, Nahm said:

Peace can not become a reality or be actualized because it’s already the default. If we all just stood still for five minutes and didn’t do anything to the contrary, there’d be five minutes of world peace. 

+1

Peace comes from within, so can we find peace before answering this question?  

When we try to make the world a better place, without finding our inner peace, we end up making it worse. 

[BlueOak]

No. 

Have you ever met someone you couldn't make angry?

[TheAlchemist]

5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Have you ever met someone you couldn't make angry?

You could also ask: "have you ever met someone whom with there was a 0% possibility of making peace with?"

Let's take the two people from all of human history who would be maximally opposing of each other and maximally violent towards each other. 

If there is a greater than 0% chance of them finding peace (utilizing all known methods of negotiation, communication and spirituality) then I would say world peace is in the realm of possibility. If the largest possible separation can be either healed or seen to be an illusion, that would make "solving" all the smaller separations between people a nice walk on the beach. 

Heal or see through the biggest separation, and you heal and undo it all. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TheAlchemist

[TheAlchemist]

16 hours ago, SQAAD said:

World Peace is possible in a society where almost everyone is advanced and conscious as Leo, Vishen Lakhiani, Deepak Chopra, Shunyamurti and etc. 

That's a tall order to fill but in 3. 000 years we could definitely get there. 

First we would have to identity as global citizens of this Earth. When we  start seeing ourselves as Earthlings and not as Americans, Greeks and all this sort of crap this will eventually change everything. 

We need everyone on this planet Stage Green and above for World Peace. 

I think I might would have replied something along those lines if I was asked this question as well. It makes a ton of sense. But for the sake of further exploration:

What if it's an assumption that that's what needs to happen? Will we keep digging into the root causes if we take that sort of deterministic view on all this? Collective paradigm shifts can happen, mindblowing discoveries can be made that recontextualize everything, we could understand the root causes of problems and solve them very quickly. 

Change looks progressive only when looking back, but what has been is not always a good sign of what's to come. I think it's one of the potential traps if spiral dynamics and other developmental models are taken too religiously; what has unfolded so far is assumed to be a sign of how things will keep unfolding. 

And thus the @Nahm said: "Peace can not become a reality or be actualized because it’s already the default."

So maybe by assuming the "progressive path" to peace, we are just pushing the "change" or "shift" further into the future. Maybe we must realize directly that peace is already here. Maybe that's "the way".

Edited January 13, 2022 by TheAlchemist

[BlueOak]

22 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

You could also ask: "have you ever met someone whom with there was a 0% possibility of making peace with?"

Let's take the two people from all of human history who would be maximally opposing of each other and maximally violent towards each other. 

If there is a greater than 0% chance of them finding peace (utilizing all known methods of negotiation, communication and spirituality) then I would say world peace is in the realm of possibility. If the largest possible separation can be either healed or seen to be an illusion, that would make "solving" all the smaller separations between people a nice walk on the beach. 

Heal or see through the biggest separation, and you heal and undo it all. 

I agree there isn't a zero percent chance of everyone, not someone, but everyone in the world making/living in peace with those they come into contact with or have a relationship with. Group consciousness or group behaviors can influence people enough to put peace before violence for example, by simply leveling and reinforcing those around them to a common perspective or action, but they can't remove the possibility of violence entirely, externally or internally.

If you wanted something constructive to think about, working on methods of separation before violent act or emotion would be useful, allowing space for thought or intervention before simply acting on instinct. Emotion - SPACE - Action [Discipline]. This will be simpler than trying to get people on mass to show empathy for strangers, or dissolving an illusion that our lives are not connected. 

Part of me resists this after living with an addict for so long. If everyone in the world is capable of something, then purely by that definition it can happen again, there are so many people to allow for it. Even setting aside things like greed, bad upbringing, social issues, drugs etc which may eventually be addressed to a more peaceful resolution. There are mistakes, emotional reactions, psychological conditions, and violent accidents to consider.

On a happier note, yes if people can heal something it fades. So if everyone in the world is capable of it, then yes it can also happen. 

[puporing]

Of course it's possible, if everyone raised their consciousness to a certain level like others have said here.. meanwhile it'll be a struggle to get there, but it is happening, we are in a more peaceful time than before, even if it may not seem that way. 

[Space Lizard]

On 1/13/2022 at 6:03 AM, Wilhelm44 said:

Yes, it's inevitable. If there are advanced civilizations in other galaxies, which there undoubtedly are, they would have had to reach a certain level of peace in order to advance. Think of those advanced civilizations as being like earth's future selves. 

Nice argument, except we have zero evidence for any such civilization. From the evidence we have, world peace is not a thing. It's not clear that it would be desirable either, since our own intelligence is a product of struggle and violence. What you are talking about is essentially a religious fairy tale, similar to Christian prophecies of lions lying down with the lambs.

Edited January 14, 2022 by Space Lizard

[Yarco]

Yes.

The easiest way to achieve world peace ironically would be for a one-world authoritarian government to enforce it on all citizens and member nations through threat of violence.

You could argue if it's really world peace if citizens are being jailed or sent to re-education camps or afraid to speak out or fight back. But by your definition of just not having warfare, then it would be successful.

If we had a third world war and one nation ended up controlling the entire world by force, then by definition we would have world peace at least for a time. 

No one ever said world peace was rainbows and doves. World peace could still be an absolute dystopian hell-hole.

Outside of something like I described above, I'd say no, or incredibly unlikely. Any time you have scarce resources there will be fighting.

[Wilhelm44]

8 hours ago, Space Lizard said:

Nice argument, except we have zero evidence for any such civilization. From the evidence we have, world peace is not a thing. It's not clear that it would be desirable either, since our own intelligence is a product of struggle and violence. What you are talking about is essentially a religious fairy tale, similar to Christian prophecies of lions lying down with the lambs.

Zero evidence  I'm guessing you believe UFO's are a hoax, we are the pinnacle of creation, and we're all alone in the universe ? 

If violence and struggle breeds intelligence, Afghanistan should be a desirable place to live in. 

The fallacy is thinking that a peaceful and enlightened civilization will be boring and not creative.

[BlueOak]

6 hours ago, Yarco said:

Yes.

The easiest way to achieve world peace ironically would be for a one-world authoritarian government to enforce it on all citizens and member nations through threat of violence.

You could argue if it's really world peace if citizens are being jailed or sent to re-education camps or afraid to speak out or fight back. But by your definition of just not having warfare, then it would be successful.

If we had a third world war and one nation ended up controlling the entire world by force, then by definition we would have world peace at least for a time. 

No one ever said world peace was rainbows and doves. World peace could still be an absolute dystopian hell-hole.

For me peace can't have violence in it. People being stuck in camps isn't peaceful, violence is in the oppression of their movement or way of life. 

Even comparing your statement to the dictionary definition I just pulled had:

1. The absence of war or other hostilities. - No unless you mean just external.

2. An agreement or a treaty to end hostilities -  Yes as nobodies around to treaty with, only your own people.

3. Freedom from quarrels and disagreement; harmonious relations - Definitely No.

4. Public security and order: was arrested for disturbing the peace - Not if there is active resistance.

5. Inner contentment; serenity: peace of mind - Definitely No