Are we close to achieving world peace?

[99Percent]

At first glance the idea of world peace seems ludicrous considering the Iraq war and the Jihad of muslims against western civilization, and the never ending conflict in Palistine.

But if you look objectively at the overall picture, and compare it with most of world history, I think it is safe to say we are very darn close to achieving world peace. Global economy is booming, death by global conflicts are diminishing and thanks to the internet and globalization, I think developing countries are finally able to stabilize themselves enough for their economies to grow steadily.

Warmongering idealism, for maybe the exception of extreme islam, is pretty much dead I think.

What is needed in my opinion, to achieve final world peace and stability, is:

1. The U.S. to stop interfering too much in international politics.
2. Venezuela, Cuba and NK must forgoe their dictatorships somehow.
3. Muslims countries need to get more secularized.
4. Ethnic strife in Africa must end.
5. The economic power of globalization needs to become more dominant than localized political interests and nationalisms and patriotisms.

[RED DAVE]

If you want world peace, you might begin by sticking to the facts.

From 99Percent:
Venezuela ... must forgoe [sic] [its] dictatorship[] somehow.Only problem is that Venezuela is a constitutional democracy.

But you knew that.

From the CIA Factbook:
Venezuela: Government type: Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.RED DAVE

[GenesisNemesis]

I dunno... I was watching a video in Biology class that had to do with world population problems. It was talking about how India's population is rising, Japan's is decreasing, etc. There was also something like "one child in America will use more resources and pollute more than 30 children in India."

:huh:

[Loren Pechtel]

99%, I think you need an eye exam.

The factors you mention I think are a greater impediment to world peace than how things were in the past. Yes, there used to be more wars but it was two sides that were basically rational maneuvering for position.

Now we are looking at conflict based on hatred and insanity. I think these are much more dangerous and harder to solve.

[Eric Starnes]

World peace? I would be happy if we dont blow ourselves up in my life time.

Not a chance in my opinion.

[Rathpig]

Is this thread irony?

Personally, I don't think the world is any less peaceful than it has been in the past, but it damn sure ain't more peaceful. Humans are not really a "peaceful" animal.

[trittydi]

As soon as we get a brand new shiny Repugican in office. So be sure to vote for your GOP if you love your freedom.

(Can't we just GIVE ours to Iraq? We're not using it)

Or within a week of bombing Iran - if Bush gets lucky enough to pull that off (he's already held the critical meeting with Dobson that is a precursor to an attack.)

Wait and see - each GOP candidate will have a "secret plan." We all know peace doesn't have a chance if we get some pre-9/11 mind-set wimpy Dem in there.

So there could be 10 "secret plans" uh . . . offered up, by the GOP stooges.

But really? I wish - I just don't see it with the middle east such a horrific mess, and wild cards like China, North Korea and Pakistan.

I think our only chance is if - somehow - the global warming crisis draws all the nations of the world together.

I think the issue could be that compelling - but while we have men ruling the world - everyone of them with one hand deep in their pants with a hand on their tiller - I don't think so.
*

[Hydra009]

Global economy is booming, death by global conflicts are diminishing and thanks to the internet and globalization, I think developing countries are finally able to stabilize themselves enough for their economies to grow steadily.Is this thread irony?

Personally, I don't think the world is any less peaceful than it has been in the past, but it damn sure ain't more peaceful. Humans are not really a "peaceful" animal.Okay, we have two competing factual claims, and both cannot simultaneously be correct. Casualties in armed conflicts are either more or less than they were in the past.

I think the OP is right on this, since iirc, both the number and number of casualties of global conflicts has decreased since the end of the Cold War. Obviously, there are glaring examples of some very violent conflicts in recent days (Darfur and Iraq come to mind), but the overall picture seems to be towards a decrease. So yes, I would say that world peace (or as close to it as we can reasonably get) is a very real possibility.

Here's the data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Security_Report_2005) I'm working off, but I'd love to see more current statistics, especially data including the ongoing war in Iraq.

[Rathpig]

Okay, we have two competing factual claims, and both cannot simultaneously be correct. Casualties in armed conflicts are either more or less than they were in the past.....

I would guess the viewpoint depends on the time frame. If you compare just the last 100 years it would appear we are trending to peace based on sheer numbers alone. The deaths of both world wars, numerous revolutions, Cold War police actions, and genocides obviously skewing the statistics of the entire twentieth century. If you compare the entirety of human history it appears that peace is as cyclical as war.

I would hesitate to say that "peace" is even close to possible with the unknown number of total casualties in Iraq, the genocide in Darfur, and the literal powderkeg that will be the inevitable Iraq withdrawal. It seems strange, on it's surface, to suggest we are trending toward peace because that is contrary to the evidence at hand.

[Trout]

But if you look objectively at the overall picture, and compare it with most of world history, I think it is safe to say we are very darn close to achieving world peace.

Joke?

Global economy is booming,

In an overall if very skewed way.

and thanks to the internet and globalization, I think developing countries are finally able to stabilize themselves enough for their economies to grow steadily.

Dear god man. If that is your understanding of what is "holding developing countries back" then there's no point in discussing it.

Warmongering idealism, for maybe the exception of extreme islam, is pretty much dead I think.

Joke #2?


1. The U.S. to stop interfering too much in international politics.

Simplistic and ineffective. Isolationism may also contradict your point on globalization.

2. Venezuela, Cuba and NK must forgoe their dictatorships somehow.

Why only those places?

3. Muslims countries need to get more secularized.

Actually we all need that but if the rich and powerful US that has built an empire on science, put the first man on the moon, etc, etc, etc still has large swaths of nutbar holdouts then my expectations for converting illiterate, poverty stricken people living in hovels without electricity are low.

4. Ethnic strife in Africa must end.

...and in Europe, North America....remember the Serbs?

5. The economic power of globalization needs to become more dominant than localized political interests and nationalisms and patriotisms

Well, that's the big question these days in my opinion. Two paths seem to be opening up in terms of the long view of humanity. Institutional collectivism, likely forced to a degree and not at all like communist attempts and for lack of a better word, tribalism which is usually born out of necessity. I'm actually betting on both and on the idea that although we may be witnessing a move away from open national conflicts as dominant warfare, it will only change focus and tactics. It's not going anywhere without human inner change and that's just not gonna happen without another 3,000 years of movement toward it. Personally, I really wonder if we'll last another 500.

[Space Chef]

With peace like this who needs war?

[ulrich321]

I think that the future wars will be more deadly and destructive than before. With the whole world becoming more industrially advanced and an ever growing world population, there will be more demand for limited resources.

[Laurentius]

I have this vision, rahter than prediction: the more globalized the world becomes, the more local the wars will be, while an international consortium of police states will kind of run the situation.

[enoch007]

I have this vision, rahter than prediction: the more globalized the world becomes, the more local the wars will be, while an international consortium of police states will kind of run the situation.

and to extend this vision further, what if the 21 century features globilization at such a clip that the actual international structure of nation states begins to fade away. Nation states are not a permanant feature of governance, any more than monarchies, empires, or tribes were. With increased globalization and an easement of nationalism could one see the increase of the non-state actors coming to the fore? The presence of the non-state actor in international affairs has been a staple since the seventies (and the first wave of the international terrorist groups, as well as the establishment and proliferation of the non-govenmental organizations) . I see the trend going toward more centralized, non-state entities simutaneously expanding with more de-centralized non-state organizations (whether benevolant or militant) proliferating. Both fueled by information technology, both establishing trans-continental links with one another. One does not necessarily need a nation to raise an army, deliver aid, coordinate logistics etc. What if the future consists of trans-nationals and al-Queda? Perhaps no more big wars as witnessed in the 20 Century, but not necessarily more peace either, and more difficulty finding a true safe haven.

[dug_down_deep]

I agree with 99%. We are getting closer, though we're not there yet. (This doesn't imply a gradual diminishment of war, though. That's not how change works.) And globalization, which means the entangling of economies, will create mutual dependencies that will make state-sponsored wars a kind of suicide.

[Laurentius]

and to extend this vision further, what if the 21 century features globilization at such a clip that the actual international structure of nation states begins to fade away.

Paradoxically, globalization will prevent the extinction of the nation state, I think. Your picture appears to be coherent, but you fail to name the cohesion element of the non state entities you see acting in the future. Without it, I cannot see how I could agree with your view.

[Nice Squirrel]

Having watched this thread develop, it is more suited for PE&ST.

[enoch007]

Paradoxically, globalization will prevent the extinction of the nation state, I think. Your picture appears to be coherent, but you fail to name the cohesion element of the non state entities you see acting in the future. Without it, I cannot see how I could agree with your view.

The cohesion elements are similiar to ones in operation today, economic and cultural compatability/sel-interest, comparable missions and aims, sharing resources to attain goals. International aid orgs share expertise and logistical supports, as do international terrorist cells. Multi-Nationals cooperate along mutually beneficial lines within the parameters of global financial markets. When there are general consenses about the structure of individual rights, under nuclear umbrellas and other security apparatus(es?)
the need for the old style nations state may fade away.

[Laurentius]

Well, such entities would compete for resources to fulfill their needs and achieve their goals, I know. But we're speaking about political elites ruling masses of people through some kind of ideology, which has to revolve around one unifying principle (such as the idea of God, or nation, or class, or race, etc.) and propose the model of a perfect society. Do you envisage such a new ideology that could render nationalism in a globalized world? Because I cannot.

(which does not mean that I believe nationalism will last for ever, but this is a different discussion)

[enoch007]

Well, such entities would compete for resources to fulfill their needs and achieve their goals, I know. But we're speaking about political elites ruling masses of people through some kind of ideology, which has to revolve around one unifying principle (such as the idea of God, or nation, or class, or race, etc.) and propose the model of a perfect society. Do you envisage such a new ideology that could render nationalism in a globalized world? Because I cannot.

(which does not mean that I believe nationalism will last for ever, but this is a different discussion)

Well, of course some manner of competition, but perhaps competition resembling the EU vs. A pan-Asian economic interest for mineral rights in Africa. And could this get some people hurt through various strategems employed, sure. I am not proposing some panacea of peaceful co-existance, we are talking about humans, after all.

As far as binding ideology, those can be consigned to the trash heap of history and/or chatboards, it will not disappear but may not necessarily be persuasive enough to trump economic self interest (can you imagine China and India pacting up despite their "ideological" differences?).

Religion can bind other interests (remember I also saw the rise of de-centralized, smaller scale non-state players operating simultaneously with the super-blocs), but I resist the thought of a large (really large) functioning Theocracy. Neither the Bible or the Koran layed out an economic policy.
Class will always exist, hopefully race will finally be recognized for the utterly false concept it is. The world will go forward, only without the nationalistic identities that previous centuries clung to.

[Hydra009]

If you compare the entirety of human history it appears that peace is as cyclical as war.Is it?

Take for example, North America and Europe. Are they likely to experience another major war on their soil in the near future? War has been increasingly far-flung towards Africa and the Middle East, with major conflicts between world powers largely a thing of the past. But since the end of the Cold War, we've had to deal with global conflicts of a different sort - ethnic and religious hostilities boiling over into wars and humanitarian disasters as well as the specter of international terrorism. But horrible as that is, it's a heck of a lot closer to world peace than humanity has ever been in the past.

It seems strange, on it's surface, to suggest we are trending toward peace because that is contrary to the evidence at hand.Already addressed that. Global trend =/= a single incident.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow! What an OP. Kinda forgets one tiny itty bitty problem that is going to start coming out sooner or later.

The War for Water. Just when you thought the Middle East didn't have enough problems.... Going to be an issue in Africa as well.

Global world peace is as close as it ever has been... not close at all.

[Tammuz]

I agree with the OP. We are moving closer to world peace, regardless of what these doomsday prophets say.

Yes, the ethnic wars in Africa must cease, Islam must be wiped off the planet, the dictatorships of the world must end, and especially such a large country (both in size and population) as China must become a democratic nation.

However, world peace will not make the world an ideal place at once. There are still exteme poverty in South America and Africa that must be addressed, and exteme backwardness in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, about which something must be done.

[Alethias]

Wow! What an OP. Kinda forgets one tiny itty bitty problem that is going to start coming out sooner or later.

The War for Water. Just when you thought the Middle East didn't have enough problems.... Going to be an issue in Africa as well.

Global world peace is as close as it ever has been... not close at all.I've heard it said, concerning Iraq, that controlling water rights is at least as much of an issue as controlling oil rights. The right to extract oil from the earth and sell it is a wealth issue. Water rights is a survival issue.

I would say concerning the OP that there is less chance of something like global war than there may have been 30 years ago, but increased chance of intense localized conflict. I think that things like the events in Rwanda and Somalia and Iraq and Afghanistan, to name a very small number of the modern "wars", will be the norm rather than the exception.

Globally the nature of conflict is changing, but locally people are still dying.

[enoch007]

I agree with the OP. We are moving closer to world peace, regardless of what these doomsday prophets say.

, Islam must be wiped off the planet,.

Now, here is a guarantee of a century more warfare (if not longer)



China must become a democratic nation..

Decentralization has been the bane of governance in China. Chinese political stability has traditionally operated better when centralized to a degree we westerners would perhaps feel uncomfortable about. Democracy will never be imposed upon China from without, and an internal conflict to establish it from within may be utterly catastrophic. Some contries really do not take well to all that free choice stuff.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I agree with the OP. We are moving closer to world peace, ... Islam must be wiped off the planet, ...No really, I'm not taking this quote out of the original context. Granted, the point wasn't solely hinging on Islam being wiped out, but I find the idea that "world peace" is getting nearer... and all we need to do is rid the world of one of it's largest religions. Are we going to achieve that through a door to door campaign?

[Nice Squirrel]

Maybe it is because of my studies of history that you may color me a pessimist, but we basically destroyed fascism and Japanese militarism in the first half of the 20th century. Destroying the militant Islam factions will not make the world safer. Somebody else will begin to be the new threat. Things in Alice Springs are pretty quiet right now... could they be the next evil agitators?

Jimmy, Have you thought of painting a peace mural?

[Tammuz]

No really, I'm not taking this quote out of the original context. Granted, the point wasn't solely hinging on Islam being wiped out, but I find the idea that "world peace" is getting nearer... and all we need to do is rid the world of one of it's largest religions. Are we going to achieve that through a door to door campaign?

No, I did not say that only Islam is the problem, but it is certainly a part of it. In my opinion, Islam must be denounced in the same way that Nazism is denounced.

[enoch007]

No, I did not say that only Islam is the problem, but it is certainly a part of it. In my opinion, Islam must be denounced in the same way that Nazism is denounced.


Can we also renounce socially retrogressive Catholicism while we are at it, and Hindu Fundamentalist Parties better watch out too!

[IsItJustMe]

With peace like this who needs war?

My view as well.

Wars come about because of shifting control in the world, between competing powers, competing ideologies, etc.

If there were only one viable ideology left, and all the others were on their last legs, and if that ideology were capable of allowing various nations which followed it to live in peace with one another, maybe we'd be on the verge of world peace.

That's sort of what Francis Fukuyama had in mind in his book about the so-called End of History. But the End of History as ended.

There are numerous ideologies which are opposed to U.S. hegemony in the world, including Islamism, Bolivarianism, Marxism, and Hindu nationalism. None of them show any signs of abating in the near future.

Besides which, the liberal capitalist ideology which is prevalent in the first world will sooner or later fight with itself. If third world nations were to adopt it, they would likely adopt the nationalism that goes with it, which will not allow them to accept U.S. domination of their own countries.

And we know that what brought the major capitalist powers together was a common enemy which was the enemy of all capitalism. If capitalism were to lose all such enemies, the same old competitions over markets and resources would develop once again, and capitalist powers would fight with each other.

So... I don't think prospects for world peace are all that good right now.

[Henry-Finland]

I agree with the OP. We are moving closer to world peace, regardless of what these doomsday prophets say.

Yes, the ethnic wars in Africa must cease, Islam must be wiped off the planet, the dictatorships of the world must end, and especially such a large country (both in size and population) as China must become a democratic nation.

However, world peace will not make the world an ideal place at once. There are still exteme poverty in South America and Africa that must be addressed, and exteme backwardness in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan, about which something must be done.
"We are moving closer to world peace..." and "...Islam must be wiped off the planet..." :rolleyes:
And I liked also this part about how we are moving closer to the peace; "...regardless of what these doomsday prophets say."

Well I am a doomsday prophet and I say that after WWII there has been a lot of "clashes", but the war has not begun - yet.

Why will it begin? Because there is too many persons that eagerly takes what ever medicine propaganda they are spoon-fed with.

[Maybe peace is our next spoon-fed hate-object?]


Henry

[Ghostdog]

World peace is an oxymoron. It is completely impossible. Despite how hard you may try there will always be those who want what you have and they don't care what they have to do for it. There will always be dictators and war, its just the way life is.

[Ghostdog]

What is needed in my opinion, to achieve final world peace and stability, is:

1. The U.S. to stop interfering too much in international politics.
2. Venezuela, Cuba and NK must forgoe their dictatorships somehow.
3. Muslims countries need to get more secularized.
4. Ethnic strife in Africa must end.
5. The economic power of globalization needs to become more dominant than localized political interests and nationalisms and patriotisms.

Many of these things are completely impossible. #2 is remotely possible but not for a while. #1 and 3 are even more remotely possible. America may stop being such an ass when Bush leaves office, but we will see...

The one thing these all tie to is greed. Destroy human greed and you will have world peace.

[Clivedurdle]

I also agree with the OP.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, Kosova, the little Iraq matter - it is very small fry compared with Vietnam - we were too optimistic - the problems are more complex than thought but not insoluble.

We currently today have had a spat between the EU and Russia - because the ex Warsaw Pact nations see Stalin as a betrayer when actually he was Machiavelian by keeping a truce for a couple of years to enable build up of forces and eventually defeat Naziism - but 50% of Russia's trade is with the EU - we are completely interdependent.

[Tammuz]

Can we also renounce socially retrogressive Catholicism while we are at it, and Hindu Fundamentalist Parties better watch out too!

They are pretty much denounced already, and at least today they aren't as dangerous as Muhammed's followers.

[Condraz23]

I don't think total world peace will ever be achieved, because mankind is inherently violent in nature. However, we should be pretty close to achieving world peace in about a century or two.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

What is needed in my opinion, to achieve final world peace and stability, is:

1. The U.S. to stop interfering too much in international politics.
2. Venezuela, Cuba and NK must forgoe their dictatorships somehow.
3. Muslims countries need to get more secularized.
4. Ethnic strife in Africa must end.


I agree with what you said except for this list.

Explain to me exactly how 2, 3, and 4 will occur without 1. Specific examples to backup your claims would be useful.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

The War for Water. Just when you thought the Middle East didn't have enough problems.... Going to be an issue in Africa as well.


Water can be desalinated. The primary cost is transporting the water into the interior of a continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

[Pastor's Nightmare]

Maybe it is because of my studies of history that you may color me a pessimist, but we basically destroyed fascism and Japanese militarism in the first half of the 20th century. Destroying the militant Islam factions will not make the world safer. Somebody else will begin to be the new threat. Things in Alice Springs are pretty quiet right now... could they be the next evil agitators?

Jimmy, Have you thought of painting a peace mural?

The system we installed in Japan and Europe after destroying Japanese militarism and European fascism has kept the place relatively stable, right?

Once a nice stable system is achieved with a certain level of human development, there is no turning back. The key is to get the whole world to that point.

[Pastor's Nightmare]

I think that the future wars will be more deadly and destructive than before. With the whole world becoming more industrially advanced and an ever growing world population, there will be more demand for limited resources.

Technology will provide many solutions.

1.)Nuclear fusion will allow us to produce the same amount of energy from 1 gallon of sea water as we do from 5,000 gallons of gasoline. The first test model is scheduled for completion within 15 years. The first commercial prototyple should be ready in 25-30 years, and full scale deployment should occur within 40-50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_nuclear_fusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

2.)Ethanol will provide a replacement for gasoline. Of course, we need to produce a lot of it. This is related to the total amount of arable land. Non-arable land can be converted to arable land given sufficient water, energy, and time. Once energy becomes available in abundance, this will be much easier since desalination will be easier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land

As energy becomes more available, growing plants in multistory glass buildings using hydroponics will also become feasible. This will allow for a thousand fold increase in productivity, which should be sufficient to sustain the earth until world wide population starts to decline.

Currently, the earth has 12 million square miles of arable land but 57 million square miles of land. A lot of this land can be converted into arable land once energy becomes available since this will allow desalination plants to be built. And, stuff like saltbrush can be planted during initial phases in salted regions of the earth. As salt concentration declines, this land can grow other stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atriplex

We can also use saltbrush to produce E85.

[praying]

Are we close to achieving world peace?

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/50/peace2bp2.jpg




Seriously

We will never be close to wolrd peace as long as the majority of the world lives in extreme poverty.

[DietCoke]

We can't even agree on what societies need wiping out. How can world peace be near?

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with what you said except for this list.

Explain to me exactly how 2, 3, and 4 will occur without 1. Specific examples to backup your claims would be useful.

How does US action have any connection whatsoever to ethnic strife in Africa?

And how much of it is ethnic, anyway?

It's either based on religion or scarce resources. There's a lot more blame of an ethnic basis than reality. Rwanda? Towns that were ethnically pure still had half the death rate of the most mixed places.

[Clivedurdle]

Are we close to achieving world peace?

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/50/peace2bp2.jpg

Seriously

We will never be close to wolrd peace as long as the majority of the world lives in extreme poverty.

Wrong end of telescope thinking.

Huge swathes of the population of the planet are wealthier and better educated and healthier than at any time in history. Smallpox has been eradicated, Polio almost.

A fantastic amount has been achieved in only five hundred years - it is not perfect and there are huge problems like climate change. But there is a clear direction of travel.

We will continue to have significant problems because of the privitisation of violence through Stockholm syndrome cults like extreme Islam, but we will develop effective responses. It is a similar problem to bacteriologial resistance - we will eventually work out ways to ecologically prevent new resistant strains arising. in the same way we will be able to inoculate against tribalism and similar violent responses.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=192846

[premjan]

I believe Rwanda was a compound of scarcity of arable land, class friction and ethnic differences.

[Clivedurdle]

I believe Rwanda was a compound of scarcity of arable land, class friction and ethnic differences.

And missionaries!

http://www.geocities.com/missionalia/rwanda1.htm

A further example that with better understanding of interactions stable sustainable solutions can be found - the textbook of how to achieve world peace will include this as a case example.

(Except it has already been written and I've got it!)

http://www.worldchanging.com/search/?author=&category=24&month=200510

WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it's here. We only need to put the pieces together.


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/ethicalliving/story/0,,1998116,00.html

http://www.cbc.ca/hottype/mt/shows/worldchanging_a_users_guide_to_2.html

[premjan]

Interesting - I had not realized the role of missionaries (who have been criticized for creating political problems in India as well).

[roy]

Peace in our time-forget about it. The political state always has meant war. See this website

<a href="http://www.members.tripod.com/~physiocrat/index-2.html">Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace</a>

[Clivedurdle]

Peace in our time-forget about it. The political state always has meant war. See this website

<a href="http://www.members.tripod.com/~physiocrat/index-2.html">Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace</a>

What is this nay saying about? Take a risk, see if we can work out how to live peacefully with each other - we won't if we don't try or believe it cannot be done. The thing to fear is fear itself - and why assume nation states are part of the equation?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The system we installed in Japan and Europe after destroying Japanese militarism and European fascism has kept the place relatively stable, right?

Once a nice stable system is achieved with a certain level of human development, there is no turning back. The key is to get the whole world to that point.

That's pretty much my thesis, but well-stated. A certain level of technological and political development seems to make global stability more achievable. "World Peace"? Not likely. Better than any generations previous, I think so.

[enoch007]

[QUOTE]The system we installed in Japan and Europe after destroying Japanese militarism and European fascism has kept the place relatively stable, right?

No, it was the nuclear umbrellas that continue to this very day which states: All these really big bombs are there to protect you but, don't get any ideas.....

Once a nice stable system is achieved with a certain level of human development, there is no turning back. The key is to get the whole world to that point.[/

This is quintessentially what people believed in the 19th Century. Everything was stable under the benevolence of European colonialism. Why couldn't everyone just see that!

[praying]

Wrong end of telescope thinking.


Needless to say but I am saying anyway :Cheeky:…I disagree.

Huge swathes of the population of the planet are wealthier and better educated and healthier than at any time in history. Smallpox has been eradicated, Polio almost.


True

A fantastic amount has been achieved in only five hundred years - it is not perfect and there are huge problems like climate change.

Also true.



But there is a clear direction of travel.

Not true.

If there was clear direction than millions who die annually from PREVENATBLE illnesses would not occur.
If this were true Rwanda/Sudan, to a lesser extent Serbia would not occur.
If this were true then thousands of women and children would not be sold into sexual slavery every year.
If this were true AIDS would never have reached the pandemic stage.



We will continue to have significant problems because of the privitisation of violence through Stockholm syndrome cults like extreme Islam, but we will develop effective responses. It is a similar problem to bacteriologial resistance - we will eventually work out ways to ecologically prevent new resistant strains arising. in the same way we will be able to inoculate against tribalism and similar violent responses.


The question isn’t will we develop effective responses because more than likely we will but who will benefit?

[Clivedurdle]

I did say it isn't perfect and we can tend to do two steps back one forward - but a small test - what is happening to infant mortality rates?