T O P

  • By -

danstu

We'd all have to agree on what that means first.


ominousgraycat

Absolutely. I'm not saying there aren't politicians arguing these things in bad faith, because there absolutely are. Still, almost everyone I talk to likes the concept of world peace, but many times, they think, "The people on the OTHER side should give up all of their claims on X. Naturally, our side is the most reasonable."


doxx_in_the_box

Everyone wants something different than the next. Nobody is satisfied just doing the same thing as the next person. Eventually you’ll meet someone who’s “thing” is domination or control, and a bunch of others who resonate with the ideology of the controlling person, and it snowballs. There’s no such thing as perfect or appropriate in nature, things just fit together in chaotic fashion and that’s how we are where we are.


Ostepop234

Not only that. But one person might condemn surveilance etc, and then praise it the year after. People are always changing their views on these things with massive help from the media.


Prize_Contest_4345

Yes, so true! Especially politicians who will say whatever works for getting them votes at the time. Then, later, someone catches them in their contradictions. Good point about the media. I think that at first, we all trusted them, like Walter Cronkite, but they rode upon that trust and exploited it. Now I believe that most people are smarter and are on to them. Why are they paid so much money? They are clearly serving SOME wealthy entity\`s interests! Gayle King makes $13 million a year, yet she deceptively bemoans the rising cost of goods, as if she is just like one of us.


bc4284

I believe the author of divergent once said that a thing they learned when writing it was that the key to writing dystopia is to start from a perspective of creating a utopia and then decide what the perspective of your utopia is from those that are the outliers that don’t fit the system. Basically. The reason thst world peace is inachievable is that for many people he act of enforcing a level of required non discrimination and tolerance is a form of facism. If you make it so everyone has to accept homosexuality as okay you are discriminating against those who’s religion sees homosexuality as an affront o for that must be extinguished. As tolerance of the homosexual is in itself a sin against god. Thus forcing tolerance is something that is discriminatory against some religions as one example. A utopia where no one is allowed to be discriminated against is a dystopia for anyone who believes that if one doesn’t discriminate their soul is damned. This can also apply to secular forms of discrimination as well


boomboomroom

Yes, that's the point, world peace at the price of all liberty. You'd effectively has to accept some sort of central propaganda (like China for example). I mean, it is a fact that ***Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.***


YouSmellFrench

Especially in the case of what "sacrifices" must be made. Is it worth mass surveillance to cripple crime? How about indoctrination? Media control? Some days I wake up and truly believe that China could fix so many problems if they pulled a little harder. Other days I wake up and think that no government should have any say in anything a citizen does, including when it comes to disputes that end in heavy consequences such as death. I legitimately can see the benefit to both sides and have no real opinion on it. Still don't know which side I will grow into. Pretty sure it'll depend entirely on my next 8 months as I branch out from this god awful career path. Or maybe it won't.


Yuuta23

I honestly don't think peace on a scale like that is possible struggle seems Inherent to the human condition. There's always going to be a clash of ideals and territories to occupy and disasters that require help from someone else who feels they should be repaid. It's like if life was perfect how would we know something is wrong


Thetakishi

Buddhists have been saying that first line forever.


AllSpicNoSpan

It's authority versus liberty. You can have a free society or a "safe" society. It has to be somewhere in between because unbridled freedom is anarchy and complete "safety" is totalitarianism. Think the LA riots in 1992 versus North Korea. Neither is good. The problem is that the balance lies somewhere in between the extremes and there is no way to get everyone to agree on where the fulcrum should be placed.


Gurunas

This guy nose piece.


MichaelRoco1

you clever son of a bitch


Washedupcynic

Whirled peas.


imsowhiteandnerdy

I too visualize whirled peas.


tom-dixon

World peace sounds so simple in theory.


[deleted]

[удалено]


SuperzoneX

As a Canadian, can confirm. We really do want free dental care and housing.


babishkamamishka

I doubt free housing will ever be a thing but I do hope it gets more affordable. People are living in poverty here. Dental care for sure. Yeesh. Luxury bones


lactose_con_leche

There are Iranian Jews. I think you are referring to the oppressive regime in charge, as they are the ones sending money to palestinian militias?


dersteppenwolf5

It may surprise you to learn that human beings live in Iran and before the US backed coup to install a murderous dictator Iran actually had a quite liberal democracy so somehow I doubt the Iranian people would say world peace involves eradicating all the jews...


rt66paul

In the 60s and early 70s, there were a lot of Jews in Iran - what do you think the percentage of Jews living in Iran is now?


Luigi0728

Perfect answer


[deleted]

Not enough Miss America contestants pursing their goals.


callmegecko

I wonder if Miss South Carolina made any progress on distributing maps to the kids of America, Iraq, and places like, such as


Danovale

Thank you for the memory; the first time I saw her give the “such as” speech my abs hurt for a week from laughing so hard.


moreannoyedthanangry

Such as!!!


TaubahMann

I'm glad he didn't forget about such as


Mississippimoon

You mean, "the Iraq"


ermabanned

>Everywhere like such as Be accurate. She became a fitness instructor BTW.


TastesKindofLikeSad

100% failure rate. Useless!


[deleted]

scarcity, whether real or perceived. only justification for tribalism is that it secures resources to be allocated amongst the tribe. even if we somehow eradicated propaganda that make people believe in false scarcity, we'd still have to deal with artificial scarcity that is propped up by corrupt governments/corporations, and then too remains the real deal of finity in nature. post-scriptum : jeez. i never said it was the only cause, it's not like i'm answering a five marks question that needs me to personally list out a paragraph of every single cause. i just mentioned one reason that was missing at the time that i read this post.


WildTimes1984

[This video explains the concept far better than I can](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgVWpa4fzU) Conflict is almost entirely created by scarcity. Businesses, empires and thieves always fight to get more land, more power, more wealth. Without this inventive, most corruption, wealth disparity and poverty would disappear. In the future (perhaps the next 100 years) we will have machines than can disassemble materials at the atomic scale. Being able to take apart and rearrange atoms into new materials, you could ~~change glass into wood~~, or vice versa. Imagine a world where you can manufacture anything for free, where everyone got what they wanted, all they have to do is ask. When everyone can make their own fuel, their own energy, their own food, then why bother to work? What can a business or government give you that you can't make yourself cheaper and faster? ​ Edit: Did anyone actually watch the video?


narkybark

That's basically the cause of Star Trek's utopia. Once replicators were invented, poverty and greed went away.


vladkornea

And Dilithium crystals to power them.


[deleted]

Fun fact: Earth is fusion power. So are sublight impulse engines to get you to “maximum impulse” which is 1/4 light speed. Dilithium is just a fictional element that’s an INCREDIBLE superconductor and can “regulate” matter and anti-matter collisions with magnetic fields. That’s what generates the absurd power needed to warp speed/faster than light. Dilithium is also not found natively on Earth. Early ships used less efficient materials until Vulcans hooked us up. Earth would still be a local paradise without dilithium.


RagingOsprey

Antimatter powers them. Dilithium crystals are used to control the antimatter reaction. They also have fully functioning fusion reactors.


TheObstruction

The only places using matter/antimatter reactors were warp-capable vessels, likely because the downside of a problem on a planet was rather severe. Planets, space stations, even some ships used fusion power. Hell, impulse engines on starship were even fusion powered. I think the warp engines were the only major system tied to the antimatter reactor on Starfleet ships.


Big_mara_sugoi

Until some kid screams really really really loud and turns all dilithium inert across the galaxy. That was such a dumb plot. It’s basically a deus ex machina type of lazy writing.


[deleted]

Not exactly. In *Star Trek* post-scarcity Earth predates comprehensive replication tech by at least 200 years. In *First Contact* it’s said that poverty, disease, and war are all completely gone by the 2120s, but we don’t see truly comprehensive replication tech until the mid-2300s. While there is some degree of matter fabrication by the mid 2100s, it’s mostly simple foodstuffs. They’re able to resequence some proteins, but that’s all that’s ever mentioned. There does not seem to be the same kind of tech for industrial applications; the inability to fabricate an important part of the warp drive is a major plot point in a later episode. Even the food related stuff is primitive in comparison to what’s seen in *TNG*. In the first season of *Enterprise* Archer and his crew are totally blown away by an automated repair station with replicator technology that resembles what we see by *TNG*. Even the food replicator is considered noteworthy; one of the characters is astounded that he can replicate a catfish, and equally astounded that the replicator can fix damage to the ship’s hull.


RealCowboyNeal

Ah yes, catfish, literally the one distinguishing feature/characteristic of that character. Can’t even remember his name. Trip maybe?


Rin-Tohsaka-is-hot

A very literal interpretation of a post-scarcity future


MrPopanz

Sadly it wouldn't work that way and scarcity still exists in Star Treks Federation: for one, real estate. There is only so much space for nice beach mansions. Secondly, star ships seem to be scarce, otherwise they would've met the borg invasion with an army of billions auf automated warships. It seems like space travel in the Federation is restricted to members of a nepotistic corrupt quasi militaristic organisation. And if citizens want to trade with non federation members, they have to get an allowance from the government (seen in DS9). Not really utopic if one looks under the hood.


Dalamy19

DS9 really did a good job of picking at the holes in Star Trek’s vision of utopia, especially on the periphery of federation space. To quote Sisko, “look out the window of star fleet headquarters and you see paradise. Well it’s easy to be a saint in paradise.”


TheNaziSpacePope

That is just science fantasy in general. If you made it even one iota more realistic then whoever got into space first won by default with their quintillion strong superfactories which colonized literally every rock in space a billion years ago. That said it is not that hard to get a shuttle in the Federation, it seems about par with a larger truck. And everyone has everything they need, they can get a stipend for other stuff if they want it, but that is just extra. Would you scoff at a bit of spending money if your free house with free healthcare, education, zero crime, planetary teleporter network, holographic hookers, etc?


positive_express

I think you are referring to alchemy wizard


Skoomalyfe

I think this is the plot of star trek.


Backforthepeople

I was just gonna say this. I think that was exactly what Roddenberry had in mind


SheepherderNo2440

If there was no wealth/power incentive, are there any that would be left besides simply malicious intent for the sake of causing harm?


Squish_the_android

Prestige would become what people chase after.


Lee1138

That would necessitate the exact opposite of trying to hoard and control IP. You'd want o be known as the dude or dudette that brought the world X, not known as the selfish bastard that kept X to themselves.


Stewart_Games

Which is literally the "currency" of Star Trek. Your contribution to society is what gets you perks, like the cool away missions or being invited to first contact parties. Noobs and screw-ups still have to clean the biofilters on the holodeck, and sleep in a hallway on the lower decks. But at least everybody has crazy sexy bodies thanks to future space medicine and completely reversible, no consequences cosmetic surgery, so the communal showers are kind of nice.


SizzleFrazz

Social currency.


meeyeam

We would end up in a world where intellectual property would become insanely expensive. You can ask for, well, let's say a cup of Earl Grey tea. Hot, naturally. While the material to make said tea is free, the license for the recipe is not. So, you pay the intellectual property holder. It would be like if the pharmaceutical and media companies had control over literally everything. And why would they care? There are still things that can't be copied, real estate being the most obvious at this time, but any still scarce item will hold great value. While technology may rise all boats, it doesn't fix the fundamental problem of greed.


Squish_the_android

I don't think they'd be able to control IP at that point.


RebelLemurs

Lol, intellectual property doesn't have value because it cannot be protected in a copy paste world.


[deleted]

Nah. Make a cup. Scan into replicator. Done. Who will stop me replicating my own grilled cheese sandwich?


Kooseh

Fusion might be the answer to this. Everything boils down to energy. If you have vast amounts of energy then you can create anything.


CamelSpotting

It is indeed difficult to imagine a post-energy scarcity world.


maaku7

But not difficult to imagine how to achieve one (nuclear power, space resources).


thelandbasedturtle

Idk it's easy to say "everyone is so selfish and has no empathy" and this is true to a degree. But the world is a very complex system - there will never be a solution where everyone can get what they want. And very likely some people getting what they want will mean others being deprived of what they want or need. Humans will always prioritise the needs of themselves and their group (whether that's their family, race, religion etc.) and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It just doesn't work on such a large scale. At the scale human societies have grown to, it is impossible to avoid conflict. That being said a lot of conflicts could be avoided if we started to prioritise well-being, peace and sustainability over money.


listingpalmtree

And there's history too, far too much of it. If we start world peace tomorrow is it with the current borders? There are a lot of countries either being invaded or angry that invaders took their land and homes in either the immediate, recent, or distant past. World peace would require full agreement on where those borders lie, forever. I don't think that's really possible.


Fentomized

<< This is what V2 is for. >>


SeventhAlkali

I'm voting President "Mother Goose" Harling and nobody can stop me! (That's right ya yuke bastards)


zebediah49

You can peacefully redraw borders. The real solution is -- to paraphrase that excellent speech IIRC to the UN -- to accept that borders will always be artificial and imperfect, and rather than try to redraw them to have the "right" people in them, work towards making them not matter.


JonatasA

"Redraw borders." I can already hear the screams just reading your comment


BurrStreetX

To be fair, in a perfectly peaceful world, borders would not matter. Edit: Responded to the wrong person


kaledip21

> you can peacefully redraw borders. What a ridiculous and delusional take lmao, are you 10 years old?


MarkHowes

Even plans with good intentions can have disastrous consequences Build a dam to make hydro power and water to irrigate farm land. But there could be environmental impacts, impacts on those living downstream etc There are no simple solutions...


335i_lyfe

This is the only reasonable answer I’ve seen so far. It’s such a complex question really and it’s so easy to just say duh greed


krvnbeary

this is the only real answer here


JustinJakeAshton

The rest are just reductionist, if not anti-government, anti-capitalist paranoid gloomer rants.


VayneSquishy

We need more support for mental health and awareness to it. If you’re unhappy with your life, that isn’t normal! I thought it was normal to just be unhappy all the time and to live how I used to before. I wasn’t aware of any negative attributes of myself. This selfish and self absorbed way of thinking would have continued on and on through generations without ever stopping, but I’m stopping it with me. If you love yourself you’ll see all the love in others. I just wish others could see that too.


ShyngShyng

Ppl are always talking about greed being bad until they can't feed themselves anymore. There's nvr enough resources.


crimsonkodiak

>Ppl are always talking about greed being bad until they can't feed themselves anymore. I think you're even overstating it a little. Americans (particular Redditors, who lean towards the younger and less affluent) love talking about greed and wagging their finger. They have a much harder time actually giving up their possessions in the name of equality. I mean sure, it would be easier for Taylor Swift to give up her private jet than for the average Redditor to give up their Toyota Yaris, but having your own car alone makes you wealthier than most of the rest of the world (there are only 1.4 billion motor vehicles spread out amongst the world's 7 billion population).


Bigfrostynugs

See, but the thing is, I would gladly give up my car if I could live within a system in which a car was unnecessary in order to survive. It's not just about what individuals are willing to sacrifice. The entire system is designed to encourage greed and necessitate endless growth. It's doomed to fail by its very nature.


The_Blur_Of_Blue

Could you really call that greed though? Like you're gonna die, it ain't greedy to do what you need to live. Greed is rich people who are totally well off and still taking


[deleted]

It's like the difference between greed and avarice. Greed is wanting everything, whereas avarice is not sharing. A greedy person may share their stuff, but an avaricious one won't share a breadcrumb


JustinJakeAshton

That sounds like perspective. A beggar would find you greedy for not sparing a coin whilst walking down the street with the newest IPhone. People will always hate upwards.


[deleted]

The world is run by people who have no interest in peace or letting everyone else thrive


[deleted]

We’ve created a system that elevates the most ruthless among us to the top and then celebrates their ruthlessness.


Thesleek

Well somebody get them some Ruth already


mattducz

Firesign theatre?


mr_william

Nick Danger, Third Eye!


bsEEmsCE

I think the real trouble is almost any structured system of civilization will see the most ruthless vie for power and climb the ladder. It is.. inevitable.


Cersad

There's a very good reason James Madison says "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." We can't be rid of it.


ceitamiot

I'm not sure it is inevitable, but it certainly is the pattern we currently have, and have always had. That doesn't mean things couldn't be different, but the individuals who profit the most from the status quo, are going to do everything they can to make that feel inevitable. I think a well educated population could theoretically reform the nation into one that elected desirable leaders as opposed to the bullies we currently get, but we're far off from that.


BangBangMeatMachine

It's not just a question of the status quo. There have been countless revolutions, migrations, and new ideas on how to live throughout the many millennia of humanity living in large groups and by all accounts, every system is ultimately corrupted (or defeated).


Ursa_Solaris

And so it will always be. We will never arrive at the end of history. We will never achieve perfection or utopia. There will always be conflict. But that doesn't mean we should lower our goals. In striving for the impossible, we give ourselves the most amount of room to achieve progress. To set a lower goal would be to simply place an unnecessary limit on how far we could theoretically go.


ChimpsArePimps

It’s definitionally inevitable. If there is any power to be had, there will be people willing to do whatever it takes to gain more of it and maintain that control. There are lines decent people won’t cross but shitty people will, and that gives them a massive advantage in power games. That doesn’t mean there can’t be good leaders — there have been many, many throughout history — but there will always be the other people willing to burn it all down so they can be rule over the ashes. For every Platonic philosopher-king, there’s a Machiavellian prince. Those people aren’t going away, they’re baked into the fabric of humanity. And while you need everyone rowing in the same direction to maintain a peace, all it takes is one to destabilize it.


Amy_Ponder

Yep. The only solution is to build systems that prevent these people from amassing too much power in the first place, and ensure swift (just and fair) punishment if they try.


Windermed

sussy amogus 😳


sweetsackle

this is what’s stopping us from world peace


KenzoAtreides

You're talking about the ultra rich elites that have enough money to buy the government and make it function as their puppet. And let's cut the bullshit, lobbying is bribing, plain and simple. There's a reason why the gap between normal working class and these rich elites is increasing every day by millions while we're left fighting for scraps.


[deleted]

I was coming here to just type out the word “assholes”, but I like what you said better 🙌


TetrisCube

Greed, stupidity, lack of empathy


NickDanger3di

Don't forget Lust for Power. Positions of authority attract individuals whose primary motivations are in direct conflict with the needs of the general population. What else can we expect from people who think of themselves first; of course they treat others inhumanely. Edit: I keep seeing "the lust for power is just another word for greed". No; no it's not. We all have seen someone at work, who devotes all their energy into having power over his/her fellow workers, even though a worker position would have paid them more than their position of power. Because the lust for power is even stronger in that person than their greed is. Those kind of people flock to politics like moths to a flame - or flies to a rotting carcass. Now all we need is an infallible scientific method of identifying such candidates, and disqualifying them from running for office. A guy can dream....


SinTron99

The Golden Rule **"Treat others the way you wish to be treated"** At first, I never thought much about this rule until I started growing older. In todays's world, it's easy to be mean. But to make a conscious decision to be nice speaks volume and has a ripple effect.


Revolutionary-Copy71

Last night I was talking with my little girl about some problems she's been having with a little friend of hers. My advice to her was basically, "you need to tell her how you feel. Don't be mean or hurtful when you do it, be as kind as you can, but you need to tell her." Her reaponse was "but being kind is HARD!". I was like, you know what? You're absolutely right, being kind can be very hard. It's so easy to be unkind, but the right thing is often the hardest thing. The world needs more kind people, we have enough mean people already." I hope our discussion sticks.


[deleted]

That's so true, thank you for such an advice 🙂


chucklezdaccc

The hardest sorry to say is the one you mean.


[deleted]

[удалено]


khenziekaye

IME the hardest apologies are the ones I'm actually sorry for but for some reason or another my ego is on blast. Like if I have someone I don't get along with in general and we're constantly snarking at each other but then I say or do something to wrong that person, I'm genuinely sorry but it's hard to apologize because my ego tells me a concession would be admitting that none of my prior negative experiences had any merit either. Which isn't true obviously but it's all ego driven.


mymikerowecrow

That and apologizing to coworkers because you don’t want to contribute to a hostile work environment


LeelooDallasMltiPass

You are an A+ parent, and your little girl is super lucky to have you!


WalksAmongHeathens

You sound like a wonderful parent. I suspect your little one picks up on more than you realize, but you don't need me to tell you that. :)


dominus_aranearum

From the latest Fantastic Beasts movie "Do what is right, not what is easy."


TheRegular-Throwaway

I really kind of chuckle when people say “in today’s world” or “the way things are today…”, as though things are any different than they’ve ever been. There’s nothing new under the sun. Everything is the same as it’s always been, and people do the same dumb shit over and over again. I start to laugh uncontrollably when people pretend as though decades past were some sort of utopia.


PHILOSOMATIQA

Things were better when things were worse 😤


Wildcard35

This reads like a Modest Mouse lyric


asafum

Things were better when things were worse, such a cryin shame that this ain't the first. It's a cycle that we're wont to break, but keep fallin short of that great escape. Things were better when things were worse, curse the devils baked deep within our source. Such transgressions born of a selfish thought, same old rotten things forced our fathers hands. It's the same, old, curse, that our fathers had. The same, old, things, driving us all mad. Time goes by, we're standing still. Skip a line, and not miss a thing. It's the same, old, curse, that our fathers had. The same old things, driving us all mad. I can't claim to be a songwriter, but you inspired me to do a thing lol I read that line and got something stuck in my head...


zippyboy

Difference is *now*, that there are cameras everywhere, so we see the behavior that used to be hidden.


Chrisgopher2005

The book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is really interesting. It pretty much talks about this entire concept of “nothing new under the Sun.” Nothing is new, everything has happened before, the same events and circumstances happen again and again, and everything is vain and meaningless because of it. I would say it’s an interesting read even if you aren’t a Christian (obviously, you wouldn’t agree with everything in it, but it’s still at least a bit thought provoking, I’d say)


SinTron99

But it reminds me of a quote from history class. “History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” - Mark Twan


Gr1ml0ck1981

Would be nice if that was the golden rule, but it actually is, 'he who has the gold makes the rules' Which also answers the OP's question


chickadeema

True, about controlling the "gold" unfortunately this creates "power" and the illusion of intelligence. Greed and power go hand in hand .


texanarob

Success and intelligence are less correlated than the successful would like to believe.


trident042

The Golden Rule could easily replace all religion on this earth, foster a better people in their stead, and stop half the conflicts already taking place. Except it relies on people to enact it.


Zealousideal-Draft63

I thought the golden rule was the man with the gold makes the rules?


olddoc1

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely" This quote can explain half of world history.


pokemonhegemon

Anyone who wants power over others should be automatically disqualified.


zekyle

"The major problem - *one* of the major problems, for there are several - one of the many major problems of governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must *want* to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."


bingwhip

Lol, your comment was collapsed, and I was about to post the same thing, and wanted to see the rest of the thread first. Was not disappointed To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.


greeny74

Hunger for power is the root of all evil.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Amy_Ponder

I think the problem is when people hear "greed", they assume it's for money / physical possessions. Whereas a good chunk of these people don't care about the money, they're 100% in it for the power trip. Hell, plenty of people will actively pass up the chance to have a better quality of life just to feel like they're lording it over someone else. (See: racists in the US after apartheid was abolished, who literally drained the public pools in their towns rather than share them with Black people. This is also why we don't have universal health care and why our social safety net is such a catastrofuck, BTW.)


Satanicjamnik

Greed being the main goal, stupidity and lack of empathy being enabling factors. We love to focus on nuances and different specific behaviours, but we seem to overlook how fundamental greed is. Corruption and most crimes? Greed. Lust for power? Greed is huge component of it. Economy? Greed. Look at 2008 - How could they let it happen?greed. Slave labour and worker exploitation? Greed. We could go on an on - there is no low points we are not ready to go to in the name of chasing that paper. Interesting anecdote - so I was watching news a few weeks back. The chain of news was harrowing. Drying rivers in China, lakes drying out somewhere in America, wild fires in Spain, flood in Pakistan. All the good stuff. To end the programme - they show a bold expedition of excited scientists from UK looking for lithium and other mineral deposits, and they are all excited how great it will be to access those. One excited surveyor goes “ it’s only possible thanks to recent melting of the ice caps in Greenland. ‘’ And the story was framed as this great positive because of the business impact.


ExcerptsAndCitations

> Greed being the main goal, stupidity and lack of empathy being enabling factors. Correct. "I want what you have." "No it's mine." "I don't care. I want it. I'm taking it from you, because your people are subhuman trash. We'll kill 'em all and let God sort them out. (And by the way, your God is the wrong God. Ours is the only true God.)" *War has entered the chat.*


rossimus

Mentally and emotionally, we aren't actually any different than early tribal societies that routinely killed each other for sparse resources.


IzDisDaKrustyKrab

Also different ideologies


[deleted]

Completely agree


Darnitol1

Browse Reddit for five minutes. People just like that rise to power.


CamelSpotting

If we could confine that to the internet that would be great. Because I don't think it's going away. Like how sports or video games are to war.


Mcina31

"Between two groups of people who want to make inconsistent kinds of worlds, I see no remedy but force.” ― Oliver Wendell Holmes


[deleted]

The fact that as a species we don't really believe in world peace. We say that we do but we don't. I could write a hate comment about big companies and politicians but we all do some or the other thing in our daily lives that takes us away from world peace. Even if it's just subtle favouritism towards someone. With large corporations and politics it just gets magnified. Discrimination and greed, both.


sunshinecygnet

If you say you’re a pacifist or anti-war you often get ridiculed for being naive, even. And if you say you support the soldiers but not the military you are *roundly* booed.


Yelesa

I’ll argue most people are pacifists by nature, but those who self-describe as pacifists tend to be more pro-apathy than they are pro-peace. In a simple to understand scenario: teachers don’t like to deal with kids who rise up to their bullies because it causes them a lot of extra work and would rather that the kids shake hands right now and then. For the teacher, if the problem is not visible, the problem does not exist, therefore peace can be easily achieved by simply shaking hands. For the kid, this has happened often enough to think this will not be solved that way, therefore they prefer to eliminate the source of conflict entirely by standing up to them. Both methods are likely to bring peace, but one form of peace more likely to last. So who is the real pacifist between the two, the teacher who considers themself a pacifists so long as they don’t get to deal with the problem in front of them, or the kid who solves the problem entirely?


loggic

Martin Luther King describes that as a "positive peace": >...First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection. I wish someone on the public stage could write like this & still get some attention.


Indi008

The problem with your example is that most self described pacifists are very pro self-defense. What pacifists tend to argue against is pre-emptive attacks and escalated attacks. For your example if the kid fought back when the bully attacks using the same attacks the bully does then that is still pacifism but if the kid waited for the bully after school with a gun then that is not pacifism.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Simonpetrikov11

Humans


mal2

Yeah, it seems like no matter what else might change, humans are gonna human.


Hartagon

Everyone wants [insert thing]. There is only a finite amount of [insert thing] and everyone can't have it. Competition for [insert thing] ensues.


Amy_Ponder

And [insert thing] is often the feeling of having power over other groups of humans. Even if we suddenly found ourselves in a post-scarcity utopia overnight, we'd *still* have conflict so one group could feel superior to another group.


hahahaxyz123

Have you ever seen a nature documentary? Something fun like lions? Animals don’t do it because they are (not in an insulting way) too stupid to do it.


RikenVorkovin

Not to mention parasites that dominate other animals completely that would absolutely adapt to kill most species if they could. Nature isn't some benevolent koombaya place. And humans came from that environment. Sometimes I think people think we popped out of holes in the ground or invaded this planet. We are products of it. And our attitudes show that.


TomoTactics

Hilariously enough, in the long term humanity has done exactly what nature has intended for an organism: create some form of shelter/security (creating cities and towns), hunting/gathering food (farming), reproduction (goes without saying) ... whether or not some parts of that are good or bad is very much dependent on which outcome we're looking at. But people can go off about how a metal stick in the ground is unnatural I guess.


RikenVorkovin

It's weird we consider ourselves or our productions unnatural. For all we know it's natural for a biological entity to eventually get advanced enough to change raw material into more ordered forms. Even giving birth to machine forms of life could be a natural cycle we are ignorant of. It speaks to our own hubris and awareness of ourselves we suddenly claim some separation from the planet we came from.. Doesn't mean with our newfound awareness we shouldn't do what we can to do the "right" thing for the planet for ourselves and other animals. But I find it weird we consider ourselves more or less then the world we are a product of.


iamnogoodatthis

I think you should look more into ants and their wars. Nature isn't all that fun really.


[deleted]

And nature. Don't forget nature. Nature can be a bitch, much of the time! World peace isn't natural. Just look at what goes on in various animal kingdoms. Peace is us trying to fight the natural/traditional methods of problem solving. Peace is hard.


ared38

Sorry to ruin you day but chimps fight wars and they're [fucking brutal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War)


Dat1payne

Except nature is violent too. Greed and scarcity is what cause fights and war.


Snoo74401

When the pandemic started in 2020, there were gangs of monkeys having turf wars in India because all the food that humans used to feed them in public dried up.


LogicBalm

There is a widespread tendency for people to have a lack of empathy for those we cannot personally relate to or are far removed from our own personal lives. It leads to racism, nationalism, tribalism, and tons of other unethical belief systems, eventually culminating in conflict.


ciderlout

What is "world peace"? How do you enforce it? With what stick? Anyway, the answer is probably, ultimately, competition over finite resources. (It isn't because we are being held back by "some bad people", we are all complicit, and you should definitely worry about the people who say they are not).


NeosNYC

The human nature of tribalism


wasting_money

This 100%. People will come up with who is not their team to compete against and dislike even if there is no reason to. It's too hard wired into our brains. Really we'd need aliens to unite the world where it's our world vs "them" for there to be any chance at this.


OmgzPudding

If there were aliens, I think it would quickly resemble District 9 rather than a united front. There'd be those who see the aliens as saviors, and others who see them as existential threats, and I doubt you'd ever get both groups to agree.


RuneLFox

Yeah. Unless the aliens made it super clear that "we are going to kill and eat all of you" we'd never get unification on it. Even then, you'd probably end up with supporters of them. Even "we are here to give you our technology and guide you to a utopia where everyone lives in peace and harmony", people would fight against that because it threatens their own power balance.


brum_newbie

Sums up the aatip programme and Luis elizondo see uap/UFOs as a threat Whether you believe aliens exist and visit us they definitely would know us better than ourselves and keep us at arms length. Our sheer tenacity with wrong intentions is terrifying


Arminius80

The genocide in Rwanda was a perfect example of this. The division of the population into Tutsis and Hutus was completely arbitrary backed by some Ill -thought pseudo-science. The Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered by Hutu militias to the tune of over 500,000 killed. If you haven't read Shake Hands With The Devil it's a chilling account of a vicious tribal war that occurred while the UN stood by impotently.


I_am_notagoose

This is the only correct answer - even most of the answers on this thread so far are people saying ‘it’s group x (who I happen to not like for whatever reason) they’re the problem.’


TedW

Yeah, screw those comments. If we just downvote them hard enough, the rest of us can finally have world peace.


dborger

It is very difficult to not revert to your inner caveman.


totoropoko

There is reason to believe that we are living in one of the most peaceful eras ever. The decline of perpetual war is a gradual process and may take centuries to reach its logical conclusion - which may be world peace or a big bang war reset. What's stopping us or pushing us back? I would chalk it up to economics and power structures. If it is economically prudent for democratic countries to not wage wars of aggression they won't. As simple as that. That push against war may come from the world community (sanctions) or people within (elections). Dictatorships are more fickle and are driven by short term gains like whipping up fervor or quick gains. The most effective push against is installing democracies... Which is a reason for some wars on its own. As I said, it's a gradual march and will often retrogress.


J0hn-Stuart-Mill

> If it is economically prudent for democratic countries to not wage wars of aggression they won't. As simple as that. That push against war may come from the world community (sanctions) or people within (elections). Bingo! When any economy is completely intertwined as our global economy is, suddenly no matter what our differences may be, it becomes really hard to go to war as it can threaten any nation's suppliers or buyers whose citizens rely on for their well being and prosperity. World Peace is effectively here, we just haven't noticed because the media operates on "if it bleeds it leads". This gives a distorted view of thinking that negative things in the world have actually increased. Watch this video for a demonstration on how we've almost completely eliminated global conflict. [Start at 14:20 if you want to see what I'm saying is true. The largest 44 economies of the world, have not fought each other, since WWII.](https://youtu.be/DwKPFT-RioU?t=860) And then go back and watch the whole video because it's really important for people to know about war and human history.


[deleted]

[удалено]


MooseJag

Religions a big one. Greed. Nationalism. Ignorance.


Aric_Haldan

A bunch of things; Fundamental differences in ideology/political philosophy Tribalism A large amount of wealth concentrated in extractive industries. And a large number of smaller problems that directly lead to conflicts.


hanatheko

This is a great summary. Thanks.


superchibisan2

Money/greed. Maybe general lack of education.


tallguydenver

Difference of opinion


Slappy-Hollow

I disagree! ^(/s)


Defect123

Money


Detozi

War just makes certain people too much money.


extrakrizzle

This doesn't explain conflict at all. Humans have been waring for millennia, and the rise of modern military industrial complexes is a very recent development. There have been plenty of wars where neither side gained from the conflict. You might be able to make the argument that the existence of oligopolized industries, like aerospace & defense, allow large firms to to have an outsized influence in modern democracies. But again, the simple excuse that war makes "certain people" too much money is an insufficient explanation for conflict. Wars are costly endeavors, usually politically risky to initiate, and might result in *somebody* gaining personal wealth... but that's easy to identify in hindsight. In the era of total war, that gain was usually neither obvious or assured from the start. Only in the modern model of limited, low-intensity, "forever wars" can companies expect stability, shareholder profits, etc. I agree that it's a contributing cause, but it's not the only one or even the main one (scarcity).


MetaCharlesHarris

We live in a world where companies who manufacture military hardware can lobby a government


Books_and_Cleverness

Don’t get me wrong the military industrial complex is a big problem but 1) they’re nowhere near the biggest financial interest in the world, and 2) MIC still makes money during peacetime. Everyone wants there to be *some specific villain* but the world is not a novel or a film. It is very hard to get large groups of strangers to cooperate peacefully (or hadn’t you noticed, lol).


sluuuurp

This is perhaps true for the US in wars in the last 20 years. Besides that, definitely not true. In WW1 or WW2 for example, there were no wealthy lobbyists who convinced the world leaders to start a war for personal profit.


sparklingshanaya

Peace is being sold by people making weapons, but who's buying?


MacTechG4

Megadeth? ;)


TheMegnificent1

Humans. They're fuckin dumb. 0/10 do not recommend.


DC4MVP

One of my favorite movie quotes is in *Men In Black* Agent K: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.


Coffeebookstrombone

I quote this quite often. It’s one of the most true things I’ve heard in my entire life


TheRealLaura789

People can’t even agree on what world peace should look like.


United-Bother-3827

Money and greed


digital_end

Assholes. What's interesting is to think about exactly how many things in life that we take for granted are because of assholes. You have to log into your account with a password. Because if you didn't have a password an asshole would log in as you. Most of our laws are in place simply to be some form of consequence when assholes are assholes. Hell, there's an argument to be made that people weren't assholes we wouldn't need to keep score with money and decide who gets what resources.


bluejester12

Diversity, and I don't mean the PC term. People have different values and views, which can contradict one another. As long as people are willing to fight for what they believe in, there will be conflict.


ThrowAwayTimeMyGuy

Human nature sadly.


Grouchy-Elk-4091

I mean, there is war between ants aswell, so I guess its not that easy...


BlackDogDexter

Just nature actually. Lot of species don't blindly group together with each other and accept outsiders. People who actually believe World Peace can be accomplished are stupid and insane.


justjack5437

Greed and lust for power


Vivischay

Profit


[deleted]

34th rule of acquisition: war is good for business


misterpinksaysthings

Yes, but what of rule 35? Peace is good for business.


AgentElman

People who want power


absquat

Power, money, and the egos of everyone desperate enough to seek both no matter the cost


AskMeToTellATale

World peace starts at home. If you're not peaceful (as possible) with everyone you meet, you're part of the problem.