Sim C asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 decade ago

Once world peace is achieved, is it sustainable?

Even if we one day achieve world peace, would we be able to sustain it? What would there be to work towards?

What negative effects (if there are any) would be a result of having world peace?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    ..." Even if we one day achieve world peace, would we be able to sustain it?"...

    For the sake of mankind, I certainly hope not...

    The idea that human conflict is intrinsically linked to the overall advancement of mankind may seem, on its face, an counterintuitive assertion.

    However, if you consider just how much our endeavors in warfare have advanced medical technologies ALONE then one can field a sound argument that, with the thousands of people that benefit from war-born medical advances EVERY SINGLE DAY, - war has been quite beneficial to mankind; the math is simple.

    That said, - many people will still condemn acts of war and, although I understand the motives behind such condemnations, - they are not at all based in sound reason. Rather, they are based upon emotions which have been conditioned by adherence to a moral construct, - and the facets of morality are a matter of PERCEPTION.

    As for the 'negative effects' of world peace:

    As I see it, - in times of 'peace' we are allowed to be somewhat more selective in how we choose to live our lives; more 'economical' in how we expend our energies within that which we have defined as a 'way of life'; a life of relative calm and patience.

    With 'war', however, - when that calm 'way of life' we have created for ourselves is threatened, - we are then forced out of our more leisurely activities so as to fight for and protect our very 'way of life', -and those who fight without zeal, without determination, without 'passion',... will either wind up in chains, - or on a Butcher's Bill.

    Without this 'passion', - I feel the most negative impact of perpetual world peace would be:

    APATHY, - the most inhumane of all human conditions.

    In his book THUS SPOKE ZARATHUSTRA, Nietzsche wrote:

    ---..." You should love peace as a means to new wars. And the short peace more than the long."...

    " War and courage have done more great things than charity. Not your pity but your bravery has saved the unfortunate up to now."...---

    I'll buy that......

    -

    Source(s): Saint Christopher Walken Patron St. of Humanity Via Human Conflict
  • 1 decade ago

    i don't think there will ever be a genuinely intact and sustainable form of world peace. I believe that that concept is far too ideal to actually exist, also because it's such a broad term that it covers everyone and everybody. Maybe the whole world might be moving towards a similar goal; that might be the closest we'll get to it. Like saving the earth and staying green. But not everyone's giving it a full effort either. It's really hard to incorporate everything. There's also human rights. But racism and other forms of bias are still prevalent and most likely will be for many, many years to come. It will be hard to bring everyone and everything together.

    There will always be some sort of disagreement or difference, and that will cause conflict. Whether it be between two people, two groups, two countries, or more.

    But assuming that we achieve world peace...and we're all good, I can see negative effects coming along. Things like lack of competition. Competition is what moves us forward in any given direction. And sometimes that creates animosity between groups. There's always friendly competition, where individual achievements are shared for the benefit of everyone (kind of like open source)...except I don't see that happening on a full global scale.

    Source(s): Just my thoughts.
  • 1 decade ago

    As long as there are peoples who think and act and live differently than others there will be unrest. So I guess the only way to achieve that peace would be to kill off everyone who didn't think like you and even then it would not be sustainable because even your kids might not feel or think the way you do or want the same things. Then in order to get the things they want there will be fighting.

    I don't believe there will ever be world peace. If you think about the way the world is today, which group do you think is going to give in and go the other groups way?

  • 1 decade ago

    It depends on whose running the show. With man it is not sustainable only because one mortal man is not greater than another. Hence there is always room for war and bloodshed. When God runs it in the future he will cause men to stop studying how to make war and focus on peace and making earth is a great place for all humanity and earth creatures to live.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Total world peace without even a moment's lapse? It gets more sustainable the fewer people there are left.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It can be sustainable when those who made it sustain it.

    After all, how did they achieve world peace in the first place? World peace is a feat itself.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well, putting aside the fact that world peace is impossible, I would have to say no. After awhile, people would either get annoyed and fed up or just bored and wanting to cause some trouble. To me, "World Peace" is just like Utopia; an unavailable 'perfection'.

    lol

    :):):)

  • 1 decade ago

    world peace will never exist.

    i don't mean to be a downer, but you have to admit this is true. it is in human nature to be violent and want dominance over people and animals alike. humans crave power.

    but to answer your question; i don't think we could be able to sustain it, for there would always be those people who wanted power, or felt the need to kill.

    all that we can do for now is to keep love in our hearts, and hope in our souls.

  • 1 decade ago

    James Prescott, developmental psychologist, sees violence as a combination of a high level of infant affection and the allowing of pubescent (premarital) sexual interactivity. ("Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence" in The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists)

    Russell Blaylock (neurosurgeon and author) says that a lot of problems of violence and law-breaking can be effectively dealt with with better nutrition; especially cutting out MSG.

    Psychologist Philip Zimbardo (known for his infamous Stanford "student prison" study as well as the infamous Milgram shock experiments.) "Maybe it was the *power* that was bad." (speaking of Abu Ghraib soldiers who were Army Reservists *unprepared* for such duties, then given permission to cross the lines of what good guards were.)

    Doctor and Clown, Hunter (Patch) Adams says, "I think my government are fascists. I feel that if we don't change from a society that worships money and power over to one that worships compassion and generosity, there is no hope for human survival this century." "Roda Viva" (~0h:07:0s) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4517809180...

    People who believe that our awful fate (a Tribulation, Armageddon, or WW3) has been predestined may be have blinded themselves to other possibilities, and thus are stuck "trying" to bring such a fate to pass; as suggested in Tony Robinson's The Doomsday Code: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6439295521...

    To answer your questions in my own words: Yes, we could. It would take continual work to see that we are being truthful with each other, and work with integrity.

    "Negative" affects of world peace? Overpopulation? As we stand now, all of humanity could fit into Texas, (which is only half the size of Alaska, mind you). And all systems of living organisms have their ebb and flow (such as the population of wolves &/or moose on a small island in Lake Superior: [See a recent National Public Radio show for that.]).

    Source(s): http://www.violence.de/prescott/pt/article.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment video: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2963728494... "The 20th century, which was to have yielded the sweet fruits of scientific progress, was instead a century of massive brutality, wholesale carnage, and random destruction such as the world had never seen. We learned, or should have learned, that the advancement of science does not necessarily correspond with an advancement of virtue. When technology increases man's power, it extends the impact and scope of his capability to do evil as well as good. The separation of science from ethics and morality has been and can be disastrous." ~Linda Bowles
  • 1 decade ago

    peace is impossible...plain and simple

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.