Talk:World peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article World peace, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Basic character

Keep the basic character of it...Fart....

well if there was world peace no one would actually need such a thing as an encyclopedia... we could learn what we needed to learn as apprentice gardeners or basket weavers and ignore theories and words entirely.But then, how do we achieve the lasting peace that we envisioned. We need a movement to pursue the dream. One of the dominant movements now is revolving around "The Globalist Manifesto" and we all have to get involve on this.

Someone got a link to Lennon's "Imagine"?

Perhaps a good external link to add: http://www.krishnamurtiaustralia.org/articles/world_peace.htm J. Krishnamurti's talk on World Peace to The United Nations where he was presented with the United Nations 1984 Peace medal.


Ick. No encyclopedias? I don't know what your values are, but I would rather die than imagine life with learning. In fact, any stagnant state where people aren't growing, learning, and making progress might as well be death. If that's your idea of peace, keep it to yourself. --LDC

I concur. The bucolic idyll is a romantic fantasy usually indulged by those with no experience of earning a living as "apprentice gardeners or basket weavers". Presumably they would work for the Lord of the Manor, or other feudal nobility. "Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!" The Anome

How does this fit in with the idea that in another century we will all have direct neural interfaces with the web, and everything will be automatically downloaded into our brains? :-) Eclecticology


Seems like you two share the shark's concept of progress: keep swimming until you die, don't let "progress" even slow down.

What if these people are growing, learning, and making progress about things that they can't share - inner awareness - "inner peace"?

It's not like there haven't been whole cultures devoted only to that idea... there have... they didn't war on anybody.


It's not like there haven't been whole cultures devoted only to that idea... there have... they didn't war on anybody.

Which ones?

And that absolute trust in someone willing to worry about the whole outside world isn't so bad.

Are you referring to my comment about feudalism? Are you really nostalgic for feudalism? I am amazed. Which do you see yourself as: the wise, paternalistic Lord of the Manor (it's for their own good, you see) or as the worker in the fields?

The Anome


[edit] Imagine

You guys fighting about world peace! User:Ed Poor

(And that, of course, is the problem with world peace imagined as an end to conflict.) But thanks for brightening up my day, Ed, it is sort of absurd, time for me to go to bed. [ == Headline text ==Danny M [user:The Anome|The Anome]]

[edit] State

What leads you to think world peace is a nation-state? Bensaccount 00:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Rational" assessment

Is it just me, or is the rational assessment a soapbox rant? It's nice to know that world peace is "scientifically" bogus, but somehow that strikes me as just slightly NNPOV... --JRM 07:57, 2004 Oct 5 (UTC)

  • Well, but the empirical way is always the most neutral one, as thankfully the majority of mankind tends towards a ration thinking in most cases (religion certainly is an excepetion from that part, and world peace is often linked with religion thus maybe from that point of view it may be a bit unorthodox to approach this topic from a scientific view.). Feel free to edit so that it fits a better NPOV if you think this is something which it does not include already Slicky 09:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
  • Others please feel free to express your feelings regarding the rational assessment Slicky 09:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Dang, that disqualifies me. :-) Seriously, though, my gripe is not with the empirical way or indeed ratio as such, but with the way this article boldly lays down some assumptions from which it promises to conclude that world peace is in fact "proven bogus" by the scientific method.
The article then proceeds with some high-falutin' discourse of drives and needs that, among other things, completely ignores sociological aspects (well, that's not scientific enough anyway), and apparently this is the scientific proof we were promised. The style is just horrible -- I have great trouble wrapping my brain around whatever the author is trying to convey here. What to think of a sentence like "The real questions that has to be asked is what the human species would have become if there would actually be some kind of unity (on a mental level) withhin them, and if they would have even made it so far as they are now, or perhaps even further." Spelling mistakes aside, what on earth is the point made here? That's what I meant by "soapbox rant"; it has the same level of obtuseness and postulated authority. It looks like it was written by a fifteen-year old who's eaten some adult books and can't wait to digest them properly. No offense to those fifteen-year olds. (Lord knows I was one...)
I realize by now that I'm talking a lot more than I'm editing, and possibly gravely insulting the author of the text. Sincere apologies for both; honesty and friendliness don't mix. I'll see if I can improve the article -- but really, "world peace" isn't something I really know a lot about, from a rational point of view. I just feel that what we have now isn't cutting it either. It's too authoritative, jumping to conclusions in steps that are too large and unclear. As a reader, I just don't get the structure of the argument. If the original author could step forth and say what he/she means and on what grounds he/she's saying it in words this simpleton could comprehend, I might be able to rewrite it for the rest of us.--JRM 19:44, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
  • First of all you DO NOT INSULT ME BUT INSTEAD YOU ONLY TELL ME YOUR FEELINGS IN A CONSTRUCTIVE WAY which is way better than just plain flattering or trying to convey a strong point that becomes obfuscated to due some dumb flattery and also due to the biasing effect such words may have to the opposite side although the "messenger" wanted to make a whole different point. Oh damn, i am overcomplicating things again. All i want to say is that your outrightness is laudable and certainly constructive. <> Sorry for the long interval of this post in respect to your last, i am really lacking of time, but then again who doesn't. @15yr old: It is not easy sometimes for me to express myself especially of course if the theme is rather complex and perhaps even beyond my reach in terms of the knowledge base that i should be familiar with in the first place before contributing something like that. I sure as hell am not a student of philosophy. What the sentence should have conveyed was that what would have happended if there were something on level that is beyond our mental... Nah i'll give it another shot try to bear with me, even if you think it is total nonsense: Humans do not have instincts or generative hereditary, that is they practically have to learn everything from the first time on they are born. This makes a total individuality possible, that is a human is capabale of completely controlling his body with his mind, sure the body also plays a big role regarding your mind (for instance if you are extremely dehydrated you may start to hallucinate and so on) but above all the human mind can devote himself to starvation, set his sexuality from asexual, bisexual, transsexual to XYZ whatever (i only cross that in order to show you the extreme sides of the possibilities this freeness entails). A human can even kill himself, something that most animals certainly can't, especially not conscious. (I guess i don't have to say anything to that, the recent waves of terror have shown enough of that).

On the contrary if there would be something that is existant withhin everyone and on a mental level, that is a total uniform striving for instance for existance, or supply of water or anything else, which cannot of course be controlled by us but of which we are aware, could have had extreme results. Just think it through, i hope you got the point. BTW: THIS IS ONLY MEANT TO PUT DIRECTLY VERSUS THE IDEAL CONCEPT OF WORLD PEACE. World peace as some goal or something that is worth trying to archieve is certainly very positive, whereas the "rational assessment trys to stay neutral". Forgive all my spellings, missing words, whatever i'm gonna get some sleep as it seems i can't even look straight anymore due to lack of sleep the recent days.Slicky

I hear you, brother. I'm blinking furiously myself.
Right, let's get down to it. I could argue long and hard with you about some things. For example, I do believe humans have instincts, and pretty well-developed ones at that -- aside from obvious instincts like eating and sleeping (which you could just as well call urges) I'd argue that humans have (among others) a language instinct and an emotion instinct as well, and that these instincts can be overridden only to a limited degree. (You cannot, for example, eliminate sadness from your emotional palette -- assuming you're not a sociopath to begin with.) However, most of this isn't relevant to the article; we'll leave that for our "copious free time".
I think I do now understand what you're getting at; your argument seems to run along these lines: "humans do not have instincts, except perhaps for the most basic ones, and certainly none that would lead to the development of lasting peace. On the contrary, humans are free to make up their own behaviour for the most part. It's pretty unlikely that, out of all possible combinations of behaviours across humans, one would emerge that is completely homogeneous or even stable. Hence a stable "world peace" is unattainable." How's that for a summary?
There are two main objections I can levy against this argument. First, humans are not completely free in making up their own behaviour (but this gets us into free will discussions I'd rather not dip in). Second, world peace does not necessarily require a complete homogenization or even complete stability of behaviour, but may be achievable just by a dynamic balance that may waver, but never slips into violence (but this invites semantic quibbles over what we mean exactly by 'world peace': if little Johnny and little Sammy get into a bout of fisticuffs, is war declared?)
I think this gives me enough material to rewrite the article to be more NPOV. I am removing quite a bit, I'm afraid, because I think most of it is quite tangential. Please look at the result and tell me what you think of it (and how you'd like to amend it, if relevant). I'm removing "rational" from the section title, on the grounds that "rational" is seen as implicitly "good" (nobody wants to be "irrational"). This is not very NPOV. --JRM 11:40, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

I once again managed to cut off some time during a furious learning session to write down this reply (let's name it a short timeout), and in a moment of reconsideration and recapitulation I reread my last post, and i gotta say it's more than just "missing words". Well so much to the interaction of the physiologial part, that is our body-system with our mental state. I think i have proven this now abundantly .) BTW: Your summary sounds quite well, at least much more legible than mine. Although i still refuse to say that humans have instincts, or not the kind of instincts which we mean if we are speaking of lower lifeforms, as everything can be controlled mentally (except for the vegetative functions of humans, but we better let those aside as they do not contribute to that matter). What i mean is that there is no coherent striving that stretches throughout everyone of the human race, and the only way that this "law" wouldn't be fullfilled would have to be a genetic discrepancy, that is a kind of mutation, which means the physiological way must have to be altered in order to make a aberrance of the instinctive behaviour feasible. Most animals for instance do not really have the choice to deliberately starve themselves to death in order to fullfill something/anything which they committed themselves to, consciously. Just as an extreme example. You even state that yourself indirectly, in that you make the exclusion of sociopaths in your given example. But that is exactly what i am talking about. A sociopath is also in the end nothing more than a human whose behaviour is set in the mind, that is his spirit, his mental state, his brain, his cerebral cortex, his cerebral neural net, whatever science, isn't exactly on the verge of a breakthrough as far as the "what's behind human consciousness" question goes. "if little Johnny and little Sammy get into a bout of fisticuffs, is war declared": As a physicist i would have to say i would really like the idea of applying chaos theory on that theme :). As a biologist i would rather stick to what a long lasting evolution process thought us :) But in the end, have we not already achieved world peace? Does it get any better than this? Observed from a large distance those relative shifts of periods of war and periods of peace could be nothing more than fluctuations of the equilibirum state that seems to exists nearly everywhere in nature. But than again it does not (Expanding universe, prevailing form of matter instead of an equillibrium of matter and antimatter => in that case no universe would exist at all, a.s.o). I gotta admit i am not the right person to do philosophical contemplations but rather the kind of person that sticks to experimenting, measuring, thinking adapting theories and thinking some more of what i did wrong in one or more of those steps :) In this meaning i will finish my learning session and get some real, damn sound sleep, or so i hope.--Slicky 21:38, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Cobdenism Alterations

I'm somewhat confused by the alterations made to Cobdenism, which read as such: A popular version of this idea is the statement that no two countries having McDonald's restaurants have ever gone to war against each other. In other words, a country with a McDonald's restaurant tends to favor a free market economy, which integrates it into the world economy and renders war unprofitable. Critics will reply that there is an element of coercion in this scenario. The political stability of any country with a McDonald's restaurant will tend to be of concern to the United States, because a McDonald's restaurant is symptomatic of American economic involvement in that country. The lack of war between two such countries is then guaranteed by the implicit threat of the American military standing ready to protect American economic interests. Which seemed to me to be more of enditement of the MNC and the United States. Also, it seems to have nothing to do with the theory of Cobdenism as a means for world peace. However, if someone can satisfactorialy explain the above's relevence, I will see no reason to remove it again, should it appear! Also, if someone can add some critism to the Cobdenism section, pleace do... I've also put an example of an exception (possibly the only one) to the democratic world peace theory --80.47.69.244 00:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I think this lacks a neutral point of view. I mean we all want World Peace but what about the people that say it's impossible? George the Hippy 03:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I am going to add a section oppsoing the idea of world peace George the Hippy 03:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace through world government and/or total anarchy

Cut from intro:

The realization of world peace may also make the idea of individual nations obsolete.

This idea needs to be supported by the body of the article (or at least sourced). Whose point of view is it? --Uncle Ed 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britain and Finland

democracies almost never make war against each other (with certain exceptions, such as Britain's declaration of war with Finland in December 1941).

Was Finland Nazi-occupied at the time? Or was it a Soviet puppet?

I'd hate to see a legitimate exception removed, if there really is one. Lemme go look that up . . . --Uncle Ed 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See the book Never at War. Formal declaration of war, but no battle deaths. You may also be interested in User:Ultramarine/Possible exceptions to "Well-established democracies have never made war on one another". Ultramarine 21:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I will look at that. Meanwhile, I read a couple of articles I just Googled. Seems like Finland was caught between the pincers of USSR and Germany, and had just signed the Axis tripartite pact. The theoretical question is whether Finland was "democratic" or not at this time - and whether the stress of being caught between the Soviets and the Nazis has a bearing.

I think the democratic peace theory applies mainly to "attacks out of the blue", doesn't it? Not when a country has just been invaded by one dictatorship (USSR) and then unwisely signs a pact with another dictatorship while desperately trying to survive. Or is this a case of the exception proves the rule? --Uncle Ed 21:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

There can be some doubts regarding the degree of democracy in Finland at this time but it is usually accepted as a democracy. One of the claims of the DPT is no full-scale wars at all between well-established democracies. Weart uses 200 battle deaths as the definition of war. If one should use a formal declaration of war as the definition, then the US has fought no wars since WWII. Ultramarine 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the theory meant to apply to "undeclared wars" as well? I don't think that would make the theory incorrect.

Anyway, I wonder if it has anything to do with people who want peace tending also to want freedom. And being willing to give up just a little bit of that freedom for the sake of getting along with others. I mean, I agree to refrain from exercising total liberty, out of respect for the rights of others - who in return respect my rights too.

I have an intense interest in peace. But I don't think politics alone can bring it about - even if democracy is a great start. Peace will come about when we "live for the sake of others". Have a nice weekend. --Uncle Ed 01:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct that theory is meant to apply to all interstate conflicts with organized battles. There is no consensus on what can explain this peace. Weart has one that he presents in his book, there are several others. R. J. Rummel thinks if democracy continues to spread at the current rate, then wars and democide may end this century.Ultramarine 01:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Organized Peace

The chunk of text indented below was added to the section "Self-organized Peace" on 07:15, 31 July 2006 by 60.234.240.180.

It's poorly written, contains numerous logical inconsistencies, fails to cite sources for a wide variety of data, and severly unbalences the other sections (makes this one much longer). The ocean analogy makes no sense, Bill Gates's net worth is irrelevant, and it makes universal declarations ("everyone thinks this") without adequate support.

I'm loathe to simply delete what somebody put a great deal of work into, but it's clearly not encyclopedia-worthy. I've moved it here in case somebody (esp. the author) wants to rewrite it, but I don't think it's worth the trouble.

It can be easily shown that everyone agrees on the cause of world violence: if a government committed the injustice of taking 90% of income off 90% of people and giving it to 1%, everyone would agree that that would cause great violence. Injustice is theft.
The world has injustice even more extreme: 1% of people get over 90% of world income - US$70 trillion a year. 90% of workers get from one tenth to one thousandth of the world average hourly payrate. A further 9% get between the average and one tenth of the average. 1% get from the average to one million times the average. Fortnightly pay ranges from US$1 to US$1 billion. The world average hourly payrate, if homemakers and tertiary students [who also work] are also paid, is US$15 [2006AD, doubling every 12 years at 6% global inflation. Global inflation has been between 30% and 4% over the period 1990-2004]. Bill Gates, the world's richest known person, increased his fortune in 1998 by US$18 billion, in 2006 dollars, US$27 billion, over US$1 billion a fortnight. The average per capita annual income in Burundi is less than US$100, or US$4 a fortnight. Since the world range of pay is so great, it can be safely assumed that the lowest pay in Burundi is less than US$1 a fortnight.
That pay injustice is the cause of world violence can also be seen from the fact that money buys all necessities and satisfies billions of wants. Money is also power, freedom, status, dignity, safety.
Violence is escalative. Even if injustice were not rising, both sides will always try to win, and therefore continuously develop more powerful weaponry.
Violence is not caused by natural and unchangeable human aggressiveness. War and weaponry have escalated for thousands of years, whereas human nature has not. With human nature alone, humans would fight as much as they fought in prehistory, prior to wealth and poverty, which were the unfortunate consequence of exchange and the invention of money, that is, a portable, divisable, nonperishable artifical exchange item, needed after humans started specialising in tasks, and therefore exchange became necessary for the mixing of the products of work.
Items exchanged cannot be exactly equal in value [in the work they contain]. Therefore their values are x and x+y. Therefore every exchange consists of a fair-exchange-no-robbery [x for x] plus an injustice, equal to y. Over trillions of transactions, this drop of injustice becomes an ocean, an ever-increasingly rough ocean, on which the crests are no more pleasant than the troughs, and as temporary. If present world injustice or inequality were an ocean, that ocean would have crests ten times beyond the moon. The average depth of the ocean: 4 kilometres. Highest overpay: one million times average. Distance to moon: 400,000 kilometres.
Justice is very beneficial to both overpaid and underpaid. violence has escalated to the point of power of weaponry to block out the sun permanently and cool the planet 25 degrees, three times cooler than an iceage. In addition, fairpay satisfies all needs and virtually all desires. There are therefore only very marginal desires that overpay can satisfy. But danger to the overpaid is proportional to the degree of overpay. So the benefits are net very negative to the overpaid, as to the underpaid. Plunderers get plundered. The richer the empire or individual becomes, the poorer it makes those it plunders, and therefore the greater the stimulus is to plunder the empire. The costs of defense are large, and they are endless, for theft of wealth, which is survival as well as pleasure, is never accepted. Thus all empires have in time exhausted their plunder defending themselves, and ended defenceless and defeated. This pattern can be seen, for example in the decline of the British Empire and in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. The lesson of history is that the nation built on injustice cannot stand. We have super-extreme injustice.
Since pay justice is beneficial to both the 1% overpaid and to the 99% underpaid, there is every reason to believe that humans can achieve justice and peace, by education in the above points.
Since every adult on the planet can be reached and taught in just 31 times the time it takes to teach and convince just two people of the essential importance of passing it on to two people, there is every reason to hope that everyone can learn the necessary points in less time than it will take for tensions to lead to use of nuclear weapons and consequent extinction. Word of mouth is very safe, and is the most difficult to sabotage, by terrorism or disinformation.
Everyone already agrees it will work, it is beneficial to all, and everyone can be easily and safely taught in short time.
To effect justice when there is universal human understanding, it is only necessary to limit fortunes to the just maximum a person can earn by work [US$2 million] and spread the overfortunes among every human, electronically, fully, immediately, directly. Everyone to open bank accounts, of course. One account per person receiving the returned earnings, of course. Governments to pay the small costs of set-up of accounts and transfer systems. Countries will benefit from the money inflow. The disappearance of overpay and underpay will destroy tyranny, corruption, state terrorism and sadism, imperialism, escalation to extinction, slavery and poverty, and will restore democracy, liberty, equality and fraternity [friendliness].
Everyone already knows that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, that money makes money, the the second million is easier to rake than the first thousand to make, that after the first million money multiplies like rabbits, etc. The escalative economy [the 'raking' economy] is now 20 times the size of the work economy. There are many wideopen legal ways by which money moves easily from earners to nonearners.
Everyone will readily agree that a government taking 90% of earnings permanently off 90% of people and giving it to 1% would diminish world happiness by a factor of something of the order of 100 or 1000. Therefore everyone already understands that removing this injustice will have the effect of increasing happiness 100-fold or 1000-fold.
  • Thanks for cleaning up... I have edited the little bit about self-organised peace... stuck in a few links... I was wondering if I can put some links to exemplify different people's ideas on a self-organised worldpeace? Of course, governments etc are self-organised too, the UN et al, but they don't have emergence, they are constructed... Would this be valid or not? --Fidocancan 08:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strange search

"Whirled Peas" sent me here, someone needs to fix that.

Dare I ask why you were searching for "Whirled Peas"? Brickie 15:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There should be included an external link to the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a list of all signatories between 1993 and 2007), official website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm. Chrbartolf 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

[edit] Manifesto

There should be included an external link to the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a list of all signatories between 1993 and 2007), official website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm. Chrbartolf 13:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf


[edit] “Sorry,” he gritted, steadying his shaky scalpel-hand with a deep breath, “this is going to hurt.”

The most objective definition of World Peace would start out with a categorical stipulation that it is impossible to be objective about it. It is, at present, a matter of mere polemics (little for and much against), because we are too close to it emotionally and too far from it intellectually: having no valid model of World Peace to compare with our tolerant yet firm mastery of permanent World War. There are a few True-Believers dedicated to the implementation of World Peace (like me) and the remainder of humanity disguising its childhood aversion training against it (similar, in many ways, to its subliminal potty training aversive to excrement) in cliché-ridden indifference and pseudo-sophisticate skepticism. This is aptly demonstrated in your current article on World Peace, as strewn with aversive conditionals and unfriendly modifiers as equivalent articles would be on, say, coprophagy or incest. Objectivity is an illusion in this case; might as well get a Conservapedia editor to write objectively about Secular Humanism, or about Wikipedia, for that matter.

I took the liberty of inserting at the bottom of your article a link to my web samizdat, LEARNERS: On the Move from WeaponWorld to PeaceWorld, which spends hundreds of pages analyzing that historical aversion training and its consequences in detail. One or more of your editors may study my work carefully before the rest of you opt to delete its link summarily, as happened last time I dared insert it here. Otherwise, oh well, I tried with you people… This link goes to my full-text web page in English, with links there to separate chapters in English, full text and chapter pages in French, and chapter summary/table of contents/keywords pages in another dozen languages. Feel free to browse...

Let me repeat that World Peace involves the institutional transformation required to criminalize warfare across the planet. Criminalization of war does not mean its elimination; it means forbidding the practice by universal law, punishing its initiation and rendering it more difficult and less rewarding. Theft has been universally criminalized; that does not mean there is no more theft but merely less of it, more or less under control, because it has become more difficult and risky with diminished rewards.

Despite much empty verbiage to the contrary (leading nowhere during thousands of years of flowery mystical palaver while other peoples’ kids are marched off to die), its implementation has nothing to do with freedom, personal happiness and inner peace – though I hope its acceptance will enhance them indirectly under ideal circumstances. It could be said that a suicide bomber pulling his rip cord is ‘freer’ than anyone else could ever be, a samurai gutting himself or another may have experienced ‘inner peace,’ and a ragged conscript winning a cockroach race in the bottom of his stinking, bullet-swept trench may know momentary ‘happiness.’ Those concepts are beside the point and misleading with respect to World Peace, as is the (cryptically pro-war) literature currently found acceptable on this topic. Your precious footnotes from authoritative texts will serve only to compound your childhood aversion training. I make no pretense to objectivity and therefore will add nothing more to your article than this discussion commentary and my link: objectivity concerning World Peace will up to future Learners once they have actually lived through it – assuming any of them survive our transition from World War to World Peace. As Kant entitled it so enthusiastically: Rest in Peace.

World Peace is a theoretical alternative to the practice of World War we have worshipped like some blood-stinking Moloch for the past five thousand years of recorded history. The next significant spasm of World War is likely to produce 1 billion+ casualties, based on prior World War casualty rates per century and their semi-logarithmic growth rate (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_4/roland.html). The longer we delay that next spasm through various ad hoc stratagems amenable to our World War setting, the higher this body count is likely to be. The other alternative to continuous World War or interruptive World Peace is World Sterilization (omnicide) as our weapons grow lethal beyond imagining and beyond anyone’s control. World War One and Two were just warm-up exercises for this ultimate orgy of organized murder. Prior to those wars, the great mass of thinking people firmly believed, just like you, that they were impossible in a civilized world and then inevitable in a world gone mad. Rock-bed denial and then limp-wristed surrender: our standard formula for more World War. Get over yourselves and get to work for Peace.

Let me finish by stating my firm if unpopular conviction that all those less than enthusiastic about World Peace are closet warmongers (per LEARNERS: weapon fellow-travelers) in denial of their comforting if suicidal addiction, and nothing more – no matter what rubbish they may sputter about how wonderfully civilized they are. We may begin to call ourselves civilized without flaming hypocrisy when no child on this planet has died of starvation, preventable disease or any other fallout of warfare in the last decade. In the meantime, it’s time for a planetary Twelve Step Program, you guys, to break us of our worst habits, no matter how deeply in denial we may be of them.

I warned you this would hurt. Markmulligan 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rotating globe

What do you think about removing this very unfitting rotating globe at the side? It doesn't have to do anything with the topic anyway.

[edit] Project Peace and Goodwill

This section is hopelessly PoV, and reads much more like an argument than anything approaching an encyclopedia. Thus, I'm going to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.61.142 (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Drawbacks??"

The "drawbacks" sound bizzare... definitely NPOV. Madhava 1947 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I very much doubt that, the military suffering is obviously possible. ^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.227.234.130 (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV = Neutral Point of View ? WinterSpw (talk) 05:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm contesting the prod

The reason why should be obvious. Prod is not a soapbox. If you think the article should go, take it to AfD. Jtrainor (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's nominating this article for deletion? Article should not be deleted. WinterSpw (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)