I want World Peace. Yes/No?

[MagnetMan]

I do not see how the multitude of diversity would be greater under the conditions that would be required for 'world peace'. The very term world peace implys a world in agreement on things such as religion, politics, culture, etc. That in itself is a conflict that is yet to be resolved within borders, let alone outside of them. So my conclusion is this: Either freedoms would be reduced for some to bring repressive idealisms to the table to compromise for this goal of world peace, or injustices would have to be uniformly ignored by all countries to maintain this 'world peace'.

 

Let us say, for the sake of argument:

Firstly: That Krishna and Socratese and Plato and Lao tsu and Confucius and the Buddha and Christ and Mohammed where right - that man is essentially good, and that if carefully shown the good will behave good.

Secondly: That world religious leaders got together and agreed that all their scriptures refered to the same One God, and that no founder of any cult was more favored by God:

Thirdly: That all the politicians in the wolrd got together and agreed that the only creative and lasting policy on the planet had to be grounded on meticulous sharing of resources and technology.

Fourthly: That all the engineers and technologists in the world got together and agreed that, under proper management, this planet was capable of supporting and sustaining infinitely, fifty times the poplulation it is currently struggling with.

 

Would you not agree, difficult as it is to think that those basic ideals will become an actual reality, that the simple base of common sense that underlies them, and the non-harm it does to anybody, makes all of the above at least a feasible proposition?

 

 

I am not sitting on the fence. I voted no. The more I thought about the big picture and what world peace implys the more I decided there is no way I can support world peace with my understanding of human nature. I am not willing to give up the right of dissent. Even if that dissent results in war.

 

Would you not further agree that if you changed your mind and voted yes, and decided to work as hard as you can, no matter how insurmountable the task my seem, to make it happen, that the example you set will affect others - and purhaps, in the end, as each of us affected others, make it all happen one day?

[Cedars]

Let us say, for the sake of argument:

Firstly: That Krishna and Socratese and Plato and Lao tsu and Confucius and the Buddha and Christ and Mohammed where right - that man is essentially good, and that if carefully shown the good will behave good.

Secondly: That world religious leaders got together and agreed that all their scriptures refered to the same One God, and that no founder of any cult was more favored by God:

Thirdly: That all the politicians in the wolrd got together and agreed that the only creative and lasting policy on the planet had to be grounded on meticulous sharing of resources and technology.

Fourthly: That all the engineers and technologists in the world got together and agreed that, under proper management, this planet was capable of supporting and sustaining infinitely, fifty times the poplulation it is currently struggling with.

 

Magnetman, I appreciate your response and I do understand where your coming from. I did state philosophically I lean towards a yes vote. But philosophic ideas are personal and varied as much as any human condition is influenced by the environment they are experienced in. This does not negate the fact that human nature is a more forceful influence than whimsical idealisms.

 

I dont think those basic ideas you listed for arguments sake will become a reality, even if every single person on this forum tried your approach. Common sense tells me this. Human nature tells me this. I voted honestly and after much thought on the big picture and what I think world peace would need to take from people to achieve its long term existence. My vote is based on my perception of the reality of people. Wishing the human animal was different will not change the fact of human nature. I think my position is justified regarding world peace, and nothing you posted negated my position. If you can address my concerns and reasons why I voted no with actual substance rather than what ifs, and maybe thens, and after a bunch of stuff changes, feel free to post them.

[Akw2000]

I am not going to let the world have peace! We need wars, it's a part of us(a :)).

[MagnetMan]

If you can address my concerns and reasons why I voted no with actual substance rather than what ifs, and maybe thens, and after a bunch of stuff changes, feel free to post them.

 

I think it is natural for us, at this stage of our evolution, to take a cynical view of human nature. But if you view the characteristics that define our collective behavior you will notice how accurately it paralleles that of the average western individual teenager who strives for an independent self-determined view of reality. Religious Protestation, leading to outright atheism, is a striking example of today's science-based attitude to God. Insisting on independence in an essentially inter-dependent global environment is another. Rebellious revolution against an authoritarian Fatherland is yet another. I can go on an on with these similarities. Promiscuity. Irresponsible parenting. Gambling with stocks and bonds. Racing fast cars. Chasing fast women, Drinking and revelling too much. Daring to play Russian roulette with nuclear guns. All symptomatric of a highly intelligent, daringly reckless, teenager, sowing his wild oats. We all know that as the individual teenager matures, that behavior becomes less radical and more responsible.

For many reasons, I see us still in a teen state of development and view the evolution of human consciousness as an on-going process that is still in its immature stages and has a long way to go before achieving mastership of self and a sagacious over-view of the Cosmic purpose.

 

I realize that most memebrs on this forum do not agree with this generalized assesment of our current mind-state. Many call it fanciful. But if you juxtapose our realtive perceptions of the space/time consortium you will notice how that also tends to confirm what I am saying - ie. that the individual consciousness duplicates that of the collective to a marked degree.

 

Let me give a few more examples. I lived with the Stone Age Bushmen Kalahari. Their relative perception of space and time duplicates that of a modern infant. This is not because they are unintelligent, (their brain is the same size as ours) but because they have no need to create artificial measurements in order to exist. A hunting/gathering life style is primarily in the here and now. Time and distance is irrelevant. The tedium of chores is not exprienced. Their psyches are innocent and largely free of social pressures This is so with all infants.

As soon as man moved into an agricultural-based existence, rough linear measurememnts of time and space became a survival imperative. You will notice that at about seven years of age, children want to know how to tell time. Then, when man evolved into a national consciousness, finer measurements of time and space were needed to initiate conscientious industrial craftsmanship. At about puberty, that craftsman imprint kicks in with most of us. And so we get to scientific determinism, where microscopic and macroscopic measurements become the next imperative - this equates with a teenage need for sophisticated intellectual self-expression - and accurately describes, in my view, where we all are now.

 

So the whole thrust of my argument is what is next? Globalism? Planet management? That mind-state requires a more sober sense of self in relationship to the world at large. The teenager graduates into his majority and receives the Key to steward his father's estate.

 

The force that initated every change of the mass consciousnes, is always population explosion, impacting on an over-stressed environment. We face that stress again today - requiring a 5th paradigm shift of the mass mind.

Now you may not agree with all these generatized assumptions, but they are based to a large extent on sequential progressions in mankind's occupational constructs that can be reasonably verified.

 

So I maintain that human consciousness is not only capable of mass changes, but that is in fact what has been happening to us not only as we mature individually through infancy, chidhood, puberty, teenhood, stewardship, mastership and sagehood. That process of maturation is also taking place with the collective psyche as it progresses through Stone Age infancy, Bronze Age childhood, Iron Age puberty, Steel Age teenhood - and now stands on the brink of Nuclear Age stewardship. If this evolutionary progression proves to be accurate, then we can project the future with reasonable accuracy - realizing that we have two more Ages of development ahead of us after the Nucleasr Age, before the collective psyche arrives at sagehood and the evolutionary cycle ends with no more children born to us..

 

I can see the eyes reading all this rolling backwards and all kinds of expletives rolling off tongues,- and that is not only understandable, but confirms for me at least, a teen mindset that hates to be told that the futre is more or less predetermined - even though the fact that a certain death moment is inescapable..

 

So once again I assert, world peace is our next move.

[Akw2000]

To be honest with you, I think that we will never know if you are right or wrong.

 

Humanity WILL start a third world war and, by using nuclear weapons possibly eradicate ourselves sometime soon, maybe within a hundred years. It is inevitable to cause more wars.

 

When the peoples republic of china grows even more, it will become the new soviet union, and a major threat to the usa, and thus we will have a new cold war. We were just lucky that the cold war didn't lead to a nuclear disaster, but why should that luck repeat itself?

 

I seriously believe that WE will cause our own death, not an asteroid or alien invasion.

 

To say as the mothra fairies in the japanese godzilla: "Human beings must recognize their mistakes and learn from them in order to redeem themselves"(something like that). Okay, I cited this from the godzilla movie Tokyo SOS, but it still holds that message.

 

Unfortunately, we have a very hard time learning anything from our mistakes, history repeats itself over and over.

 

But if we are lucky enough, the nuclear weapons would be disposed of by then, thanks to the UN's efforts, but it's just a matter of time before the next war knocks on the door.

 

They real question is will we be able to spread out ourselves fast enogh to avoid extermination? If we colonize other planets, humanity would survive for several thousands of years. But by the look of things, we don't have that much time.

Maybe the usa attacks Iran and starts a huge war, who knows if they are stupid enough?

 

I believe that humanity is right now at the greatest danger in history.

[MagnetMan]

 

I believe that humanity is right now at the greatest danger in history.

 

We are in complete agreement here. We are God's chosen son. But like all fathers, he trembles at our daring. If we survive this critical moment, then the future looks bright. If you can't vote for peace, perhaps we can pray for it.

[Cedars]

MagnetMan

 

After reading your posts here and in other places, I have come to the conclusion you are not for world peace either with people in their present condition. Your posts exhibit the fact that as people are, world peace is unattainable. You admit that there are requirements as a condition to make change happen, the diminishment of individuality (read freedom) of culture, religion and political differences must occur. You agree that to attain world peace individual diversity will have to cease to exist for at least some people. And you are willing to allow that sacrifice to happen to others.

 

But I am also sure that, based on your posts and 'vision' of the future, if the only condition preventing world peace revolved around religion you would fight every effort to remove that obsticle of peace that is religion. You would sacrifice your goal of world peace over the intangable of the Godhead idealisms you value so greatly. I dont think you can stand the concept that there is no God so greatly you would sacrifice peace to ensure its [God myth] survival. The thing about this is there are many who think this way. Its the 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' thingy.

 

The vision/illusion of world peace you seek is filled with your contempt for mankind. It is not I who am cynical about human nature, its you.

[Akw2000]

Hm, I didn't meant it to sound religious. We will probably have a new war within ten years, but if we are lucky, without nukes.

[MagnetMan]

MagnetMan

 

After reading your posts here and in other places, I have come to the conclusion you are not for world peace either with people in their present condition. Your posts exhibit the fact that as people are, world peace is unattainable. You admit that there are requirements as a condition to make change happen, the diminishment of individuality (read freedom) of culture, religion and political differences must occur. You agree that to attain world peace individual diversity will have to cease to exist for at least some people. And you are willing to allow that sacrifice to happen to others.

There must be some misunderstanding here. I have said that if there is a general lifting of international tensions, individual expression will expand exponentially -not be throttled - especiall as it releases all the dollars currently tied up in military and police actions. These trillions could made available for R/D in a wide range of large-scale planet management projects. (See my post on harnessing the energy in the Gulf of Califiornia for instance.)

 

But I am also sure that, based on your posts and 'vision' of the future, if the only condition preventing world peace revolved around religion you would fight every effort to remove that obsticle of peace that is religion. You would sacrifice your goal of world peace over the intangable of the Godhead idealisms you value so greatly. I dont think you can stand the concept that there is no God so greatly you would sacrifice peace to ensure its [God myth] survival. The thing about this is there are many who think this way. Its the 'Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely' thingy.

The vision/illusion of world peace you seek is filled with your contempt for mankind. It is not I who am cynical about human nature, its you.

 

You have me buffaloed here. Since I believe mankind, with all our foils and fables is the most advanced expression of the Godhead on our planet, how does what you say add up to me being cyncical about human nature? I see myself as the exact opposite and those who oppose peace and do not believe man-as-God, as being cynical.

[Cedars]

There must be some misunderstanding here. I have said that if there is a general lifting of international tensions, individual expression will expand exponentially -not be throttled - especiall as it releases all the dollars currently tied up in military and police actions. These trillions could made available for R/D in a wide range of large-scale planet management projects. (See my post on harnessing the energy in the Gulf of Califiornia for instance.)

 

Every example you have given requires the taking away from some to give to others. The only way you will implement this is to deny at least some, if not most, what they follow in their culture, religion, or political idealisms. No country is going to give up their military without the guarentee it is not needed for protection against the differences along their borders. There is only one method of insuring that with the diversity of people. You will need to reduce the diversity. Everyone has to agree. That simply will not happen without reduction in freedom of culture, religion, and/or political opposition.

 

You have me buffaloed here. Since I believe mankind, with all our foils and fables is the most advanced expression of the Godhead on our planet, how does what you say add up to me being cyncical about human nature? I see myself as the exact opposite and those who oppose peace and do not believe man-as-God, as being cynical.

 

No you dont. That is why you avocate monumental change in all the afore mentioned things. You dont believe in mankind as a Godhead, you believe it is wrong in its methods that brought us to where we are. You critize atheists, you think science should tippy toe around religion so the religious dont get offended and, you are so focused on your personal God beliefs that you try to warp science to fit into your God shaped holes. You think techies should live on the same substenance level as your bushmen so you can play golf. And lets not even get into your displeasure with capitalism.

 

This is exactly why I voted no on world peace. I am not willing to sacrifice my ability (or any one elses ability) to disagree with the status quo, for the status quo to achieve world peace will result in the sacrifice of individuality, on many levels I would guess.

 

Now maybe I have not articulated myself well again, but you can offer no proof of your ideas as being functional.

[MagnetMan]

This is exactly why I voted no on world peace. I am not willing to sacrifice my ability (or any one elses ability) to disagree with the status quo, for the status quo to achieve world peace will result in the sacrifice of individuality, on many levels I would guess.

 

Now maybe I have not articulated myself well again, but you can offer no proof of your ideas as being functional.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. But your argument that I have no basis for mine is unfair. There is historical precedent that four previous paradigm shifts of the collective consciousness have taken place in the evolution of human consciousness. In each of those mass shifts, customs, beliefs, occupational contracts, had to be either abandoned altogether, or radically altered to adjust to the demands of the new paradigm. Those mass changes are the reasons why we no longer hunt and gather for a living, or practice animstic superstitions; why we don't exist purely on a farm-based economy any longer, worship totem images, engage in clan vendettas, or have shamans acting as mediums between us and our dead ancestors. It is why we don't think kings are born by divine appointment, burn people at the stake for heresy or exist primarely via mediveal crafstmanship. Since Aristotle's time, we have gradually adopted a scientific mind-set and protested against rigid scriptural dogma.

 

There are tens of millions of New Agers like me, who believe that another mass paradigm shift is again upon us. Whether we are right or not, only time will tell for sure. I have eight young children who will spend the rest of their lives in the 21st Century. I have a parental obligation to prepare them for a future that I believe will be radically different to the system that supports us now.

 

Give me some credit for knowing exactly where you and the majority of people stand at this moment in time. I have been there and done that for over sixty years. I revere all the work our forefathers did to get us to where we are today. For me, globalization is a new reality with new challenges that will require an entirely new way of thinking. Partisan politics and special interest groups have driven our nation into grid-lock with no way out. The international arguments between religionists are primitive and dangerous and belong to a bygone era. The status quo threatens all of us with WWIII. In my opinion it is time to move on.

 

I have a right to express original ideas that help to explain the exact reasons why I think peace is vital. I shoul be able to do this on this forum without being personally stigmatized by those who have not taken the trouble to read some of the other 200 odd posts I have made that support my thesis.

[Cedars]

You are entitled to your opinion. But your argument that I have no basis for mine is unfair. Since Aristotle's time, we have gradually adopted a scientific mind-set and protested against rigid scriptural dogma.

 

There are tens of millions of New Agers like me, who believe that another mass paradigm shift is again upon us. Whether we are right or not, only time will tell for sure.

 

For me, globalization is a new reality with new challenges that will require an entirely new way of thinking. Partisan politics and special interest groups have driven our nation into grid-lock with no way out. The international arguments between religionists are primitive and dangerous and belong to a bygone era. The status quo threatens all of us with WWIII. In my opinion it is time to move on.

 

I have a right to express original ideas that help to explain the exact reasons why I think peace is vital. I shoul be able to do this on this forum without being personally stigmatized by those who have not taken the trouble to read some of the other 200 odd posts I have made that support my thesis.

 

Dont expect people in a forum to roll over and nod their heads in agreement just because you have made a declaration of your belief in what is the future, what man is going to evolve into, or any of the other positions you post that require others to 'imagine that'. You best be prepared to see someone who imagines something different than what you expect. Such is the diversity of people. I dont mind admitting I am wrong, but that requires being convinced that a position I have taken is incorrect.

 

You have yet to convince me your goal of world peace will result in greater freedom for me, a citizen of the USA. I have read as many of your 200 posts as I can and have refrained from jumping in on many occasions when my view is different than yours because hey, you are entitled to your opinion.

 

I responded to your posts that were directed at me with honest answers. If you dont like my answers convince me they are wrong. But that will require substance, not "what ifs" and "You just gotta believe" such as you post in your dream of the future.

[MagnetMan]

. You best be prepared to see someone who imagines something different than what you expect.

 

Did you ever hear about the Urubukuku bird?

[Pyrotex]

...Religious strife is based on exclusive interpretations of religious texts. There is a general relalization that all religions refer to the same Godhead.

...Quantum Mechanics is already demonstrating the super-natural nature of sub-atomic behavior....

You would get a LOT of disagreement -- from the major world religions. Especially those who take their religion 'seriously' -- the fundementalists, of whatever stripe. The 'idea' (not actually a realization, since the super-natural isnt' "real", otherwise it would just be called the natural) that all religions refer to the same Godhead has been put forward again and again over the last coupla centuries, and soundly rejected, by and large.

 

Sub-atomic behavior is real, and therefore cannot be super-natural. The fact that we do not fully understand QM behavior is not evidence that we are dealing with the super-natural (whatever that may be) -- it is evidence that our understanding is incomplete. Lightening, volcanoes, tides, disease, have ALL been touted as proof of the super-natural in times of old. They were always wrong. Super-natural means inherently, NOT natural.

 

Has anyone discussed the fact that there are many ways of achieving world peace? Some of them are not pretty. The Nazis of Germany and the Communists of Russia came awfully close to achieving 'world peace'. Had they succeeded, there would have been "no more war". It's amazing how peaceful people will become after you impale a few heads in the village square. Cynical??? Well, perhaps, but I take the lessons of history very seriously.

[InfiniteNow]

Turns out that the concept "peace" is very controversial. I find that somewhat funny. :naughty:

 

 

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

[Pyrotex]

...Partisan politics and special interest groups have driven our nation into grid-lock with no way out. The international arguments between religionists are primitive and dangerous and belong to a bygone era. The status quo threatens all of us with WWIII. In my opinion it is time to move on. ....

Okay, here I am going to switch sides and agree with you. :naughty: Just like the religions of 1600 led Europe inexorably into savage warfare for half a century, and the politics of mutual defense treaties of 1900 led Europe inexorably into the savage warfare of WW1, I am of the opinion that our modern religious/political/corporate policies will lead us to disaster. It is time to move on. But I don't see that happening before the disaster.

 

Mankind has rarely if ever given up his rel/pol/corp infrastructures of power and domination until they were destroyed or at least undermined. It's kind of like "battered spouse" syndrome: better the suffering you understand than the unknown alternative that you do not understand.

[TheFaithfulStone]

What word do you recommend that I use then? Paranormal? Un-natural?

I prefer super-natural. For me that means above or greater than Nature.

 

Counterintuitive is good.

 

'taint against the laws of physics for the laws of physics to be the laws of physics... physically speaking, aye?

 

Clarification: The way the universe behaves naturally cannot be supernatural by definition If you could prove that ghosts were in fact caused by non-local quantum "echoes" then we could stop calling them "supernatural phenomena" (which implies they are not subject to the normal rules) and start calling them "creepy non-local quantum effects."

 

TFS