|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:42 pm
Not including my religion: There is no way world peace can last more than a second right now and it will never happen than more than one second. Religion, emotions, money, and our thoughts care the cause of this. You'd have to take that away but then we'll be lifeless. You can kill everything but life will grow again and war and hatred will happen once again. And during the absence of life, who will be able to say it's peace? There'd be no life to prove world peace.
To all the other responses, what about religion? Religion will be there to corrupt you're plan.
Including my religion: When Jesus comes and Judgment Day occurs.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:03 pm
Senpai-Fluffy Not including my religion: There is no way world peace can last more than a second right now and it will never happen than more than one second. Religion, emotions, money, and our thoughts care the cause of this. You'd have to take that away but then we'll be lifeless. You can kill everything but life will grow again and war and hatred will happen once again. And during the absence of life, who will be able to say it's peace? There'd be no life to prove world peace. To all the other responses, what about religion? Religion will be there to corrupt you're plan. Including my religion: When Jesus comes and Judgment Day occurs. I somewhat agree. It's only human for a person to hate, to argue, to question. World peace would only come in 2 ways: mass genocide and not educating the new population so they would not know how to think for themselves, or making people live in fear. Peace is unobtainable without war. Equivalent exchange....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:27 pm
Kk_the_cynical
so they would not know how to think for themselves I think that is happening already. Look at the number of children getting brainwashed by the media and those video games. They wait for instructions from someone else before deciding whether they hate or like a product or whether they hate or like the government. As for my say in when world peace will be attainable...never. Even if Christ, Elijah, or whoever you worship or don't worship came as promised, we'd have to give up being evil. When a fairy or angel or hippie elf comes along and waves away all the corruption, anger, hate, and money value with their magic stick or wand or whatever then we will get the world peace. Until then we'll have to stick with our corrupt, evil selves and make the most out of life. (no offense meant to hippies or elves or hippie elves)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:04 pm
In my opinion:
I think that world peace can only be found inside.
If it was truly a utopia, then no one would ever learn anything, because there would be no reason to do so. Why must I enjoy a game of soccer, when I am perfectly healthy, perfectly athletic, and perfectly content with my current situation? Why must I enjoy a relationship when I do not crave love? When I am perfectly happy? When I want for nothing? Reading this, you may find yourself asking, "Then what is the point? What is the point of having everything if you never appreciate it? Why have a perfect life if you don't do anything with it?"
In a perfect society, people would be rid of conflict, but also rid of experiences. Conflict in life is what causes humans to change and grow, to appreciate life and to challenge themselves to make it better.
When people ask for world peace, they only express this worldview. They themselves want to make the world better, and this struggle has become an important part of who they are. If the world was perfect, they would be missing this part of themselves. No one would get the chance to make the world a better place, or even a different place; in a utopia, there is nothing to improve.
I don't want complete peace. I just want understanding. I feel that I can face all of the problems and conflict that the world has to offer me, as long as I am not alone. This is what God is for, for me.
But, I think most people also do not want a utopia. They would rather keep the conflicts that allow the world to change. But what they do want is the peace that comes with knowing they can weather the conflict, and that the world will always change for the better, in the long run. They want to be at peace with the world, and the world's future. That's what I define as "world peace".
Therefore, it can be found within. It is hope for the future that gives one peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:16 pm
My greatest answer would come from watching Pulp Fiction.
The world will come to silence when people stop thinking they are a fine whine. They always say the older they get, the better they become. Because of this, domination and reaching for the top is thought of. If everyone thought they were equal, however, than no one would be fighting one another.
Till than, the man with the gun will be the good guy, the guy who has the gun pointed to him is the bad guy, and the gun shall be the almighty Shepard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:41 pm
Captain_Shinzo
Till than, the man with the gun will be the good guy, the guy who has the gun pointed to him is the bad guy, and the gun shall be the almighty Shepard.Are you saying that religion is the cause of there being a lack of peace? It might cause some wars, but it's hardly the main cause. And if the 'Shepard' bit is referring to Jesus and Christianity, then that's even sillier. The Bible supports equality. I mean, Jesus even says loving one's neighbor is the second most important commandment! Quote: "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40) "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Romans 2:1) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3: 16-17) Basically, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to love everyone, and not judge. We should also keep in mind that we've all fallen short, and we're all made in God's image. Just because a lot Christians have trouble with this, doesn't mean the religion is hateful. It's just a matter of Christs Follower's learning this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 11:55 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo
Till than, the man with the gun will be the good guy, the guy who has the gun pointed to him is the bad guy, and the gun shall be the almighty Shepard.Are you saying that religion is the cause of there being a lack of peace? It might cause some wars, but it's hardly the main cause. And if the 'Shepard' bit is referring to Jesus and Christianity, then that's even sillier. The Bible supports equality. I mean, Jesus even says loving one's neighbor is the second most important commandment! Quote: "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40) "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Romans 2:1) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3: 16-17) Basically, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to love everyone, and not judge. We should also keep in mind that we've all fallen short, and we're all made in God's image. Just because a lot Christians have trouble with this, doesn't mean the religion is hateful. It's just a matter of Christs Follower's learning this.
No, it's a metaphor on how the world kinda works and was used in Pulp Fiction. Try reading it again, except focus more on the roles than the actual names themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 1:18 am
Captain_Shinzo xxEternallyBluexx Captain_Shinzo
Till than, the man with the gun will be the good guy, the guy who has the gun pointed to him is the bad guy, and the gun shall be the almighty Shepard.Are you saying that religion is the cause of there being a lack of peace? It might cause some wars, but it's hardly the main cause. And if the 'Shepard' bit is referring to Jesus and Christianity, then that's even sillier. The Bible supports equality. I mean, Jesus even says loving one's neighbor is the second most important commandment! Quote: "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40) "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things." (Romans 2:1) "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3: 16-17) Basically, according to the Bible Christians are supposed to love everyone, and not judge. We should also keep in mind that we've all fallen short, and we're all made in God's image. Just because a lot Christians have trouble with this, doesn't mean the religion is hateful. It's just a matter of Christs Follower's learning this.
No, it's a metaphor on how the world kinda works and was used in Pulp Fiction. Try reading it again, except focus more on the roles than the actual names themselves.Sorry. sweatdrop I wasn't sure, but I felt like arguing the point anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:59 pm
God or a Surpreme Being Or threat Of Total Exstinction. Case in point to manny people with too many views to get the job done
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:36 pm
Lateralus es Helica divineseraph Lateralus es Helica Reminds me of a post I made a while back. Quote: Generally when you see any sort of conflict between two people, the stem source is some sort of emotion that has a negative connotation to it. Anger, hurt, jealousy, etc. The same's true of war. Let's take the Afghanistan war, a decade ago. When we first declared war, the issuance was because of the hurt, loss, and anger associated with our country being attacked and lives taken. Depending on what you believe happened on that day, you can go ahead and get rid of the group in the first place but it doesn't matter. If any group were to perform the same action, our reaction would be similar. So if you want to get rid of war, you have to get rid of all the 'negative' parts of our psyche, those emotions which could potentially lead us down the path to war. Unless you plan on doing some serious brain washing and drug therapy which prohibits the release of hormones that cause such emotions, you're going to have to learn that it's just a part of our condition. That being said, I'm not against taking reasonable measures to prevent such things from happening in the first place. If the bottom line, the root source of conflict on a personal or even global scale is negative behavioral patterns, you do what you can to keep those patterns from either arising or teach people to keep them under control. I'm more for the second. Any measures to suppress such behaviors or emotions in the first place are downright questionable when it comes to issues of morality. What I believe should happen is first, acknowledge that YES, people DO feel negative emotions and have the desire to act upon them. The key, however, is teaching people how to deal with those emotions. Teach them to recognize when they are feeling them and channel them in a more appropriate manner, one that doesn't involve violent conflict. The thing is, that's something you can't teach directly. You can tell little Timmy not to hit Jerry when he gets mad all you want. Those types of lessons people learn indirectly through the behavior of their peers and authority figures. If Timmy's dad constantly hits Timmy's mom every time he gets mad, it's reasonable to assume Timmy just might not listen when someone tells him not to use violence when he gets mad and will use it anyways. This is something that cannot be taught unless it is lived and shown by example. Granted, there's always exceptions to the rules. There's some people that just defy the laws of normal behavioral patterns. You start to get to that razor edge of whether or not an action is moral once you start discussing ways in which to deal with such exceptions. If enough exceptions get treated a certain way, someone somewhere is going to start questioning whether or not we deal with all people that way. Now I'm not saying world peace is impossible, but extremely difficult. There's no way to set up that 'perfect world' that everyone seems to want. All you can do is live life as an example and teach what you can to others. I think in such a case it would be especially important to set an example for children, try to teach them the lessons to live a peaceful life before behavioral patterns truly set in. It's not the ultimate solution, but it's what little we as individuals can do. That's neglecting Al Queda's motivations, however. Our motivation to attack them was 9/11. Their motivation to attack us was our military actions in the middle east. Our motivation for military support of Israel and general double-dealing in the middle east was money and global economic power. Our reason for this is because our economic system rewards those with money and power by giving them luxury. Therefore, the core of our problems is our greed, and our greed is only able to manifest in the capitalist system that rewards double-dealing, lying, cheating, starting wars and controlling other governments for cheap labor and trade. It's not simply a "Someone feels bad about something" in a vacuum, as implied in this post- It ignored entirely all the actions of the past, which have built up to make today. My point here is that it's not a matter of not feeling bad, it's about manipulating our system so that there's no reward or benefit to making others feel bad. Greed itself at the root is an emotion with the same negative connotation attached to it that anger, sadness, etc. harbor. I spoke in extremely broad terms of course and that which we were capable of on an individual level. On a higher level and especially governmental, there's a huge problem actually being able to manipulate the system in the manner which you speak. It would effectively require not only for those in power not to have greed themselves but at the same time those supporting them and giving them power not to have it. Let's say for instance a ruler of one country decides he wants the timber from another for money. Now, effectively, his people COULD decide to say no, we won't let you do that, but what are they going to say when he turns around and promises them a percentage of the profit from the plunder? Those that did have the stance previously that it was morally wrong for him to act upon his greed in such a way may turn around when being faced with reward themselves. Which, in my opinion, comes back to the behaviors individuals have. You can't effectively change such a large institution unless the people at large truly desire that change. Greed is perhaps the trickiest one especially in such a materialistic society. When we live in a society where a vast number of the people live on the assumption that the quality of their life is determined by wealth and the quality of material objects they own, it's extremely easy for those in charge to write off their own greed by turning around and appealing to the people's own sense of greed and materialism. You'll be hard-pressed to get them to change their minds if they've learned to act on the acquisition of wealth. It all comes back once again to the behaviors and well let's throw in values that an individual has and has learned. Until a person can truly live otherwise, they're going to be incapable or just plain choose not to affect change that would lead to peace. Which is why there can be no system of classes- We must have equality. Capitalism is anti-equality, in it's core and in it's intended use. If we are motivated by stuff, then my argument still applies- for 90% of the population, there would be an average gain of... I did the math earlier, but I can't recall the number now. Needless to say, it would be a gain of above 200%, in America. This is, of course, including the middle class, so the lower classes would see increases of, possibly, upwards of 1000%. People today do not desire change, because they are brainwashed into complacency. Happiness is bought, and we need the rich to pay us so we can have our piece of happiness. Most of us never do the rest of the math to realize that, firstly, this happiness is false, and that secondly, the existence of the rich only justifies itself in a circular fashion. Meaning, what we buy into is a trap designed by the upper class in order for us to accept and nearly worship them, rather than be pissed that they have everything while we, the workers, do the work. I could blame the media, showing us images of what we should be, and what the corporations of the rich have to offer if we work under them. Were I cynical enough, I could cite the MK Ultra projects, designed to be undetectable in water and cause complacency and stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 7:54 pm
divineseraph Lateralus es Helica divineseraph Lateralus es Helica Reminds me of a post I made a while back. Quote: Generally when you see any sort of conflict between two people, the stem source is some sort of emotion that has a negative connotation to it. Anger, hurt, jealousy, etc. The same's true of war. Let's take the Afghanistan war, a decade ago. When we first declared war, the issuance was because of the hurt, loss, and anger associated with our country being attacked and lives taken. Depending on what you believe happened on that day, you can go ahead and get rid of the group in the first place but it doesn't matter. If any group were to perform the same action, our reaction would be similar. So if you want to get rid of war, you have to get rid of all the 'negative' parts of our psyche, those emotions which could potentially lead us down the path to war. Unless you plan on doing some serious brain washing and drug therapy which prohibits the release of hormones that cause such emotions, you're going to have to learn that it's just a part of our condition. That being said, I'm not against taking reasonable measures to prevent such things from happening in the first place. If the bottom line, the root source of conflict on a personal or even global scale is negative behavioral patterns, you do what you can to keep those patterns from either arising or teach people to keep them under control. I'm more for the second. Any measures to suppress such behaviors or emotions in the first place are downright questionable when it comes to issues of morality. What I believe should happen is first, acknowledge that YES, people DO feel negative emotions and have the desire to act upon them. The key, however, is teaching people how to deal with those emotions. Teach them to recognize when they are feeling them and channel them in a more appropriate manner, one that doesn't involve violent conflict. The thing is, that's something you can't teach directly. You can tell little Timmy not to hit Jerry when he gets mad all you want. Those types of lessons people learn indirectly through the behavior of their peers and authority figures. If Timmy's dad constantly hits Timmy's mom every time he gets mad, it's reasonable to assume Timmy just might not listen when someone tells him not to use violence when he gets mad and will use it anyways. This is something that cannot be taught unless it is lived and shown by example. Granted, there's always exceptions to the rules. There's some people that just defy the laws of normal behavioral patterns. You start to get to that razor edge of whether or not an action is moral once you start discussing ways in which to deal with such exceptions. If enough exceptions get treated a certain way, someone somewhere is going to start questioning whether or not we deal with all people that way. Now I'm not saying world peace is impossible, but extremely difficult. There's no way to set up that 'perfect world' that everyone seems to want. All you can do is live life as an example and teach what you can to others. I think in such a case it would be especially important to set an example for children, try to teach them the lessons to live a peaceful life before behavioral patterns truly set in. It's not the ultimate solution, but it's what little we as individuals can do. That's neglecting Al Queda's motivations, however. Our motivation to attack them was 9/11. Their motivation to attack us was our military actions in the middle east. Our motivation for military support of Israel and general double-dealing in the middle east was money and global economic power. Our reason for this is because our economic system rewards those with money and power by giving them luxury. Therefore, the core of our problems is our greed, and our greed is only able to manifest in the capitalist system that rewards double-dealing, lying, cheating, starting wars and controlling other governments for cheap labor and trade. It's not simply a "Someone feels bad about something" in a vacuum, as implied in this post- It ignored entirely all the actions of the past, which have built up to make today. My point here is that it's not a matter of not feeling bad, it's about manipulating our system so that there's no reward or benefit to making others feel bad. Greed itself at the root is an emotion with the same negative connotation attached to it that anger, sadness, etc. harbor. I spoke in extremely broad terms of course and that which we were capable of on an individual level. On a higher level and especially governmental, there's a huge problem actually being able to manipulate the system in the manner which you speak. It would effectively require not only for those in power not to have greed themselves but at the same time those supporting them and giving them power not to have it. Let's say for instance a ruler of one country decides he wants the timber from another for money. Now, effectively, his people COULD decide to say no, we won't let you do that, but what are they going to say when he turns around and promises them a percentage of the profit from the plunder? Those that did have the stance previously that it was morally wrong for him to act upon his greed in such a way may turn around when being faced with reward themselves. Which, in my opinion, comes back to the behaviors individuals have. You can't effectively change such a large institution unless the people at large truly desire that change. Greed is perhaps the trickiest one especially in such a materialistic society. When we live in a society where a vast number of the people live on the assumption that the quality of their life is determined by wealth and the quality of material objects they own, it's extremely easy for those in charge to write off their own greed by turning around and appealing to the people's own sense of greed and materialism. You'll be hard-pressed to get them to change their minds if they've learned to act on the acquisition of wealth. It all comes back once again to the behaviors and well let's throw in values that an individual has and has learned. Until a person can truly live otherwise, they're going to be incapable or just plain choose not to affect change that would lead to peace. Which is why there can be no system of classes- We must have equality. Capitalism is anti-equality, in it's core and in it's intended use. If we are motivated by stuff, then my argument still applies- for 90% of the population, there would be an average gain of... I did the math earlier, but I can't recall the number now. Needless to say, it would be a gain of above 200%, in America. This is, of course, including the middle class, so the lower classes would see increases of, possibly, upwards of 1000%. People today do not desire change, because they are brainwashed into complacency. Happiness is bought, and we need the rich to pay us so we can have our piece of happiness. Most of us never do the rest of the math to realize that, firstly, this happiness is false, and that secondly, the existence of the rich only justifies itself in a circular fashion. Meaning, what we buy into is a trap designed by the upper class in order for us to accept and nearly worship them, rather than be pissed that they have everything while we, the workers, do the work. I could blame the media, showing us images of what we should be, and what the corporations of the rich have to offer if we work under them. Were I cynical enough, I could cite the MK Ultra projects, designed to be undetectable in water and cause complacency and stupidity. I won't argue with that. I'd add further but not much need, your reply covered most of what I'd add to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 10:39 pm
Well....lets see here. To achieve world peace we must first realize that this is only something that candidates for Miss America really believe in...at least in the modern global sense of the word "peace". I used to be one of those people that dreamed of world peace and thought that everyone could see life and the world the same way and that everyone could one day just get along; kind of like fighting with your best friend. I have realized, however, that to achieve world peace at its most fundamental basis is utterly impossible. To do this you would first have to get all of the different religions on the planet to accept one and other for the people that they are and not try to force their views on anyone. Then you would have to get everyone on Earth to believe that everyone is equal to the next and that no one is better than another. If you some how figure out how to do this, then you would have to figure out some way to suppress some of the basics of human nature; such as jealousy, hatred, gluttony, regret, selfishness, competition...good luck with that. I think that the only way to help the world to achieve world peace, and I don't mean that everyone gets along, but that there are no more full scale wars being waged to show the others how much better you are than them, is to live your life the way that you would want others to live theirs. Love with all of your heart and treat others the way that you would want to be treated...I've seen this change lives more than once. Do I think that world peace can be achieved? No, but I do think that we can all take steps on our own to make our little piece of the world just a little better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2010 10:56 am
to have every person live equally, to teach children about love and not hate, to have good education and equal opportunities for everyone. How could this be managed? firstly by having only one country, if is more than one there will be unavoidably wars. Secondly by implanting another political and economic system that is fair. No, I'm not talking about capitalism. I'm talking about world-wide Communism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:22 am
Dark Aerlinniel to have every person live equally, to teach children about love and not hate, to have good education and equal opportunities for everyone. How could this be managed? firstly by having only one country, if is more than one there will be unavoidably wars. Secondly by implanting another political and economic system that is fair. No, I'm not talking about capitalism. I'm talking about world-wide Communism. This. I saw a quote somewhere that said "Patriotism is the belief that your country is better because you were born there", paraphrased of course. But it's absolutely true. We're mostly fighting over land and stuff and paper money that we can just share. Or, in the case of the money, do away with. I feel that we don't need to unite the countries first, we need to establish Communism, true Communism that is actually egalitarian and classless first. If we do this in a large country like America, we will firstly unbalance the global economic system greatly, causing collapse of their upper classes and promoting their changeover to a fair and equal system. Secondly, we will act as an example that capitalism is not necessary, and that we CAN live as equals if we the workers are willing to take that step. Once the global economy is equalized and global trade is done through the lense of ease of production and consumption rather than making monetary profit, there will be no NEED for countries. There will be no reason to guard assets or try to raise a specific economy since it is all essentially one. Only extremist areas may choose to stay as they are, and that is their decision to make. But without the want for profit, and therefore without war profiteers, there will be much less war and much less animosity towards us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:55 am
divineseraph Dark Aerlinniel to have every person live equally, to teach children about love and not hate, to have good education and equal opportunities for everyone. How could this be managed? firstly by having only one country, if is more than one there will be unavoidably wars. Secondly by implanting another political and economic system that is fair. No, I'm not talking about capitalism. I'm talking about world-wide Communism. I feel that we don't need to unite the countries first, we need to establish Communism, true Communism that is actually egalitarian and classless first. I am not saying that we first need to unite all countries into one. That would be pretty unrealistic considering that if it was done before communism was stablished in a country it would ruin the capitalist-based economy that the country would have by starting all the wars. I am specifying that to be world peace there must be no 'land divisions'. Althought uniting the countries first could be possible it would be much more long-termed. Firstly by having to 'conquer' all the other countries, avoiding rebellions and winning all the wars, having to set a powerful government that then would turn communist. divineseraph If we do this in a large country like America, we will firstly unbalance the global economic system greatly, causing collapse of their upper classes and promoting their changeover to a fair and equal system. Secondly, we will act as an example that capitalism is not necessary, and that we CAN live as equals if we the workers are willing to take that step. I support basically what you said, unbalancing the world economy would be a great thing to do. But what if the country to become communist isn't as big or important as the US? It is a good step to take if it is possible, but very improbable in most cases. Acting as an example would be needed to show that it is possible, but even if the example set was completely perfect it could be easily alrered by the capitalists countries media. An example should be set, but the question is if the other countries will show the example as the truth, and to what lengths they would believe in it. divineseraph Once the global economy is equalized and global trade is done through the lense of ease of production and consumption rather than making monetary profit, there will be no NEED for countries. There will be no reason to guard assets or try to raise a specific economy since it is all essentially one. Only extremist areas may choose to stay as they are, and that is their decision to make. But without the want for profit, and therefore without war profiteers, there will be much less war and much less animosity towards us. Agreed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
