|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:20 pm
With all the clamors for war to be stopped throughout all the ages, is it even possible? Peace is something everyone wants, but with all the hatred in the world today, does it seem superfluous to try to achieve eternal peace? If we could achieve peace, though, how? And how long will it last? How can we make it last?
What are your opinions about this?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 1:50 pm
Eh, call me cynical, but I have to agree with Joseph Stalin when he says, "Death solves all problems. No people, no problem." Many people say they want peace, but make no steps towards it. The people in power capable of maintaining a temporary peace until the end of their term are too power hungry and are a bit busy keeping their own country in peace.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:22 pm
Indeed. That would seem to be the most realistic solution. Yet I have to say, for what reason should peace exist? We've lived in wars and conflicts and a whole lot of other crap that we've probably gotten used to it, numb to the idea of war. It's not as exciting or new as a concept than before. Everyone hates it, but...because of the fighting, we have tons of jobs to satisfy the masses. So if we take that away...won't that just start up a riot of angry people?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 5:57 pm
Actually, I like the Ancient Chinese theory of war, as summarized in the Dyanstic Cycle (as described on Wikipedia): Wikipedia 1. A new ruler unites China, founds a new dynasty, and gains the Mandate of Heaven. 2. China, under the new dynasty, achieves prosperity and a new golden age. 3. The population increases. 4. Corruption becomes rampant in the imperial court, and the empire begins to enter decline and instability. 5. A natural disaster wipes out farm land. The disaster normally would not have been a problem; however, together with the corruption and overpopulation it causes famine. 6. The famine causes the population to rebel and starts a civil war. 7. The ruler loses the Mandate of Heaven. 8. The population decreases because of the violence. 9. China goes through a warring states period. 10. One state emerges victorious. 11. The state starts a new empire. 12. The empire gains the Mandate of Heaven. And the cycle repeats. Basically, what this is saying is that to have peace, prosperity, and whatnot, we must first go through a lot of Hell to get there. If we have peace, the population will grow and grow until there are no resources left to sustain it. If there is war, then the population is decereased steadily until the next peace period where it grows back.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Wed Jan 28, 2009 6:26 pm
...so in other words, once we reach a certain number in our population, many people will die? Of natural disaster and corruption? That seems plausible, but the question is when? If this were to happen...who would die? Who would be the ones in charge of death tolls? The government? The religious orders? It would probably be the first people to snap who would start the bloodbath.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:05 pm
Well, there can't be everlasting peace because of the tensions people form. It's because of war that societies become stable and people come together for a limited time. So I would go for the Dynastic Cycle than anything else since it happens faster at certain times. Of course that means more likely to get killed.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:11 pm
I wonder if war is a sign from God or fate that the population has to be reduced then? It could be, but the way many people see it, it's wrong. Yet they...are the naive ones that will eventually be the first ones to go. Am I right?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:43 am
Usually, the peace group are killed first for being in the middle. Then either one side wins or what ever's left of the peace group will somehow create a truce between the two sides.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:13 pm
In other words, what all people are trying to achieve for is futile. Peace cannot exist in a world such as ours. When you look at all sides, everyone has a dark past, a guilt, an enemy to blame, and as long as those exist within a human heart, then peace can never reign forever.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:44 pm
That's pretty much everything in a nutshell. Furthermore, from what I've heard, our existance and purpose is to reproduce. razz And let's not forget, conflicts will always exist.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 4:53 pm
...it's so sad to acknowledge that fact. Yet I do wonder why we have the will to continue for such a false hope. We do experience happy times, but we also experience very depressing times. And the depressing times, my friends, have more emotional problems than feeling happy causes for us. So if we do live for false hope, why do we bother continuing? To see our abilities continue to evolve? To watch us build the future? To break the cycle of war and prove once and for all that peace CAN exist if we try hard enough? It's so very complicated...what ARE we thinking?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:59 am
Unserious Answer: About comedy and watching people make fools of themselves.
Serious Answer: Well, we choose how we think. It really only depends how you see a role in life and live through life to its fullest. Sometimes, we could be thinking too hard about it.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:12 am
In Buddhism, they say that the path of peace is to follow the Four Noble Truths:
*Life is full of suffering *Suffering is caused by want *The path to Nirvana is to rid yourself of that want *This path is called the Eight-Fold Path
The problem with this is that it is simply human nature to want and that is how we manage to survive. Even the most basic and humble person would want to have a simple spouse with which to have kids. That is a want and that is why Buddhist monks do not marry or have children. If everyone were to follow the Four Noble Truths to the letter, e.g. monk-like, eventually, give it about a century, all of humanity will die out of natural causes.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:21 am
Yes, I remember learning about Buddhism in 6th grade and loving all the principles that make it up. I'd follow the Bhuddist path, if it wasn't for the fact that I was Catholic. But that aside, I want to question one tiny thing: What if there are people who really don't want anything? I'm a person who doesn't want many material things in life...and so far I've been wandering in my indecisions. So what are we supposed to do? Help everyone in their futile efforts to achieve peace when we feel like it's impossible to do so? Look for a way out of this world? Find someone to share our sorrows together? The complications with not wanting are dire, so that may be the reason that we turn to a higher, religious power. Yet what happens when we question that belief we have of them? Are we forced to want, or die trying? Must we assimilate to society to be happy? And will we be happy if we do? The problems of not wanting also may be the preventive action for peace. So what WOULD bring peace?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
namine melfina Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:22 pm
Peace is one hell of a thing to try and obtain. Call me racist, but as long as the Arab world still exists, there will be no peace. They've hardened over so many years of fighting and chaos, that they hate their enemy to no end. What complicates things more is the fact that they aren't afraid to die for what they believe in; Which is something that many talk about, but never follow through with.
Back on track, they'll keep fighting, and fighting, and so on. Even if that isn't something to consider, eventually, somone is going to want, like Chang said, then want more, and more and grow a populace, and then an army, and then it'll just escalate over and over again. In my opinion, Communism is the best way for peace to exist. Everyone is equal, no one is above or below you, and you all share out of the pot. As long as it isn't Dictator-like Communism, that sounds like a good idea. The problem with this idea though, is this; Someone is going to want more, and you get the point. In my opinion, peace is what you make it out to be, you just have to look.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|