World Peace is an illusion

[Lurks Often]

Yup, that is what I said, world peace is an illusion. I got bored and did a little research. I went back as far as 1000 and from 1000 to present there has ALWAYS been a war, civil war, uprising or revolution going on. The year 1050 is the earliest year I could find no reference to war, civil war, uprising or revolution, but honestly, that far back recorded history starts getting a little spotty and vague and I am sure that there was a conflict of some sort.

1000-1498 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1000%E2%80%931499
1499-1799 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1500%E2%80%931799
1800-1899 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1800%E2%80%931899
1900-1944 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1900%E2%80%931944
1945-1989 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%931989
1990-2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002
2003-Present http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%93current

In other words, we have been killing each other for going on a 1000 years and I don't foresee a change anytime soon.

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. Whirled peas however, are excitingly real. n/t

[PDJane]

2. All that means is that we need to evolve

Much faster than we are. We're just getting better at killing one another, so we need to take a hand and look for peace.

[Oregone]

4. Did it ever occur to you that we are what we are due to evolution?

Take a species and lets say it was homicidal from some genetic reason or another, and loved death and killing for pleasure alone.

That trait could create the conditions for hyper-acceleration in the evolutionary chain. Only the most intelligent, cunning, and deadly, in each generation, live to see the next. A killing chamber forms, and evolution is no longer dependent upon the natural environment, but rather, the traits that are preferable to human war are those chosen through "un-natural selection". Through fire, a smarter, faster, more deadly species is forged over thousands of years, until we have what we are today.

Just a thought. If this is evolution, I hate to see what we come to next, if we ever make it that far

[Posteritatis]

7. Evolution is neither progressive nor linear. (nt)

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[scheming daemons]

5. Stardate 2230.. it will come... watch Star Trek

The only problem is... then we'll have wars against beings from OTHER planets.

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. We have to get through the nuclear world war three, and then the eugenics war, before we get to

take on the Romulans, Klingons, et al.

[Desertrose]

6. Its not an illusion....but we have yet to achieve it.

Doesn't mean its impossible....but yeah, we have to evolve a bit more.

[Lurks Often]

8. I'm shocked at all the unrec's

ok, maybe I'm not, but I also notice that no one so far has disputed my research either. So for those of you that have chosen to unrec this thread, why the unrec's? No sarcasm, I'm curious why people are choosing to unrec this.

[Quantess]

12. I'm sure everyone appreciates the historical links.

But people might be questioning what your motive is. What is your point? What argument you trying to persuade?

[Lurks Often]

17. Fair question

I'm not sure I am putting forth an argument of any kind. I am making the observation that even if the US pulled back behind the oceans and became isolationist again, there would still be war, because it is part of human nature and always has been. The only question is will the human race ever evolve past war.

[leftstreet]

14. Most the crap you're listing isn't 'war.' It's occupation and genocide

If you're hoping to suggest that humans just luvz to war, your 'research' doesn't support it

[Lurks Often]

18. guess that depends on how you define war

I choose to accept the definition in the link below (which the United Nations accepts):

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

And as for defining occupation and/or genocide as war, I supposed that depends on one's viewpoint.

[anonymous171]

9. I don't are about "world peace." I just want to end the American empire.

Let the world fight its stupid little wars. Fuck 'em.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. It's simply not true. Throughout history, most of humanity has never known war.

Even during the two World Wars most people never experienced war first hand. Most of humanity has always, and still does, go through their lives without ever living through a war.

It is no more ingrained in us than shaving or roller skating.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurks Often]

20. I disagree

We here in the US have been fortunate, excluding the Civil War, there have only been two major attacks to occur in the US since the War of 1812: Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Just because one is not in the military does not mean they are not impacted by war.

For example, in both WWI and WWII both sides intentionally targeted civilian population centers.

[Odin2005]

15. At even the hight of WW2 the level of violence was much lower then it is in a traditional society.

In many traditional societies a substantial % of death is from inter-tribal conflict. As civilization has become more complex the amount of violence per person has decreased substantially. Things only seem worse because there are more total people involved, but we are much better now then we were 5000 years ago on a per capita level when it comes to violence.

The notion that traditional societies are peaceful is "Noble Savage" BS.

[proteus_lives]

19. I hate that trope.

"Noble Savage"

It's simply not true. If look at the history of Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas. All societies were warlike. It's human nature, not the fault of one particular culture, group, religion or area.

[Odin2005]

21. IMO agression is part of human nature, warfare is not necessarily.

As civilization has developed aggression has become channeled into less harmful, and even positive activities.

[proteus_lives]

22. I think it has more to do with technology.

We've developed enough technology to make the negative effects of general warfare outweigh the benefits. While competition for resources and energy needs might take back there; right now it's limited to proxy wars, police actions and guerrilla conflicts.

"As civilization has developed aggression has become channeled into less harmful, and even positive activities."

I agree. I think controlled warfare could be considered one of them. Look at Rwanda and Yugoslavia from the 90s. That type of shit happened much more frequently 50-75 years ago. Look at the I/P situation, that's been simmering for years, why hasn't it exploded? Because humanity can't measure the explosion anymore. I think nukes are the reason we haven't had WWIII or WWIV. Without that sense of mutual destruction, I think that the US and the Soviets might have thrown the dice.

[earth mom]

16. Doncha know, Obama said War is Peace. Which means we aren't at war, I think.

:crazy:

Rec-for what it's worth.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.