Thanks, Moniquechang! But, just now, did I realise that my requests to reduce the population may not have meant much to most people cos they don't face the problems of over-population. Well, people, here in India, over-population is the most important cause for our policy failures. (Illiteracy seems to be an important cause, too) There just are too many mouths to feed. All of our policies get invalid after sometime cos the population has grown enormously. If only, we can, somehow magically, reduce our pop. growth rate, then, we could develop much faster and better. And, the quality will improve. But, unfortunately, that doesn't seem likely. 🙁 In India, population is like the "heaviest burden"!!! Nowhere near, 'more means might'!
Starlord: Yeah, maybe, total peace does sound unnatural...but well, if we try to be better individuals (by following some simple and meaningful and feasible preachings, that we don't usually think about, saying that it's saint-like or something) maybe, we'll like the result. Similarly, I'm just curious as to see what 'total peace' will be like. Anyway, I won't get to see it, at the rate we're going! 😛
I've nothing against International Competition, but army exercises are kinda frightening. Putting nation before ANYTHING sounds not very good to me. Come on! They're just boundaries drawn by us! I do love my country...but I love this earth and Universe too.
how can we make the world peacful? Politics and governments
I personally think that it might help exorcise a lot of the violence kept in us while keeping us fit, henceforth greatly reducing delinquence problems etc... so common to peace periods: I'll explain my theory: the romans, greeks and minoans before them went decadent because of peace periods, which I think is a side effect of boredom: aristote used to say that pease softens us: that may be true: The question is how can we keep the peace without softening ourselves and still have a motive? Humans, by definition, need causes in which to believe in: a candid world in which all is perfect will prove to be unimaginable torture to us, at least at our current state of mind.
That is the question, hence my theory on war exercises, mind you, it's not a question of patriotic goals, but to keep the people entertained: Then in order to avoid shocking people we could turn this into a sort of friendly sporting events. (of course I could be wrong, but don't let that frighten you: I'm not a monster, I'm just trying to understand).LOL
Exercises can just be personal or something in a gym club...why would you need an army with all the traditions and rules followed? 001_huh blink
Well...I'll tell why I'm very frightened by army...During the Kargil war (1999) between India and Pakistan, an Indian journalist saw some Indian soldiers beheading a dead Pakistan soldier's head and making it out to be a crown...even if the killing was necessary, why behead a "dead" soldier? Why couldn't they just hand over the dead bodies to the Red Cross, or something? This is not a one-time thing...in Siachen (It's the highest battleground in the world and it's nothing but a waste piece of inhabitable land, belonging to no-one), 97% of the Indian and Pakistani soldiers's death is due to the extreme weather conditions...and one in 2 persons going there dies! ( http://archives.digitaltoday.in/indiatoday/20061218/stories3.html http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/siachen.htm ) How can the soldiers go up there and "fight for their country" when they know these facts? What pushes them to go there? Nobody is ever going to live there....it'd be much better if both the countries just withdrew their armies and save the lives of so many people! It's all because of our 'army training'!!! angry
I don't think that the world would be perfect, just cos there was no war...wars are just too futile to let them hurt us so much. Why can't non-violence be the cause to believe in? the motive? I think that non-violence is much tougher to follow than violence. Try not hitting back, when someone hits you. You'll understand. 😉
Of course, you don't frighten me..it's the army! 😃
Every year people consume 3 trillion dollars for military. So with this situation, nobody cannot make peace. Only USA has 36000 nuclear fuse. A thorium bomb can destroy everything from place that it launched to 600 kilometers. If imperial super-powers continues to trying get control of everything, nuclear wars are going to damage every civilization.
You know Global Warming. It is evaporates water springs. Externally countries near the artics, all the countries on the world don't have the water that is potable enough. So water might be more valuable than petroleum in 100 years. If we don't stop Global Warming, armies will fight for water.
Every capitalist countries purpose is exploiting. So world must leave capitalism immediately. Capitalism doesn't take care of humanity or ethics. Capitalism live for its benefits. People or world's problems aren't important for it. (For example; Kyoto Deal and USA) So capitalism must be stopped once. Then as Ataturk say, "Peace in homelands, peace in the world"...
Viva Socialism, Viva Kemalism, Viva Bolivarism... Damn with Capitalism, Imperialism, Exploiting and Bourgeoisie... Hasta la Victoria Siempre!
Whew: It's been a while and I've been busy like hell:
back on topic: look at what we call "primitive" civilisations: Take the maori for instance: Have you ever observed the war dance of the maori? They are by this dance enticed to close combat through weapons like spears etc... they learn to kill with their bare hands through 16 possible ways. However, notice how this ritual "exorcises" any feeling for violence they might have concealed: their culture was a model of stability until the white came to them. This might mean something: this might mean that we must do more to precisely understand what is war than keep running away from it scared stiff.
Have you ever seen (or felt) the solitude of a soldier coming back from the war? Despite the horrors he may have witnessed out there, he feels that along with peace something is... missing.
People like this are tought to serve causes, the same as us actually: Humans cannot live without causes. And the question torturing said soldier during peace times is: "what now? how can I be useful?"
I think that war must not be shunned untirely as something "bad" but "ebbed away" a bit like a way to stop smoking: progressively. That is why I believe the use of such "war houses" might help people in need. sure, like everything unconventionnal, it may appear scary, but then again: we were scared when we first learned that earth was round. I think we can mature given time.
Ehh, I also believe that our concepts for war (real war, that is. Not economics) are totally independant or our ideology opinions (that is, as long as we think on a diplomatic level).
So, what's war? Do we really have this inner urge to fight? 001_huh
There are a lot of ways for a soldier to be useful than just fighting, right? Surely, he knows other stuff (excluding fighting) too. 😛
Yes, but since our species's dawn man has always maintained a close relationship to combat (necessary to protect it's kin). Women were not open to that until sexes were defined as equal (very recently in our history).
Ever noticed how soldiers are driven to war and sailours towards the sea (at the time where it was perilous?). Some women today feel and understand our emotions regarding this, while others do not feel it because they do not need to. After all, women are also receptive to feelings we do not know, like that motherly feeling.
Most man fight because they protect (or at least are taught they protect), and if they do in this extent, they will sacrifice everything. I think this is a fulcrum of reflexes every species have been given by biology's preservation laws.
to be short, war is... complicated: the principle of combat for self preservation has been prevalent since sentient life emerged, but the principle of war became a human creation beyond simple combat: causes differ towards ideologies, beliefs, even religions which we mistakingly believe to be so important as it's worth entire lives.
We are born, like anything and everything, with a will to fight to survive. However, we mistakingly apply this to very common causes, thus giving birth to our disgust in war. which is perfectly understandable.
but if you look at it from an individual point of view, you'll find precepts worth examinating: Was it wrong to fight the 3rd reich? actually, we think not. Why? because doing so meant to stop the jew's genocide (at least that's our thinking, as there were a post of other reasons around this, political and ideological there again, which might explain partly why the french resistance didn't focuse primarily on the train tracks leading the jews to the death camps, even though jean moulin did often point this as a primary objective).
The only way to judge a war and to apply the "wrong-right" decision (which is always subject to change along with points of views) is if you take into account our society as a collective and if you choose to abide to the rule of preserving the maximum of lives possible (the less worst case scenario).
This way you'll see that combat and war science are essential. If we have an opportunity to kill someone on the street who threatens to kill 2 innocent people (er even one actually), in that case (although my opinion is not shared by quite a lot of people), I think it should be considered as your duty to protect those innocent people (possibly by killing as a last resort). Funny, when in situation of danger regarding oneself, this situation is called self defense and is much less frowned upon, yet it remains exactly the same, the only difference being the person you protected (not yourself, but others). The key is not to view those events on the personnal side, but as a collective.
Then there's the question of judgement: is that threatened person's life worth the aggressor's death? There again, I do think so: I tend to regard killers (directly or undirectly) as threats to our collective which should be eliminated (if not for us then for the others, as a precaution measure). It's not out of feelings or revenge or anything, it's just a safeguard for our species (at least I view it that way). That's a funny thing as I'm against the death penalty (despite the fact that I consider it attractive in many cases) precisely because of one argument: as long as we are not 100% sure of not commiting any mistake, it would be fine, but... You know the rest: impossible. and to risk an innocent being death sentenced would be possibly the worst crime of all.
Wow, that was long. Are you still here or have you fled the deranged psychopath? LOL
should you have other questions... Very interesting topic indeed!
Hey.
I do not think that killing is a solution for anything. The problem have to be solved at the begining. Not at his end. Nobody should want to kill 2 inocente people. I think that killers come from society's problem. Poverty, not a lot of people want to spend his money with helping the others, like really cure the psychopates and mentaly dangerous people.
I agree with you to say that death penalty is wrong because of the possible mistakes. But i go further with saying that death penalty does not solve anything. If you just kill people without helping or cure them, and without take the problem at his begin, there always be somebody to stand in for the dead man.
War is totaly useless in my mind. The filling you are speaking about comes, for me, from our bloody history. But it's not a fate
😃
well, there was once the solution of exile (say great britain with the austrailia solution), but we are running out of places. Besides, I don't think it would be convenient to dump our trash next door: The aborigenes got endeangered because of that, and their culture proves to be one of the most interesting on earth. This can't be allowed to happen.
Perhaps what you are saying is true, frenchtouch. However, the problem is here: It obviously hasen't been solved with diplomacy during it's birth, but it must be solved nevertheless. Also, be careful: Have you ever met people whose only perpose is to harm others by any means necessary? I have, and I can tell you that you can cure people like that possibly when they do not wish to remain what they are, but what of the persons who wish that? what cure can you then give?
Also, you can just do what we are currently doing and lock up the whole lot in prisons, but we'll pay to maintain them, AND we will never contribute to make people feel secure (which is one of the dominent problems in today's society and possibly at the core of some of the violence we're experiencing). How would you like to know that a few blocks away from you is a prison in which possibly killers are residing?
those persons can become a menace for us: Nobody should want to risk loosing loved ones in order to let those persons live. If they are a threat to us, then they should be removed with extreme prejudice to save potential victims.
As for OUR bloody history, well, that's not refrained to our species: from a biologic point of view: history IS bloody (not necessarily ours): Every species will fight for it's survival: that's one of biology's principal laws. However, it is true that war has found for us another meaning, as we will fight for ideologies or revendications.
As to war, it is NOT useless: think of it as a historical component: when you study as to why wars got made then you can delve deep into how we function: you can LEARN LESSONS as to why there was a war in the first place in order not to repeat that mistake. And doing so means we evolve. Even though wars are to blame for a high level of dead, we learn after it: This is how europe got created after WW2. We grow and evolve through conflict as well as through peace. IF manking really wasn't attracted to war, then we wouldn't need legends such as the tale of the trojan war or wouldn't even consider combat as an art, so tell me why nearly every kid is amazed when he hears of the feats of hercules or ulysses and also wants to practice karate or viet wo dao? Perhaps there will be a time were we will step away from the concept of war, but certainly not now. war is perhaps not a fate (I do hope so), but nevertheless, and like it or not, it's well present in our minds right now!
Right now, the way I think most plausible would be to exorcise our warring lust into training games (which would stop us from waging real war (thus prevent bloodshed which is our real goal in all this) and drain our violence). The maori have understood that long ago with their "dances". Why not us?
Mh, I thing, like frenchtouch, that the death penalty isnt the way to choose.
I also thing that people who are a danger for the whole society should be arrested and even though I ve never been a prisoner (fortunately), I could think that being arrested for lets say 15 years (that is the definition in germany when they say that sb. is arrested life-long) are such along time. Dont having freedom and not being able to do what you want could be more harder than death.
Well, I didn't read all the posts , i'm a little bit a couch potatoe 😁"
Nevertheless, i'd like to talk about Death Penatly : I think like many people that it's not a way to choose to punish crimes.
You simply CAN'T say too somebody "well, you killed someone, and to show you that it is not a thing to do, i will kill you too!"
Moreover that's too simple to kill someone knowing you will die too, but it's harder to do when you know that you'll spend all your life as a prisoner, with no liberty, no pleasure, no distractive activities, nothing but four walls and other killers...
Starlord said :If we have an opportunity to kill someone on the street who threatens to kill 2 innocent people (er even one actually), in that case (although my opinion is not shared by quite a lot of people), I think it should be considered as your duty to protect those innocent people (possibly by killing as a last resort).
Yes , you're right that's a duty to protect innocents, but everybody doesn't have the same courage as you, and there are some people that will not be able to live knowing they killed someone even if that was a murderer ....
But you're right, we should protect innocent people, even if we have to kill the person that is threatening to kill them...
Stupid idea : war should be only virtual,, like a videogame if we are forced to make the war and not the peace 😁"
Or just some paintballs 😃
Killing is a last choise. And we always have the choise.
No, Starlord, I didn't run away! 😛 School kept me busy. 🙁 This topic is rather interesting!
Fighting to protect someone sounds reasonable...but, most of the time, I feel frustrated and violent (there are things that push my buttons), when I don't agree with someone and I think that person is completely unreasonable (in a serious way)...This is war. But, I must rein in my feelings and should not start acting violent. I can try to practice non-violence at a personal level. If we see from a higher level, wars seem ok, if you're fighting for what you believe in...but, then, they also lead to a lot of unwanted misery...but what if no one is ready to "really" talk? What if war isn't the permanent answer? Should we just wait for the right time to talk? Until then? Wars have no easy answers. Maybe, we just have to go with the right-wrong attitude. More precisely, how much right and how much wrong.
French-touch, How do you think we can solve problems at the root? Poverty alleviation is part of the solution, but it isn't the whole solution. Even rich countries have many problems....heroin problem in Norway, high suicidal rates in Japan, etc. I used to think that education was the answer...but there arises the question: Who teaches whom what? How can you be sure that this is the right thing? Who decides these things? How many people can you teach?
Starlord, if you're feeling unsafe, what about this??? "ADX, Colorado – This is the ultimate prison, literally. Since it opened in 1994, ADX is nothing but slow and inhumane torture. Although those there are the worst of the worst, human rights protestors from all over the world have targeted it. Inmates are only allowed out of their cells for 9 hours a week and barely interact with anyone. There’s hardly any sunlight and you have to do everything in your cell. If ever there was a way to destroy any semblance of hope an individual had then ADX is it!" "Tadmor Military Prison, Syria – This is one of the most brutal prisons ever. Torture, executions and untold brutality goes on within these walls. The medieval methods of torture have been well documented. Innocent and guilty alike have been dragged via a rope until they’re dead, beaten to death with pipes and chopped into pieces with an axe. However, that’s nothing compared to the massacre of June 27, 1980. Approximately 500 inmates were killed for no apparent reason by the guards and commandos. This is the worst known massacre of its kind to ever have taken place." Read more here http://www.dirty-rotten-scoundrels.co.uk/2008/06/30/the-10-worst-prisons-in-the-world/
I don't think we should go about killing people, who do the wrong thing. But, I'd say that life imprisonment is equally hard, if not harder than death sentence. I'm sure most of you must have watched The Shawshank Redemption...what if something like THAT happens? I'm not telling there should be no prisons. But the prisons, definitely, must be better. What's the whole point of imprisoning someone, if you don't even give them a chance to regret what they did, learn from their mistakes, and change themselves? Look at those cold steel bars, hard floors, boring routines and "disciplinary" rules! Who would feel regret, when you put them there? They definitely don't change a person, for good. They'll only become miserable-then, commit suicide or a worse crime on someone else. Don't you think real, life-changing prisons would help all of us? Even terrorists are humans, they shouldn't be treated as filth...maybe if we showed them compassion, they would turn back...maybe, not all of them, but some at least. But we must think seriously about the state of prisons...
Wars don't appear to be diminishing anytime soon, practically speaking...but, it's gotta...one day! Then, maybe we'll try Maori dances and training programs. For now, let's try to keep things down...including brutality in prisons and wars.
Heal the world .....
I think the problem is our behavior. We say we have to change the world , but the world is big . We should try first to change our selves and then the people close to us. We have to take it step by step . We only think for our own good. The heads of the countries only look for money and not for the good of the country.There is so much bribe in the political world. Now it`s all about money.
I still think we should start with small things , like give food and clothes to the homeless behind your house , buy the flowers from an old poor granny , send SMS for donations , go to special arranged places and give some clothes or something. Every little helps. Even sharing a smile . Changing the world isn`t only about helping the poor , it`s about acting nice with the people around you too.
You make sense! You know, I have this idea...of sharing food, clothes and everything, when they are in excess for me, with complete strangers, neighbours, anyone, really! I can remember doing it very few times, as in sharing something that was originally for me! I shared my food, and ate only a part of what I wanted...but the joy I felt when I fed those little boys, who were just beggars!!!! Merlin, there's nothing better. I didn't feel superior, only good, but very good! Imagine everyone in our world doing it!
sadly, war is not something that we can avoid all the time...anyways, if the world is too peaceful, life'll be flat..:yawn
Get them Black eyed peas to perform in a concert broadcast to every single known inhabited town around the world.
They shall perform the song "Where is the Love?" and upon hearing that a tear will roll down each and everyone of our cheeks.
Dropping to our knees, we will look up to the skies and renounce violence.