> [Original Message] > From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 9/4/2006 3:21:50 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace > > I see absolutely no reason why at some specific point in history there > should be > no wars or rumors of wars anywhere on the planet. That there will (and > must be) > wars either always and everywhere or sometimes and somewhere isn't an a priori > truth. There's no logical necessity that there must be war nor that there > cannot be a state of 'unwar.' Agreed. There can absolutely be a state of nonwar. The way to get there is to stop teaching humans in training from Day One that if you want something, you smack em and they give it to you. The U.N. needs to start a campaign to eradicate hitting of children under ALL circumstances, and another campaign to get men involved in raising children. Retool the factory where humans are produced. It's falling apart, in some places in absolute ruins. *Raising humans*, think of it, raising humans, is the least important of work. How could there not be war? So, Eric's claim would seem to be a contingent > one, an empirical generalization, which could well turn out to be false. > > 'Something essential to the human spirit' has a nice Homeric ring to > it, but one > might hope for at least one example of what this essential something is. > I was thinking the same thing. What could possibly be lost in a world where there was never ending peace? At the most basic level, some of the most precious artifacts of mankind were destroyed or stolen when Iraq was invaded, dating back to the beginnings of history. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html