[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2006 20:27:21 -0500
PE:
Finally, I find the term 'world peace' vacuous. What would the world look
like for everyone to agree that there is peace?
This question comes up often in the World Government class that I teach at
Old Zinnies. Granted most of the 'students' are shitfaced by the time class
starts, but that doesn't seem to dampen their enthusiasm for arguing, or
fighting for that matter. I agree that 'world peace' as an expression is
generally tossed about as vacuously as a Miss America contestant's desire
for it, but the words can still convey some real meaning. For instance, it
could mean a global cessation of armed conflict. Peace doesn't mean 'no
conflict', it means no armed conflict. It means that society has developed
other venues for resolving conflicts such as territorial claims, cultural
and religious value clashes, grave economic disparities, etc. How might
that development of venues come about? Ah well, there's the rub. But
venues are imaginable and many such imaginings are quite plausible. Eric's
proposition that the only way to a world-wide cessation of armed conflicts
is through the establishment of a One-World Police State is Eric's special
nightmare, and to my way of seeing things, it's as unreal as Miss
Tennessee's "wish" for world peace. Power comes from the barrel of a gun,
not peace. What then are some of the imaginable venues for world peace.
Well, what are the causes of war? (1) Historical grievances; (2) religious,
racial, ethnic and tribal intolerance; (3) economic self-interest; (4)
nationalistic jingoism ; (5) short penises; (6) neurotic personalities in
leadership positions. That's off the top of my head. There's no reason why
any issue arising from these causes can't be settled without warfare if
there are the governmental mechanisms in place to deal with them. Worldwide
governmental mechanisms. And they can be if we want them to be. It won't
be easy. We'll have to want it terribly bad. We'll have to work at it
harder than we work at making war. But we can do it. It'll take some big
mind-set changes by all of us, but those changes do not, must not and, in
fact, cannot embrace fascism. I look forward to a future without armed
conflict. 100 years ago, no one would have believed there could be such a
thing as the United Nations. What a notion! What great hope for the
future!
Mike Geary
Mike Geary
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
