The people of the Earth CANNOT live together in peace...

They can try to live in peace, and it is hoped by all sane people that such becomes a universal effort...BUT nature dictates failure. Until such time as mans' brain evolves to the point that certain 'survival' and competitive traits are no longer 'hard-wired' into his brain, there will be conflicts. Those conflicts will mostly be small, but when they escalate they will be no less destructive than any of their predecessors.

Yes, I know, the starry-eyed, the twirly-eyed, and the rosy-eyed will be howling at this, it will be objected too, possible deleted or locked...but biology DOES NOT LIE! So instead of wondering around in a state of beatific fog, decrying reality, declaring that all lions really deep down want to be vegetarians, try instead to work toward the 'possible'...some sort of agreement or alliances that provide checks and balances maintain the sovereignty of the members. It's very much like the trite old adage that 'Good fences make good neighbors.'. Many, many cultures and ethnic groups existing today cannot co-exist within the same confines.,,no more so than cannibals can co-exist with pacifists. and the pacifists continue to exist beyond the feeding pens their 'partners' provide.

The simple fact remains that man does not have free will as it pertains to instincts that are biological in origin, he may fight them, may develop 'work arounds', but in the end when a certain stress level or a certain environment presents itself, it is 'Mother Nature' who dictates the humans reaction.

So spend your efforts wisely in trying to find those 'work arounds' which will provide some 'peace' and maybe mitigate the un-peaceful periods that are inevitable, instead of wasting time, resources and your energy attempting to create by fiat impossible Utopias.

then we will have peace. And some really awesome cyborg arm attachments.

:cry:

To OP: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Yes, we all might try to work toward making things better, but realize utopia is not gonna happen so stop being wrapped around the axle that X, Y, or Z just isn't enough. If it moves us toward the goals, and can be built upon later, it just might be worth doing.

That has been true since humans came into being. What do these 'all or nothing' advocates think, that we got art, science, agriculture, society in one generation? If they are teaching history in school, they are missing an important concept along with dates & places!

And since I believe in evolution, I believe FURTHER evolution is possible. I even hope we, as a species evolve, at our biological level, into beings that don't have to war at all. Might not be likely, but it's worth working toward that too. ;)

so bring on the cyborg weaponry.

I'm a libra & also all thumbs: can't decide, can't draw, dance, or strum

.

More profit in war.

Let's not pretend Adam Smith invented human greed.

:eyes:

just bomb everyone now and get it over with, since apparently we'll be forced by our biological urges to do it sooner or later anyway. And I just hate procrastinating :P

lol

They're not anointed as such.

did. If Al Gore had taken his rightful place as President, there would have been no wars that we are fighting today. Conservatives in the Florida government and the Supreme Court put George W. Bush in the White House. We didn't.

since the dawn of man. People actually elected Idi Amin. Others gain a position of power through birthright. Some are anointed.

Really? Which people? It certainly wasn't the voters of Uganda. Amin took control of the country in a military coup in January 1971.

It must be depressing to be you.

For the simple reason that in general things I work for or hope for sometimes reach reality, and if not then unlike the obsessives I am not devastated and in some of their cases go off the deep end, killing themselves, their families, blowing up buildings and other such extreme crap. The human mind is indeed a wondrous thing, wondrous, not idyllic. It's propensity to react with the same force to a 'failure' in its beliefs, in direct or greater proportion is the fundamental cause for great catastrophes. A small example was the murder of Dr. Tiller. Strong beliefs that are perceived to be threatened are reacted to with equl or greater force.

I get it.

Sad.

So, no, not sad at all.

will remain ever bound to the earth; he who strives for the stars and fails may, nonetheless, learn to fly.

OP and I are saying refusing to do anything unless you get to the stars on the first effort is just plain childish

mud bricks into walls so we can defend ourselves.' OP starts with the premise that we CANNOT change human nature, therefore we will ALWAYS have to deal with being afraid of our neighbors.

I don't live like that now, and I firmly believe that we, as a global society, will outgrow that as well.

of humankind's true nature, in which case,we can assume your reaction to it (and to other acts of violence) is to shrug and say, "shit happens"?

Yep, it probably is a manifestation of innate charter traits, and NOPE the killer needs to say buh-bye to life, via needle, noose, electrons, rope or falling rocks. Further if, and the probabilty is high that the miscreant had accomplices or at least people aware of his intentions, then those people should be sent along to keep him company on his journey to the land of forever nod.

Your assertion that once a certain stress level is reached, there will be problems is true... but that doesn't mean we have to accept the situation as the norm. We can change. It's our greatest strength as a species. We've used excuses like religions and borders and just a simple refusal to consider changing (corporal punishment for children, bullying is 'good for building character')... but these obstacles can all be overcome.

I really feel sorry for you.

as our global religion???? :wtf:

while i am not saying what we have is perfect by any means - i look around at other countries and i don't really see another form of government that is so much better than ours -

socialism/communism - failed at around 50 years and there were multiple countries trying it, because it fails to account for human greed

dictatorships - failed numerous times, usually after the death or abdication of the primary leader

fascism - failed in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain etc and will always fail because it does not take into count the basic human need to feel free to make choices

monarchy - failed all over except a few isolated countries and those that still have a reigning monarchy have a dedicated parliamentary system to counterbalance the authority

- while i feel there are MANY areas we as a society can improve - i am not sure Capitalism is the root of all of our evils

Thus why Anarchy is superior.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC07/Schmoklr.htm

In his classic, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes what he calls "the state of nature" as an anarchic situation in which all are compelled, for their very survival, to engage in a ceaseless struggle for power. About this "war of all against all," two important points should be made: that Hobbes's vision of the dangers of anarchy captured an important dimension of the human condition, and that to call that condition "the state of nature" is a remarkable misnomer.

In nature, all pursue survival for themselves and their kind. But they can do so only within biologically evolved limits. The living order of nature, though it has no ruler, is not in the least anarchic. Each pursues a kind of self- interest, each is a law unto itself, but the separate interests and laws have been formed over aeons of selection to form part of a tightly ordered harmonious system. Although the state of nature involves struggle, the struggle is part of an order. Each component of the living system has a defined place out of which no ambition can extricate it. Hunting- gathering societies were to a very great extent likewise contained by natural limits.

With the rise of civilization, the limits fall away. The natural self-interest and pursuit of survival remain, but they are no longer governed by any order. The new civilized forms of society, with more complex social and political structures, created the new possibility of indefinite social expansion: more and more people organized over more and more territory. All other forms of life had always found inevitable limits placed upon their growth by scarcity and consequent death. But civilized society was developing the unprecedented capacity for unlimited growth as an entity. (The limitlessness of this possibility does not emerge fully at the outset, but rather becomes progressively more realized over the course of history as people invent methods of transportation, communication, and governance which extend the range within which coherence and order can be maintained.) Out of the living order there emerged a living entity with no defined place.

At least that is the message I hear from the NRA. :shrug:

It's a little less than 20 minutes and well worth the time.
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

But your entire premise is wrong. Man has evolved enough to CHOOSE peace. He just doesn't want to.

"Work-around" seems to connote a temporary fix that allows conflicting systems and peoples to co-exist, while a "work-through" builds on the very things we've been evolving to do: Understand the Cosmos more fully, communicate and travel around the planet more effectively, see more clearly how corrupt leaders use fear to mislead. Working THROUGH, rather than around, conflict gives peace a chance, even as nastier weapons evolve along with us. That Obama can be elected President on the heels of Cheney/Bush shows that a systemic, worldwide change, albeit full of risk and pain, is possible.

I'm not prepared to give up on the potential of my race.
I have to believe that a better and brighter world is more than possible. What needs to be put down is the concept of losers and winners, to learn as a species where to draw the line between contest and conflict.
This utopia you scoff at is possible. When we rid the world of the notion that such a euphoric existence is reserved for the affluent, little pieces of peace can take root, we just have to be more hospitable soil through healthier conditioning.

As much as we are, we are in the process.

We can't afford not to.

Maybe in 10,000 years but we're not there yet.

Best thing most people can do is control themselves and work for a better life/world on a individual/local level.

i the last 6 billion or 6 thousand (which ever you chose) i cannot think of any Utopian society that has lasted. maybe in a few (10,000) years but i cannot think of any event/action save an "invasion of hostile Aliens" that could force mankind to put away their differences in religion/race/wealth/ etc and work together.

People could if they wanted to but evidently too many of us like to kill others to make that possible.

Most people do live in peace with their neighbors. And, most people always have. Most of the people on the planet have never experienced war, and most won't.

Joanie is a sweet lady, but her twirling eyeballs often as not fail to see the reality around her.

As I pointed out, most of the people of the world get along with their neighbors and always have. War is no more "natural" than cannibalism.

99% of humanity wouldn't go to war if left alone. They wouldn't be all starry pink-eyed either. They would hang out with their families and friends and do the stuff necessary to live and thrive a little. Wars are created by a tiny minority who happen to also want power and wealth and who use propaganda tools to get ordinary people worked up to go do something that is actually unnatural.

and feel no need to kill again.

You seem to have left the most fundamental principle of science behind.

your sociobiology is a bit out of date. Nowdays people tend to avoid arguing from generalizations like "biology," "free will," and "survival traits" to the behavior of complex societies. The whole modern world has been constructed against the principles of "nature," but it works a lot better than the social models of 300 or 3,000 years ago.

It is much better to examine from the ground up how human beings operate in societies. The viewpoint is the same whether its economic psychology or political history.

just to open up the picture to where it should be...

ones immediate family and group. Nationalism ring any bells? Religion? etc etc. Nature isn't perfect, just persevering, humans are wired to fear the unknown, the strange and other ssuch things. Things feared are to be protected against, even if by pre-emptive strike. It is a powerful instinct, and one not overcome by reason when in full bloom...it is the stuff mobs are made of.

about a a man they called the peacemaker, who traveled and taught warring tribes through the power of reason, that to be united in peace was beneficial to all. Underlying this was the premise that all human beings process the "good mind" and were capable of living in peace. Thus the birth of the Iroquois Confederacy, of which many ideas of government were admired and adopted by the 'founders".
I agree that the factors you name, religion etc. may be in reality, insurmountable. But also, in reality, these are all choices that humans make.
They are not preordained, or hard-wired.
They are choices!

So to advocate not to bother reaching for the highest of ideals of which humans are capable of, is very unproductive, in my opinion.
"War is inevitable" is also a self fulfilling prophecy.

I am reminded of many quotes of MLK Jr. who said these things better than I ever could.
Even if you can't reach a goal, much good can be accomplished along the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yd2PzoF1y8&feature=related

Laras theme

There is proof of it in our species. People disregarding their survival instinct to save others like our Heroes the police, fire departments, military and humanitarian workers who put their lives on the line every day for their friends and strangers. I do think we took several major wrong turns in our societal constructs that have increased the "lizard brain" influence in many people.

And why should anyone care?

/sarcasm

You would think the MIlitary industrial complex would have invented one by now (Paging Adrian Veidt). There's a cash cow for you.

Recommend

"the starry-eyed, the twirly-eyed, and the rosy-eyed will be howling at this" . . .

No shit, dood.


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I ask because modern biology says no such thing. You are channeling Social Darwinism.

to emulate some of our "less civilized" fellow creatures who may or may not fight over territory, but who, in their animal wisdom, mostly refrain from actually killing others of their own species.

We humans think we're so smart and civilized...we're not.

...nor land on the moon, nor any number of other things that people were told is simply not possible.

Humans could not fly, until Wilbur and Orville Wright showed that we darned well can.

No one could run a 4-minute mile, until someone did.

Black people and women could not have voting rights, until they did.

And on and on it goes.

I am not under the illusion that saying "Yes we can" do whatever, means that instantly we are able to do so. What I do know, is that anytime you say you cannot do something, you are limiting possibilities. I prefer to be open to more expansive possibilities.