Why there isn't peace.

This is the only place I could feel I could post this. And for some reason I really wanted to share it.


I was lying in my bed one day and I kept thinking to myself, Why isn't there peace? Is it that hard? And then it hit me as I was thinking. There isn't peace because the world has labels. Because the world is labelled with good or bad. Labelled with catholics and muslim, labelled as a pagan or a crusader. Because land is laballed your's or labelled his' or labelled her's there isn't peace. If you did not label a pecie of land your's or their's you would not have land to steal, and they would not have land to take. Because your religions are diffrent, a circle is drawn around your type and their type, your god and their god. If there are no crusaders there are no pagans to kill. Because there is bad there is a good, and becasue there is a good there has to be a bad.

There is no such thing as good, there is no such thing as bad, there is no such thing as a crusader, no pagan, nothing is owned land. It is just the label. A simple label that seperates everything, the reason why there is no peace and only war.



I may sound stupid I don't know, hate me, love me.

That way madness lies.

I think it is beyond labels. I did not fight with my brother as a kid over labels but over who had what toy and other stupid kid stuff. I wrestled him and his friends even when we were not angry; aggression, competition, and confrontation have always seemed normal. A mugger probably does not care what you call yourself but would be more concerned about what they could get from you.

For the world situation I put it the same but on a larger level. I doubt the first cavemen started fighting each other (assuming they did) due to labels but simpler things such as hunting grounds/territorial issues and as society became more complex then the us vs. them labels would come in. Competition and confrontation are just part of human nature, just when we get into groups they will always be given labels. Every small sports team has a name, every military regiment has a motto and history and so on until you get to the level of religions and nation-states.

I would argue that people do think of things as good or bad but usually in terms of us or them. What they did is bad what we did is good or the opposite when people think the other is better then what they know. The Mac vs. PC teasing is not out of actual spite for each other but more because the other computer user is like oneself. While these examples are all peaceful it is only a small step to violence. Look at football (soccer) riots, no real reason for them to happen, doubt there was any real hate between the supporters of each team but a few knuckleheads start brawling and it spreads, cars will be rolled over without regard as to who they belong to.

You and I might disagree, sort of, but i would not label you "stupid." :sweatdrop:

I believe humans fight when they can gain, quite simply. Ethnic background and religion are often used as "justification", but in the end it all comes down to land, money, and power. :bow:

Also, remember that you need some labels - you need people in a chain of command (elected or otherwise), you need some ownership (even if it is community ownership), and you need other things of that nature to keep order, and to prevent anarchy. When those labels conflict, we have war.

And why do we label?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We are Human.

(By the way, nice touch there Lemur)

Why there isn't peace?

Simple man is a competive animal. THen one must ask is their peace in nature or is there just survival

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Why there isn't peace?

Simple man is a competive animal. THen one must ask is their peace in nature or is there just survival

---

Surely we have evolved beyond a need for war though?

An interesting post RoadKill and certainly one worthy of consideration. I agree that labelling has some point to it, but I think rather than labelling, it is the belief that our label is far superior to all other labels. I doubt many people truly believe that some labels are "evil" and that some are "good", except for those on the extremities. However, it is when these people on the extremities gain power and the ability to influence policy that we get national conflicts.

It's a little disingenuous to maintain that peace is impossible, quixotic and a mere dream, or that violence is the "natural" state of humankind.

Peace is perfectly possible despite our natures. Civilised societies find outlets for that competitiveness that do not involve physical violence. Europe, one of the most "labelled" and violently territorial groups of tribes ever seen in history has managed, in the last fifty years, to evolve a system whereby the members of that system are at peace.

The United States, after some equally unpleasant birthing pains, has been at peace within itself for over a hundred years. Both civilisations still turn to violence against outsiders, but both are increasingly rubbish at it because their citizens far prefer peace to war.

Within societies that are civilised, those who choose to breach the peace are no longer lauded as soldiers, but condemned as criminals. Competition now results in greater prosperity for all, and skilled competitors enrich themselves and their families - and in so doing, gain advantages for their genetic heritage to satisfy any lingering urges from that direction. In paying respect to Adrian's other thread that touches on this, strife in civilisation produces philosophy, science, markets, sports and other creative outpourings - not rubble and crushed bodies.

Human beings are not purely animalistic, but thoughtful creatures that manipulate their environment to their benefit. Peace is a characteristic of advanced civilisations. The ability to deal with "labels" and their consequences through discussion and legislation rather than bloodshed is a prized asset of those civilisations.

We should not dismiss so blithe a desire as that for universal peace. Most of us on this forum are blessed by the good fortune that peace brings - we should desire it for others too.

:hippie:

Wow, very nice post Bonquo's Ghost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Surely we have evolved beyond a need for war though?

---

Evidence in the world would indicate otherwise.

Man is competive, its how we became the top animal on the food chain. Now I agree that saying man is competive is a very simple answer to a complex question, but its also the very reason why there is currently wars still being fought.

Now while Banquo's Ghost post is great if one wishes to discount some important situations. The conflicts in Bosnia for examble. Why did this situation happen if Europe has evolved into a peaceful society. Then there was the Ireland that was active for many years.

Then again saying Europe and America is rubbish at fighting wars is also slightly misleading, just look at how easily the United States with his main Ally England defeated Iraq. Now occupation duties and peacekeeping are extremely difficult missions that at leas the United States is terrible at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

We should not dismiss so blithe a desire as that for universal peace. Most of us on this forum are blessed by the good fortune that peace brings - we should desire it for others too.

---

Now I do take exception to this comment for a number of reasons, first I don't dismiss the concept - I look into it with caution because of the very human condition that still has conflicts happening across the globe. For examble the United States within itself is at peace, but look into our history of the last 60 odd years since WW2. THe United States has fought as an organized force in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Panama and Iraq. We have fought or acted as a peacekeeping force in Eygpt, Somilia, Bosina and Kosovo. Then their is the dirty dealing in South America. Is this a society that is necessarily benefiting from Peace, or a society that is benefiting from peace within its borders and with its neighbors?

Then lets look into the peace that is within the United States, at the very base level - competion between criminal gangs. Part of american society still has a strong competive streak and resorts to violence to solve the situations that competion brings about.

So universal peace while a noble concept has a long way to go before it comes about. Even societies that benefit from a relative peaceful existance are still engaged in conflicts within their borders and are still involved in conflicts outside their borders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

The United States has fought as an organized force in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Kuwait, Panama and Iraq. We have fought or acted as a peacekeeping force in Eygpt, Somilia, Bosina and Kosovo. Then their is the dirty dealing in South America. Is this a society that is necessarily benefiting from Peace, or a society that is benefiting from peace within its borders and with its neighbors?

---

I am with Redleg on this one, and I would even go further.

The US benefits enormously from the wars it fought - from its war of independence and its Civil War right through two world wars, the countless hot or cold foreign wars and even the wars that ended so-so like Korea or Vietnam. I would say the benefits of war for the US have been far greater than the benefits of peace. And I would argue that the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Europe, even if one takes the episode of 1933-1945 into account.

As for the relative peace enjoyed by both Europe and the US after WWII, we must acknowledge that it existed only because of the capacity for unlimited destruction, coupled with military forces that were armed to the teeth and partially on continuous stand-by since 1946 or 1947, as well as a society that lived in constant, though suppressed, fear of total annihilation. To call that 'peace' is stretching the meaning of the concept quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I am with Redleg on this one, and I would even go further.

The US benefits enormously from the wars it fought - from its war of independence and its Civil War right through two world wars, the countless hot or cold foreign wars and even the wars that ended so-so like Korea or Vietnam. I would say the benefits of war for the US have been far greater than the benefits of peace. And I would argue that the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to Europe, even if one takes the episode of 1933-1945 into account.

As for the relative peace enjoyed by both Europe and the US after WWII, we must acknowledge that it existed only because of the capacity for unlimited destruction, coupled with military forces that were armed to the teeth and partially on continuous stand-by since 1946 or 1947, as well as a society that lived in constant, though suppressed, fear of total annihilation. To call that 'peace' is stretching the meaning of the concept quite a bit.

---

Yet by the same token, the US would have never been able to fight the vast majority of its wars(minus the Civil war, obviously), if not for the fact that the home front was relatively peaceful. Even during the civil rights crisis in the 60's, leaders like MLK managed to keep the situation from devolving into absolute rebellion. Only once the domestic side of things is relatively stable can a country begin to successfully strike out against others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kamikhaan

Yet by the same token, the US would have never been able to fight the vast majority of its wars(minus the Civil war, obviously), if not for the fact that the home front was relatively peaceful. Even during the civil rights crisis in the 60's, leaders like MLK managed to keep the situation from devolving into absolute rebellion. Only once the domestic side of things is relatively stable can a country begin to successfully strike out against others.

---

Relative peaceful from invasion does not equate to peace. If one looks at the internal conflicts that did rage - primarily during the westward expansion when the native tribes were forced off their tribal lands either by warfare or treaties that were basically forced onto the tribe.

Now by the time WW1 came along we had a minor border conflict with Mexico, primarily dealing with Poncho Villa but the conflict did force some troops into the border area and if I remember correctly even had US forces going into Mexico.

Now MLK did a lot to help prevent racial riots from becoming common place, but several did happen. THe 1992 Riot in LA was not the first time LA had experienced a riot. THen there are a few others that happen, one during the Democrate convention of 1968>

Now relative peaceful compared to France being invaded by Germany, in full scale warfare, but the competitive nature of the human race had its effect in the United States far more then some would like to think.

One such examble is the Wild West Myth that took hold in the dime novels and then the Movies. There are other exambles today, what type of movie becomes the big block buster that everyone wants?

we have not evolved beyond the need for war or competition. We at the tippy top of the primate chain have conducted more wars than any other, but that is not to say our cousins don't. http://www.world-science.net/exclusi...209_warfrm.htm

We have the liberty of saying we are evolved beyond war, but we are not. We are no more evolved than the child snatchers in Uganda, the knights of medieval Europe, or even the men who thought those uppity Neanderthals were taking a bit more than their do (oh but we got those suckers, hehehe).
i'm just saying it's easy to say your beyond war when there is no need for it. But when you realise your family has no food, or no home, or no land on which to make a living. well, one tends to look at his well off neighbor and label them "him" and when you arent living in a civilized solciety the rule of thumb is always him<me.

We're all Barbarians wielding our proverbial clubs (whether its a metaphor or a tangible weapon) and we all take what we need, when we need to.

Answer: There are people.