Another Internet Topic- World Peace(?)

[Thuy Vuong]

As I'm too busy to go anywhere for meetings, I'm going to try to bring
back our online discussions as I am bored and am acting on a whim. If
anyone objects, then you do don't need to reply unless you have a huge
hatred for such.

As for the topic, how would one achieve world peace? What are the
circumstances for such? Is it achievable by today's standards?

Please discuss.

Cheers,
Thuy

[David Reich]

That is - very vague.  World peace would be the complete absence of conflict, so let's figure out what causes conflict first.

I'd say that people will always act in what they believe is their best interest, and it happens very frequently that these interests contradict each other - I want to cut down a forest for wood, and you want to live in it, so we fight. 

I would venture, though, that all of these conflicts boil down to disagreements over resources, for a very abstract definition of 'resource' - a forest might be a resource, but so might the beliefs of people in a religious conflict, or so might a work of art that we both want to own.

Peace, then, a lack of conflict, will only be entirely extant under two conditions: there are no resources that multiple people want, or when it is in everyone's own interest not to allow disagreements over resources to lead to conflict.  

As an example of the latter, I might want to steal my boss's lunch, but because he pays me I also don't want to piss him off.  Similarly, he doesn't want to stop paying me, because I provide a valuable service.  I'm unconvinced that all relationships can be like this, though (which would indeed lead to world peace) - they can't be perfect, there will be certain things we disagree on, and the mutual benefit is unstable.

As for the former, it seems theoretically possible: if both of have have access to anything we want - or, at least, if it would take less energy for me to create something than to take it from you - we wouldn't be led to fight.  I can vaguely imagine how this society would work, materially.  You'd have to have infinite natural resources and energy, with a limited population.  There would be no scarcity - that's key.  Actually, on second thought, that wouldn't work - people would fight over who had the opportunity to reproduce.  You'd simply have to have an infinite population, but a smaller degree of infinity than the infinite resources.  There's still no scarcity.  The key, again, is that it would be easier to make my own (anything) than to fight with you over it.

This does seem to work - but for one flaw.  Remember how I said 'resource' is being used as a very abstract term here?  I gave the example of a religious conflict over people's beliefs.  When people themselves are the resources, then you can't have more resources than consumers, they come from the same pool.  The amount of people using cannot be different from the amount of people being used - and so there's scarcity once again.  I don't see how this can be overcome - so perfect world peace is impossible.  Does that make sense?

[Quoc-Thuy Vuong]

Nothing less than expected. Properly assesed and commented.I chose such a vague question so it can be easily be open for conversation.

Now I believe what your saying is that the infinite excess and lack of stark personnal views, such as religion, would create a state of "world peace"? It seems like communism tries to move in that direction. However, we all know that communism doesn't work with people. Would this in turn say that peace isn't a natural human state and, as you stated, "world peace" is impossible?

Cheers,
Thuy