Employers To Move Jobs Abroad...who'd...
News5 mins ago
Will Nonviolence Ever Be a World Reality?
65 Answers
Nearly every government or political power says they want Peace. But do they? More and more we read and hear of violence, genocide, war, rape and other atrocities taking place.
Some say it is down to religion - but even in those countries where there is no state religion there are still atrocities. So what is the answer?
Some say it is down to religion - but even in those countries where there is no state religion there are still atrocities. So what is the answer?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Batexia. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There will always be arguments, be it two neighbours arguing over the fence, two drunk people fighting in a pub, a man and wife arguing over a domestic matter and so on .
So humans will always find something to argue and fight about, it is just that at times these arguments escalate into a war between different tribes, different religions, different countries etc.
I guess the only way to stop major wars (or at least reduce them) is to ban the production of guns, tanks, war planes, mines etc.
But we are never likely to get that.
The USA wont stop making guns etc if Russia or China dont, and Russia wont if China and the USA wont and so on. Anyway some of the richest companies in the world are arms manufacturers.
So I am afraid we are going to continue until some idiot starts a nuclear war, then we are all f*****d.
Anyway the world is over populated, so wars are a good way to keep the population numbers down.
So humans will always find something to argue and fight about, it is just that at times these arguments escalate into a war between different tribes, different religions, different countries etc.
I guess the only way to stop major wars (or at least reduce them) is to ban the production of guns, tanks, war planes, mines etc.
But we are never likely to get that.
The USA wont stop making guns etc if Russia or China dont, and Russia wont if China and the USA wont and so on. Anyway some of the richest companies in the world are arms manufacturers.
So I am afraid we are going to continue until some idiot starts a nuclear war, then we are all f*****d.
Anyway the world is over populated, so wars are a good way to keep the population numbers down.
I am sure that the majority of governments want peace. The distinction is what lengths will they and their populations go to to achieve that peace, and thats where decisions about going to war come in.
We do not have any kind of Global Index against which to measure key indicators such as murder, rape, war, health, disease, mortality, happiness - all of that.
What we can say is that the lot of mankind, broadly speaking, and especially for the developed world, is getting better, at least as measured by the fundamental markers of longevity and child mortality. The problems mankind faces is the unequal distribution of natural resources, and just how those resources will hold up against the rapidly increasing demands by both the developed world keen to maintain its standards of living, and especially from the developing world, that aspire to those standards for their own citizens.
Religion has played its part in much of the trials and tribulations of mankind throughout history, and is still playing a part now -If we were able to ditch religion, it would at least be one less reason for people to be evil to each other, and so therefore should be welcomed.
If you look in religions ledger, the negative aspects of an evangelical zeal to establish one gods dominance over all others far outweighs any notional good that religions supposedly offers.
Women should have a larger role in decision making, for sure - they constitute 50% pf the population, but have nothing like that level of representation. Since womens access to the levers of power is relatively recent ( boadaccea and Queen Eliz and other examples from ancient history aside) we have little evidence upon which to assess what response a female dominated political class would have.
I do not think it as simple as Atalanta suggests though - Mrs Thatcher for example, had little qualm in committing Armed Forces in defence of the Falkland Isles.
We do not have any kind of Global Index against which to measure key indicators such as murder, rape, war, health, disease, mortality, happiness - all of that.
What we can say is that the lot of mankind, broadly speaking, and especially for the developed world, is getting better, at least as measured by the fundamental markers of longevity and child mortality. The problems mankind faces is the unequal distribution of natural resources, and just how those resources will hold up against the rapidly increasing demands by both the developed world keen to maintain its standards of living, and especially from the developing world, that aspire to those standards for their own citizens.
Religion has played its part in much of the trials and tribulations of mankind throughout history, and is still playing a part now -If we were able to ditch religion, it would at least be one less reason for people to be evil to each other, and so therefore should be welcomed.
If you look in religions ledger, the negative aspects of an evangelical zeal to establish one gods dominance over all others far outweighs any notional good that religions supposedly offers.
Women should have a larger role in decision making, for sure - they constitute 50% pf the population, but have nothing like that level of representation. Since womens access to the levers of power is relatively recent ( boadaccea and Queen Eliz and other examples from ancient history aside) we have little evidence upon which to assess what response a female dominated political class would have.
I do not think it as simple as Atalanta suggests though - Mrs Thatcher for example, had little qualm in committing Armed Forces in defence of the Falkland Isles.
I think there'd be less violence with all women governments, but there'd be lots more sulky silences where countries didn't talk to each other.
So for example France would stop talking to Germany for no apprent reason and Germany would ask why, and France would say - 'you should know'. It would later turn out that the French president had had a haircut and Germany hadn't noticed.
That kind of thing ;o)
So for example France would stop talking to Germany for no apprent reason and Germany would ask why, and France would say - 'you should know'. It would later turn out that the French president had had a haircut and Germany hadn't noticed.
That kind of thing ;o)
Its true that violence is inherent in all species.For the overwhelming majority of those species, such responses are governed by reflex, conditioned by their niche, their position in the food chain, and the basic familial, social and cultural bonds.
Humans are different. We can transcend merely automatic responses, because we have a conscious brain, able to engage in abstract thought - values of love, of empathy, of co-operation rather than confrontation are recognised, and will moderate the instinctive responses.
So, as humanity matures, examples of organised violence will hopefully subside.
We are more than "just" animals, and should aspire to behaviour based upon those abstract values that govern our conscious brain.
Humans are different. We can transcend merely automatic responses, because we have a conscious brain, able to engage in abstract thought - values of love, of empathy, of co-operation rather than confrontation are recognised, and will moderate the instinctive responses.
So, as humanity matures, examples of organised violence will hopefully subside.
We are more than "just" animals, and should aspire to behaviour based upon those abstract values that govern our conscious brain.
LG #So, as humanity matures, examples of organised violence will hopefully subside. #
Oh yeah ! Humans have been on earth in communities in excess of 40,000 years. Civilisations can be traced back 10,000 years . In the last century hundreds of millions have died and suffered from violence .
Where is the evidence that there has been any lessening of violence as humanity matures ?
Oh yeah ! Humans have been on earth in communities in excess of 40,000 years. Civilisations can be traced back 10,000 years . In the last century hundreds of millions have died and suffered from violence .
Where is the evidence that there has been any lessening of violence as humanity matures ?
Well, it is difficult to offer an objective measure of deaths from organised violence, since accurate records only stretch back so far, and the various peaks and trends will vary depending on where you draw the baseline from.
One also has to take into account the relative proportions of deaths to total populations ; For instance, in the english civil war, absolute number of deaths was smalerl in comparison to, say, the number of english deaths recorded in WW2, but were far higher in proportionate terms, because of the relative population sizes. So which was the bloodier, more violent war in that circumstance?
And it is probably not a fair comparison to contrast between modern civilisation and ancient civilisation and human society in prehistoric terms.
Modern day civilisation has only been around for an eyeblink, in evolutionary terms, but you can already see massive differences in the recognition of the cost and quality of life, at least in my opinion.
The bloodiest continent in the world, globally speaking, is europe -but since the last outbreak of madness in WW2, europe has been relatively calm, although there have been outbreaks of ethnic cleansing and other such organised violence around the edges.
Development of law and order, international law, trade treaties, economic co-operation all point to a maturing civilisation which recognises that we need to co-operate rather than dominate. Something like the ECHR, often derided on AB, is yet another example of the civilisational impulse.
One also has to take into account the relative proportions of deaths to total populations ; For instance, in the english civil war, absolute number of deaths was smalerl in comparison to, say, the number of english deaths recorded in WW2, but were far higher in proportionate terms, because of the relative population sizes. So which was the bloodier, more violent war in that circumstance?
And it is probably not a fair comparison to contrast between modern civilisation and ancient civilisation and human society in prehistoric terms.
Modern day civilisation has only been around for an eyeblink, in evolutionary terms, but you can already see massive differences in the recognition of the cost and quality of life, at least in my opinion.
The bloodiest continent in the world, globally speaking, is europe -but since the last outbreak of madness in WW2, europe has been relatively calm, although there have been outbreaks of ethnic cleansing and other such organised violence around the edges.
Development of law and order, international law, trade treaties, economic co-operation all point to a maturing civilisation which recognises that we need to co-operate rather than dominate. Something like the ECHR, often derided on AB, is yet another example of the civilisational impulse.
I used the phrase ethnic cleansing deliberately, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, because it brings to mind specifically the conflicts in the Balkans.
Secondly, there is a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"The term ethnic cleansing gained widespead acceptance by the 1990s in academic discourse; despite originally being used by the perpetrators during the Yugoslav Wars, it is now considered "the widely accepted scholarly term used to describe the systematic and violent removal of undesired ethnic groups from a given territory."[3]"
The aim was not extermination, but conquest of territory and the establishment of ethnic homogeneity.
Secondly, there is a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing.
"The term ethnic cleansing gained widespead acceptance by the 1990s in academic discourse; despite originally being used by the perpetrators during the Yugoslav Wars, it is now considered "the widely accepted scholarly term used to describe the systematic and violent removal of undesired ethnic groups from a given territory."[3]"
The aim was not extermination, but conquest of territory and the establishment of ethnic homogeneity.
keyplus You can not speak or assume to speak for God therefore you do not know his principles.
As you say #every human thinks differently # Therefore no one can speak for God. The words in the bible and the Koran are the words of human beings therefore they have no validity. and as you say no harmony.
There is no proof that God exists but even if he does no one can claim to speak for him.
As you say #every human thinks differently # Therefore no one can speak for God. The words in the bible and the Koran are the words of human beings therefore they have no validity. and as you say no harmony.
There is no proof that God exists but even if he does no one can claim to speak for him.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
Business & Finance14 mins ago
My Daftest Question To Date. Lpg
How it Works19 mins ago
News25 mins ago
ChatterBank33 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.