Is world peace attainable?

Is world peace attainable?

The whole Humanity working together in behalf of Human progress and science?

Other urls found in this thread:

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/
youtube.com/watch?v=0Gscw5l_roo
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

What does Veeky Forums think?

Not with humans as they are no. Figure out an effective way to change human nature then maybe

>Is world peace attainable?
how it is now is about as good as its going to get. might get a little better but there is always going to be a kerfluffle somewhere.

>not with humans as they are

You mean white people. It's white people that invades other countries and generate hate.

There is no racial group on earth that doesnt do that

>some faggot added the USA flags to radoxist's "Worth enough?"

Hmmm, must be some allusion to Trump's wall I guess? Still faggot a move to do to someone's art, especially for political agenda..

...

Yes just kill the blacks

If we play our cards right with automation and asteroid mining, I unironically believe humanity's future will be a techno socialist robo utopia.

We can only hope

This whole thread

do you truly believe this or are you a troll?

Its clearly a troll

You mean that'll be the future for the US, Canada, most of Europe, and the few colonies the US has set up around the globe in strategic points so they have an ally in proximity to countries that sooner or later will challenge American global hegemony (South Korea, Israel,Japan)?

it's true though. only white countries invade other people's land for the sake of "national interests" and resources. third world african countries for example may invade other lands but what makes it truly scary is the scope and power whites work with. 100 years from now when resources will start to get scarce what do you think will happen? the military complex won't listen to goodwilled nerds like you.

That doesn't sound so bad. Sounds pretty sweet to be honest.

No I mean it in the true global sense. Mass automation will liberate people from the drudgery of having to work to feed themselves and asteroid mining will deal with the scarcity inherent to earth.

It's less of a "bloody socialist revolution worldwide" paradigm and more of a "machines will put everyone out of work making capitalism obsolete" kind of situation.

Idk we'll probably just annihilate each other in torrential nuclear hellfire because jews and Muslims finally decided to settle who controls Israel though.

But you can't take away my hope god damn it!

Are you retarded?

Humans aren't ready for total world peace. This thread proves it.

Define world peace.

Europe isn't experiencing massive riots or wars.
North America (US and Canada) are peaceful.
Russia is peaceful. China and India are peaceful.

>the scope and power whites work with
so basically you mean to say blacks and whites both do it but whites are better at it? that's pretty racist dude

Sooooo what does Veeky Forums think of the scenario where thanks to global warming the world degenerates into a mad max state of affairs where roving biker gangs high on crystal meth 24/7 wage constant warfare for the last fresh water and petroleum reserves 100 years from now?

>Europe isn't experiencing massive riots or wars.

Neither is most of the world

>India is peaceful

It is , but there's also a lot of poverty and hunger. An empty stomach does not care about peace between religions. The war is economic.

stormfront please go

I think it's ridiculous and that 20 years from now 'global warming' will be replaced by some new global crisis ruse

This thread is far beyond Veeky Forums's abilities. They can answer you a lot of mathematical technical shit but they aren't able to respond something as meaningful as why humans will kill each other over liquid dinosaurs

this

If we can make people substantially smarter, possibly.

If we can't do that, it seems quite unlikely that we could achieve lasting peace and prosperity without resorting to a sort of IQ-based genocide.

There will ALWAYS be conflicts of interest.There will always be disagreements. There will always be differences that can't be reconciled.
ALWAYS.

>Always
user you cannot tell me the future so do not apply Always.

I think that it could have happened if murica went all out on Soviet right after ww2 and became the only nation with nukes
You have only one nation with nukes able to enforce that then you don't have to worry about no cold war.

World peace is easy, just bring out the nukes. All of them.

Any world encompassing totalitarian regime effective enough to prevent civil wars would be "peaceful" in the broadest sense of the term.

but do those differences always have to end in competition and/or conflict?

>The whole Humanity working together in behalf of Human progress and science?
This will never happen. Also I hate this sudden we are one bullshit people are doing these days look back centuries ago and we didnt care about eachother but suddenly we are brothers now yh no fuck that.

>Is world peace attainable?
no

But the competition could get non-violent in the future under some (unlikely) conditions.

Don't count them as humans.

wait what?

you do realize the entire middle east and Africa is plagued by war do you? and if you look back in history the entire world has been at war constantly. white people do not have a monopoly on war. almost all wars are started for national interests (e.g. more power, more stuff)

if you truely believe this shit i am genuinely sorry for you jamal.

>Is world peace attainable?

World peace is bad for business.

So is intelligence in the general population.

The real question is: what is the final solution to the Jewish question?

As long as the US exists then a big round No

well most people obsessed with politics are faggots, so it fits pretty well.

You'd have to alter human nature pretty significantly.

Only way.

You're wrong. White people are not to blame. Fucking a white male is to blame.

I'd say it's inevitable. The most cruel of cruelties are removed from humanity as a whole more or less. The most primitive socities on earth still aren't as brutal and cruel as we used to be.

I suggest you read the better angels of our nature.

Because it allows me to get to places fast you ding-dong

That's the thing. After a while, humans were more selected for their ability to care and cooperate. The people with antisocial tendencies get ostracized after a while.

We're, all the time, passively reengineering human nature

1. 2. Yes, if everyone aside from the US is killed there will be peace.

solution: murder everyone except America

blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/dear-skeptics-bash-homeopathy-and-bigfoot-less-mammograms-and-war-more/

This blog, at the part Deep-Roots theory of war, makes me think that world peace is possible

Yes, but not for quite a ways yet, and certainly not in our lifetime.

We need to find a way to eliminate the necessities of human survival like nutrition, hydration, health, and energy before people have no true material reasons to keep fighting each other.

youtube.com/watch?v=0Gscw5l_roo

Takes a bit to get to the point, but it's worth it.

White male reporting in, what's going on here? Would ya'll go to war for world peace?

...

>Is world peace attainable?

>World peace is bad for business.

>So is intelligence in the general population.

I still think my answer here is the most accurate.

Business doesn't concern itself with peace, and it doesn't care.

It's much more profitable to create wars, and lend money to both sides of a war, reaping fat profits from the interest payments.

Why does Americans have such a high ego when all they literally do is destroying earth to the point of no return?

Why do people believe that peace is a desirable state of affairs? That cowardice, pacifism, weakness, ignorance should predominate/

>Ottoman Empire
>Umayyad Caliphate
>Persian Empire
>Han Dynasty
>Mongol Empire
You can't be serious

Only with abolition of the soverign nation which no one in good concious would ever agree with.

This. Humans can't accept the fact they are just chimps.

Yes, destroy humanity. No more humans, no more war.

>Find aliens
>Make war against them
>World peace obtained.

Lel. poltards get scared at the mere mention of world PEACE and united humanity because they instantly relate those concepts with all the things they fear so much ( white ""genocide"" due to mixing ,a massive exodus). Their ape brains cannot give more than that.

No one ever talked about abolition of sovereign nations stupid stormfag

>You mean ignorant people. It's ignorant people that invades other countries and generate hate.
FTFY

Every year so far the world has gotten, on average, better.

Life expectancy has increased across the board, violence and disease have decreased.

You are less likely now to be killed by another human than at any other point in history.

Smallpox has been eradicated, Polio is all but gone too and many other diseases have been suppressed and controlled to the point that for the first time in history more people are dying of non-infectious diseases than infectious ones.

As life expectancies and infant mortality decrease across all developing nations bar Afghanistan and the DRC, combined with more widespread female education and integration into the workforce, birth rates are falling off as people no longer need lots of children for security.

The only thing that could possibly tip the scales back is global warming, by causing water shortages or increasing the habitable range of vector mosquitoes, but even that could still be more or less overcome at this stage - if the whole world did a 180 and went low-carbon with widespread CCS by 2030 the warming would be a mere 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial average by the end of the century - an unrealistic turnaround of course, but warming can still be kept below 2 degrees with a modicum of effort and cooperation.

Basically we were only born one, maybe one and a half centuries too early to see world peace.

They are descended from bonobos, unlike those of us descended from stronger species.

Honestly, probably not. Attempts at utopian societies in the past have always failed. Human nature just by default is selfish, and we will always value our own wants and needs before others. And due to there always being different perspectives on just about everything, there will never be a situation where every single human on earth agrees peacefully on a conflict.

In others words, no.

>exercising your rights is intimidation
I guess they really don't care about the extremely poor, primarily blacks, who can't afford a CC license.

Not really. There's nothing about being informed that prevents you from conquering others. If anything, knowledge facilitates it.

soldiers tend to be low iq white trash, spic gangbangers and ghetto niggers, welfare babies paid to kill

>Every year so far the world has gotten, on average, better.

White population is declining
Average IQ is down like 4 points over the last few decades
Civilized countries are being overwhelmed by a flood of uncivilized third worlders
Economies are propped up on easy money just waiting for the collapse
Life expectancy is declining in the west

We are on the brink of another dark age

Those who are planning the invasions certainly aren't.

No, that's wrong.

The Flynn effect is still in action and IQ is still rising, for still-unknown reasons.

The first world is further developed in its demographic pyramid but all other nations bar those in active war zones are following along.

Mobility of workers from the third world is vital because the first world soon will not have enough working-age individuals to support the burgeoning over-60 dependents demographic, due as mentioned to its further progressed population pyramid. Ironically for those that want to keep out 'uncivilized' third world workers, the reason for the underdeveloped state of their nations is exactly the same reason that the first world now has such low birth rates - historic pillaging of third world resources and disruption of their social structure for the profit of first world nations. It might be called 'karma', but ultimately it doesn't matter as it's an inevitable and necessary consequence of global population dynamics (being snide one might say 'this is the future you chose'). Furthermore, migrant workers tend to be young and healthy, meaning they use fewer healthcare resources than the average, are motivated to work even for low wages due to the relatively high value of first world currencies when taken back to second or third world countries, and create more jobs than they take due to the increased economic activity caused by them circulating currency. Studies have also shown that native workers benefit further by being more likely to receive supervisorial or managerial positions rather than being outright replaced.

Life expectancy continues to climb everywhere, again barring active war zones.

Every time period has always thought it was on the brink of collapse and that it was the end of days, and it hasn't been so far. Nothing in the world today can cause a 'dark age', only an external existential threat like a solar storm that destroys a large amount of communication infrastructure or unmitigated global warming.

lies and bullshitting all you got huh?

> Nothing in the world today can cause a 'dark age',
Who will advance technology or maintain institutions once whites are gone? Who will keep the peace? You libs are absolutely delusional.

>lies and bullshitting
Actually it's just the state of how the world is

>once whites are gone
'Whites' will never be 'gone'. It would be logistically impossible to wipe out everyone with light skin (or, as you probably mean by 'white', of Anglo-Saxon descent) even if there was any reason to do so, and natural population dynamics will certainly not cause it to happen by accident. The average fertility rate is only just below the replacement threshold even in places like the Nordic countries and Japan, which are the furthest along the population pyramid of any country, and is certainly not below it in places like America and the UK.

Furthermore, there is nothing inherently 'special' about 'white people' anyway beyond tending to be born in more affluent countries with greater access to nutrition and education. We can argue genetics and ethnicities until we're blue in the face but those factors evidently and vastly outstrip any possible genetic contribution.

So the people who invented every aspect of modern civilization are not special at all, is that your final answer?

Better to replace them with browns & blacks who have average IQ's around 80 ? Or below?

Alright, who stuck the American flags in that picture?

...Not that it isn't appropriate.

Of course not, we should replace them with Asians and Jews, because they have a higher IQ and lower aggression quotient than those savage border-line retarded whites!

>Nothing in the world today can cause a 'dark age', only an external existential threat like a solar storm that destroys a large amount of communication infrastructure or unmitigated global warming.
One, good, weaponized, virus.

Or a global economic collapse, massive methane release, Pacific rim firestorm, Yellowstone implosion, airborne petrol/plastic eating fungi/bacteria, world wide fundamentalist religion takeover (eg. caliphate), gray goo experiment gone wrong, AI revolution, or very angry garden gnomes.

No.
World peace is the social equivalent of string theory.

It's a nice fantasy but some things just can't be reconciled

One would think eventually, if not inevitably, one government would take over the world.

...What then?

You might not have international wars, but you'd probably still have a lot of pockets of fighting. One world government doesn't necessarily mean world peace, just an end to nations.

Instability arises from social inequality.
This can be economic, geographic, or cultural. These things can never be completely isolated. There will always be conflict, it's natural.

>only white countries invade other people's land for the sake of "national interests"
I don't know where you are getting this information from but it is incorrect.

'The people who invented every aspect of modern civilization' did so because they were in the right place at the right time, besides which 'they' didn't in fact invent every aspect of modern civilization. Many important discoveries also occurred throughout China and the Middle East, and furthermore 'whiteness' is a concept that only came into existence within the last couple of centuries. Were the Greeks and Romans white? They were most certainly not in the same way as the Germanic and Brythonic peoples, who at the time were still living in huts made of woven branches and pig dung. Were the first farmers, sailors, city builders 'white'? They'd probably be called 'brown' now and looked at distastefully.


Lastly, to the idea that conflict is somehow inevitable and natural, it used to be inevitable and natural that 10% of humans would die at the hands of other humans and that 50% would die from malaria. It was inevitable and natural that women could expect to die in childbirth and that fewer than a half of children would reach the age of ten. Things that seem inevitable and natural quickly dissolve in the light of prosperity and conflict will too. When, eventually, no one has their existence threatened by a shortage of resources who will continue fighting?

Not through science. Maybe when people all around the world have the opportunity to mature, think for themselves. Sorry, not a regular, just my opinion

>Maybe when people all around the world have the opportunity to mature, think for themselves.
That kinda guarantees war.

Peace will only happen, when no one can think for themselves.

No.

The world is in a constant prisoner's dilemma.

Peaceful/optimal decisions are never made because they are not the best strategy from perspective of the individual actors in a given situation.

Even if you could get most people to cooperate in some kind of world wide peace process, it would become advantageous for individual actors to break the rules while everyone else adheres to them, and since nobody wants to be the one who gets screwed over, everyone is just racing to exploit any institution they can for maximum benefit before anyone else.

No. Conflict drives progress far more than peace ever could.

A distopya would be great. Everyone is jacking off to VR hyperrealistic loli porn and the energy left is wasted on being an employee.
Hunger is controlled so revolutions are avoided and a group of 300 people decide what's the next step to humanity.

If we manage to suprime our emotions making us able to work as a hive and make everything that is in our hands to preserver the existence of the mankind.

So in other words to achieve peace the world must allow an equal distribution of infinite physical/mental sets and resources/time to discourage any need of achieving an advantageous "state" by any individual or group.

It's people like you is why world peace isn't a thing right now.

>mexico
>harnessing the wind

nice shop, faggot

This. The whole world seems to be moving in the direction of world peace. Very slowly. The issue is whether or not we'll nuke each other to bits before we see it through

>t. neckbeard from comfy/stable first world country that never truly suffered a day in his life due to war or hunger
kys

Truly, an excellent argument. I think your opponent might have actually conceded. Tell me user, where did you learn these things?

If we killed all the muslims, north korea dictator, half russia, a few jews and a couple more persons maybe.

> the first world soon will not have enough working-age individuals to support the burgeoning over-60 dependents demographic
Why is the solution to increase immigration not birth rates? We are not talking about the free movement of IQ 130 Chinese engineers and Indian doctors here. We are talking about replacing a significant proportion of a country's children with immigrants. To get that many people you need to let in low income earners who won't make a net contribution to taxes and reduce welfare for poor families to accomodate them. In time communities like Mormons and Amish will outbreed spoiled feminists in the cities and birth rates will rise again so there is no problem.

>historic pillaging of third world resources
Gold, silver and diamonds only constitute a tiny proportion of the economy. They had barely scratched reserves of coal, iron and copper by the time of decolonization. After decolonization many kleptocratic dictators sprung up who sent all their money to swiss bank accounts so it made little difference. People are not to blame for the actions of their government or their ancestors.