One wish: World Peace? Maybe, Maybe Not

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Hmm, sanity is possibly overrated, but I am happy to pursue that elusive and possibly undesirable thing, for the time being at least. Whether this makes me sane or not is difficult to tell.

@bob_the_fisherman Said

If others seek to enter a hive mind, I suppose they are free to do so. Personally, I will happily continue in my individuality to what ever extent I currently have it (as I think we are all morphed into the Borg of our culture to some degree).

@Jennifer1984 Said

I think you're suggesting that to eliminate war would also, in the process, eliminate a part of the human condition and you question whether or not that would be a good thing.

There is a valid argument for your proposition, but I think the elimination of war without detriment to the condition of our species is achievable, though only as a long term project... a sort of "evolution, not revolution" thing.

To try to change the human condition in one fell swoop would not only be undesirable, it would also be pretty much impossible to achieve. However, humans are remarkably adaptable and over a period of many generations, I think it would be achievable without detriment to our species.

If you can imagine the first primitive primates, struggling for survival, they would kill without compunction. They had to. Their very survival depended on it.

Over time, however, we have learned to survive without the necessity of killing and we have developed social mores which recognise killing as a bad thing.... something to be avoided.... Something to deter others from doing, and to punish in those who do it outside of those situations where we as a species have allowed it to remain "acceptable".

I believe we could evolve further, and probably will.

We send the murderer to jail, but laud the soldier, and yet, the soldier is probably responsible for far more deaths than anyone but the most extreme serial killer. Why is it that we heap the most praise on the most serious offender...?

It is because we still consider war to be "acceptable" when it suits our individual purpose. We have not yet evolved to the stage where we, as a species, can overcome tribal or territorial instincts, or resource driven necessity.

The soldier is seen a brave and heroic, where the murderer is seen as brutal and cowardly and yet, essentially, there is no difference between them. They both kill other humans premeditatedly and without remorse.

War is eradicable, but only when the justifications for it are eliminated by global harmony. Not an easy trick to perfect but one that - slowly but surely - we should work towards. It will be a slow process and a very arduous one. It sure as heck won't happen in our lifetimes. But it must be the path that we, as a species, set ourselves upon. It must be the ultimate goal that we set for ourselves to achieve.

As we move, slowly and painfully, down the road, we will adapt. We will evolve. It will happen at a pace our psyche can adjust to and by the time we eventually arrive at a state of humanity where conflict is eradicated, the instinct to kill will be bred out.

The slowness of this process will not only eliminate the base instinct to kill, but the higher sensory, cultural and civil perceptions will gain a greater ascendancy. By the time we lose the instinct to kill, we won't even notice it's gone.

Will we be a different species..? Yes, we will. We will be as different in the future to what we are now, as what we are now is from those first struggling primates.

It's evolution. Nothing more, nothing less.


.

@xLETHAL_VIXENx Said

Psh

@Tar Said

I'm sure even you, profound and willful as you are, would fall victim to the addictive elixir of absolute power, even if granted for but a mere moment

@xLETHAL_VIXENx Said

Psh

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Sadly, I must confess that I have long held the secret ambition of becoming the supreme global dictator. The pleasure of vanquishing enemies at the merest whim - what is there to not desire in such a thing? I believe if honest, most of us agree with Mel Brooke's sentiment that, "It's good to the king."

Or am I just unusually narcissistic?

@Tar Said

I think you're missing the point of my "absolute power" concept. Knowledge is power. If you were to aggregate all the knowledge of the most intelligent and well learned people in the world, would you not be a mind-boggling formidable adversary? If you were to add to this, the mental prowess of the all the tactical geniuses of our time, would you not be beyond formidable, rather now terrifying in visage and might? Add to this, the knowledge of all mysticisms and psychology, of all leadership and directorship ... would you not now be so powerful as to inspire awe, fear, terror and worship? Keep adding and then add to this that your mind now exists in the ether so your body can be destroyed, but rebuilt as it is merely a vessel, an organic robot and that your consciousness has been uploaded into the ether and is thus, so robust that all entities connected must be destroyed to wipe you out... are you not approaching godhood? Are you not nearly invulnerable? Your will, wielded at the peril or grace of others is the hand of God... would you not be intoxicated? Would you not be addicted?

@bob_the_fisherman Said

Maybe it is my inherent pessimism kicking in, but I cannot imagine a time where humans morphed into a Borg of any kind could ever be functional, let alone functional enough to be formidable. I think any mind attached to the whole would seek to wield ultimate power... And, if the total subsuming of individual identity is part of your ideal, I see a problem with the hive mind having any kind of functional identity...

I could be wrong though...

As an aside - have you been drinking, or, forgot to take your meds or forgot that you had taken your meds and accidentally taken them again

@offbeat Said

vixen ... will you please tell me what psh stands for ....

@ShadowFast Said

So on one of my other sites.... a person put this up in their status.

Person: If I could have any wish I wanted, I would definitely wish for World Peace...Who's with me here? There is just WAY to much animosity now.


... a few thoughts arose...

My response was this:

I'm not sure what the realistic outcome of such a wish would bring. World peace in it's realistic-ness could very well mean no humans and their general "human nature." I would have to do extensive research and drafts upon drafts in developing a verbally spoken wish that will insure the continued existence of all life (including us), but directly affecting the symptoms of thought and behavior that hinder "world peace." A bit much.... lol... just my quick response...




What would you have said to this... something simple ... or something a bit more thought out?

@hoppy Said

[Person: If I could have any wish I wanted, I would definitely wish for World Peace...Who's with me here? There is just WAY to much animosity now.]

Sounds like something those brainless beauty pageant candidates would say.