Is World Peace Desirable?

[Orcuo]

Again I ask all of the edgy teenagers saying no how many of you have actually fought in a war or are planning on doing so soon?

While I understand this sentiment, I find it to be a bit misguided in the assumption that us who do not desire world peace do so to advocate for less peace globally (and by chance, want to participate in the furthering of war itself), which is simply not the case. The question posed above is framed from the lens of an viewpoint that has been strawmanned. The central idea of our argument is that war, as an industry, helps to both directly (militarily personnel, PMCs, etc) and indirectly (manufacturers and such) create jobs to circulate money back into the wallets of the working class. Right now, with the data at hand, millions are currently employed directly in military service worldwide. This brings us to the dilemma: if world peace were achieved, what would happen to these people’s jobs? Millions of people becoming unemployed would be rather problematic. This isn’t even including all the jobs that detail the manufacturing of supplies for the national military’s, resulting in the laying off of millions as well. The entire arms manufacturing sector would collapse, this obviously not being ideal. For this main reason, we believe that achieving world peace would not be desirable. To reiterate, this isn’t to say that we need more war, more so simply that war needs to remain at its current state. It is what you would call a necessary evil, if you will. Not because we desire war, as some may suggest, but simply because we think the current state of (or therefore lack of) global peace is more desirable. And this isn’t the downplay the tragedies caused by war. In fact, I would personally encourage everyone here to donate to a war relief effort. But as previously mentioned, it is a necessity. I would also like to point out the fact that more militaries are moving towards automation, and at a steady pace: a pace in which personnel can be laid off and get to readjust to civilian life while the industry transitions as well; all the while automation means more and more battles are being fought between two parties which use equipment and hardware instead of flesh and blood, resulting in less casualties. I believe this happens to be a step in the right direction, and is a more desirable option than world peace. I hope you can understand our side of the argument, Adamede. We have humanity’s best interests in our heart, and only want what is best for society as a whole.

[Luso-Hispania]

Again I ask all of the edgy teenagers saying no how many of you have actually fought in a war or are planning on doing so soon?

If they are "teenagers", then they probably never had participated in a war before. If they are "edgy", then they probably will want to join a war. With a little bit of logic, you can probably find out just how you are contradicting yourself.

No.

The pursuit of peace is desirable. The achievement is deadly poison.

Why can't you fascists have any good (or even reasonable) political views

Is [plural] your definition of every follower of Fascism that happens to appear in front of you an "edgy teenager that will grow out of it soon when they meet the real world"?

[Thomas Harriot]

Again I ask all of the edgy teenagers saying no how many of you have actually fought in a war or are planning on doing so soon?

If they are "teenagers", then they probably never had participated in a war before. If they are "edgy", then they probably will want to join a war. With a little bit of logic, you can probably find out just how you are contradicting yourself.

Why can't you fascists have any good (or even reasonable) political views

Is [plural] your definition of every follower of Fascism that happens to appear in front of you an "edgy teenager that will grow out of it soon when they meet the real world"?

you are quoting two different people...

[Luso-Hispania]

If they are "teenagers", then they probably never had participated in a war before. If they are "edgy", then they probably will want to join a war. With a little bit of logic, you can probably find out just how you are contradicting yourself.

Is [plural] your definition of every follower of Fascism that happens to appear in front of you an "edgy teenager that will grow out of it soon when they meet the real world"?

you are quoting two different people...

Yes, I am. I was referring to all of you collectively.

[Frinor]

Again I ask all of the edgy teenagers saying no how many of you have actually fought in a war or are planning on doing so soon?

If they are "teenagers", then they probably never had participated in a war before. If they are "edgy", then they probably will want to join a war. With a little bit of logic, you can probably find out just how you are contradicting yourself.

No contradiction when you consider the fact that certain people stay teenedgers past the point of being a teenager. It's kind of like the adult children phenomenon.

[Reddit Atheism]

Why must violent conflict be the only means of competition that avoids complacency?

The fool is just a larper. Pls ignore him for the greater good.

[Luso-Hispania]

If they are "teenagers", then they probably never had participated in a war before. If they are "edgy", then they probably will want to join a war. With a little bit of logic, you can probably find out just how you are contradicting yourself.

No contradiction when you consider the fact that certain people stay teenedgers past the point of being a teenager. It's kind of like the adult children phenomenon.

I can agree to that fact. However, that does not discount the fact that there will always be people who would want to, for example, enlist in the army and fight, whether for religious, familial, moral, or patriotic reasons. An adolescent most probably would not have experienced war firsthand (those who are not in war zones), but there are still myriad reasons why some would want to (e.g., display of bravery, sense of duty, or even teenage edginess).

[Frinor]

No contradiction when you consider the fact that certain people stay teenedgers past the point of being a teenager. It's kind of like the adult children phenomenon.

I can agree to that fact. However, that does not discount the fact that there will always be people who would want to, for example, enlist in the army and fight, whether for religious, familial, moral, or patriotic reasons. An adolescent most probably would not have experienced war firsthand (those who are not in war zones), but there are still myriad reasons why some would want to (e.g., display of bravery, sense of duty, or even teenage edginess).

Of course, but the glorification of war and other militaristic attitudes are typically tempered and discipline instituted in the national service. A friend of mine hypothesized that egregiously fascistic attitudes towards war, its glorification and mystification are typical of volunteer armies instead of conscripted armies, because everyone having to serve would maintain a diversity of attitudes without the scales tipping towards those who merely lionize violence itself. It is a necessity, not a pleasure, to fight and kill.

[United Calanworie]

Again I ask all of the edgy teenagers saying no how many of you have actually fought in a war or are planning on doing so soon?

I'm an active duty servicemember, and not your target audience, but I'd say that the pursuit of peace is the highest calling there is.

I don't want to fight in a war. I will fight in a war if one happens, but I don't want one to. I'd prefer peace through deterrence, and to serve my entire career without deploying in service of an expeditionary war once.
Of course, being a U.S. servicemember, I'm likely to deploy in service of an expeditionary war at some point during my career... but that's another story entirely.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I would like a world where we keep our population sustainable through contraception, not war, famine, and pestilence. Keep our leaders' ambitions in check, if you need resources from another country trade with them, don't threaten to invade them.

[Slembana]

I would like a world where we keep our population sustainable through contraception, not war, famine, and pestilence. Keep our leaders' ambitions in check, if you need resources from another country trade with them, don't threaten to invade them.

Sounds pretty good to me.

[Awesomeland]

Globalization is an inevitable and desirable development

Debatable on both counts.

as is world peace. That said, this is a non sequitur.

Yeah, there's no real equivalence between these anyway.

And that's why we have democracy, to deal with such institutions. Problem solved!

Democracy is not a panacea that solves everything, and often comes down to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

[Luso-Hispania]

I can agree to that fact. However, that does not discount the fact that there will always be people who would want to, for example, enlist in the army and fight, whether for religious, familial, moral, or patriotic reasons. An adolescent most probably would not have experienced war firsthand (those who are not in war zones), but there are still myriad reasons why some would want to (e.g., display of bravery, sense of duty, or even teenage edginess).

Of course, but the glorification of war and other militaristic attitudes are typically tempered and discipline instituted in the national service. A friend of mine hypothesized that egregiously fascistic attitudes towards war, its glorification and mystification are typical of volunteer armies instead of conscripted armies, because everyone having to serve would maintain a diversity of attitudes without the scales tipping towards those who merely lionize violence itself. It is a necessity, not a pleasure, to fight and kill.

You are right when you say war is indeed a necessity, and not pleasure. However, I believe that the original intention of national armies is to be like volunteer armies, where soldiers are highly motivated to fight for their country. The glorification of war is also usually the glorification of the need for said war in order to, most commonly, maintain the sovereignty of a nation or keep the peace.

[Frinor]

Globalization is an inevitable and desirable development

Debatable on both counts.

Everything is debatable.

And that's why we have democracy, to deal with such institutions. Problem solved!

Democracy is not a panacea that solves everything, and often comes down to two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.

No, it doesn't and never does. Tyranny by majority is a fiction peddled by opponents of democracy, which ignores that democracy is constitutional and upholds rule of law.

[Bathera]

Depends on the context

[The Golden Pig]

Because they are coerced into competition. Competition and brutality is compulsory under the threat of death. Human nature is a social and cooperative one and competition within the species has to do with sexual selection, not material resources which are as artificially scarce as are our internal divisions.

If humans were truly without competition we'd be a hive mind.
Removing competition from society would create a world full of weak hedonists.

[Holmkerk]

It is desirable, but I believe that war is inscribed within human nature.

Even with the hypothetical fulfillment of all human needs, and effective population control (which is quite a terrible thing imo, but it's beyond the scope of this discussion), it is in the nature of man to pursue conflict with his neighbour. It is inevitable. There will be no Global Government that preserves universal peace. Utopias that suggest otherwise are ludicrous.

Our work is to broker peace wherever we can, in the hopes of preparing the World as much as we can for the return of Our Saviour. Although I have very huge doubts that we will achieve anything near World Peace in this time, it is good to recognize the fact that the number of murderous human conflicts seem to be much lower than during previous time-periods, to the point that we can concern ourselves with conflicts happening thousands of kilometers away. So do not lose hope. A lot of work has been done already.

[Luso-Hispania]

Debatable on both counts.

Everything is debatable.

Off-topic:
According to the overwhelming majority who posted in the thread on the misunderstanding of Fascism, the "Fascism is bad" trope is totally undebatable.

[Holmkerk]

Everything is debatable.

Off-topic:
According to the overwhelming majority who posted in the thread on the misunderstanding of Fascism, the "Fascism is bad" trope is totally undebatable.

Even more off-topic: is the debatability of a subject solely determined by majority opinion ? (ooh, what a debatable statement )

Right, back to the topic on hand

[Chan Island]

I do find it really weird how everyone (except the cartoons villains in their volcano lairs amongst us) want it, but then go at pains to elucidate why it's unrealistic.

You know, a lot of things are unrealistic right until the moment they actually happen. Like the abolition of slavery. Or the civil rights act. Or the internet.

Learn to dream a little, people. Sometimes "this would be nice" is something you are allowed to say, with no need to qualify it. Everyone is always so damn cynical, and it only ever seems to help out the worst people in society, try something different.

No.

The pursuit of peace is desirable. The achievement is deadly poison.

Why can't you fascists have any good (or even reasonable) political views

Because somebody needs to make the rest of us look good

[Man Praever]

If defining peace as the absence of animosity, violence, and maliciously harmful acts against one another, the topic can be viewed in personal examples. If walking near your home, is it favorable to feel safe? When conducting business, is it preferable to have civil interactions and mutually constructive outcomes? Why do actions contrary to peace arise? Conflicts of vested interest may be one reason, such as an individual seeking to protect themselves from injury, someone seeking to gain an advantage for a parasite dynamic, and some may desire to disarm and silence opposition towards destructive aims that personally gain.

Why would someone seek to cause unprovoked harm? If said individual perceives benefits outweighing costs (internal and external), they may attempt to test boundaries. How are such behaviors avoided? Ideally, it may be said prevention at the source is ideal. Actions in response may be viewed by the afflicted party as justified for protection from potential and ongoing mistreatment. Definitions of peace may overlap in views of whose version of peace is enforced.

From personal experiences, the peace sought is already in the world, often obscured or hidden away. Peace starts from within, then ventures out. In reflection, more people choosing peace, connecting, and acting together can facilitate more peace.

[Europa Undivided]

Yes, because the real enemy is out there, not here.

[Volcanor]

Of course world peace is desirable. I'd have to say that absolute world peace is unrealistic, but a safer, calmer world is definitely something to strive for.

[The Golden Pig]

Yes, because the real enemy is out there, not here.

"Suffer not the Xeno to live!"

[Greater Agnolia]

I’m surprised that this is still a debate, but to summarise my point, yea, world peace is desirable, I mean, I want to ask you guys a question here, do you all really want to die in combat, starve to death from famine, be bombed by enemy forces, live under fear of being killed or targeted at any moment, suffer from mental trauma from the horrors of war, be forced to flee from your own homes from the fighting, see all of the critical infrastructure that you depend on be destroyed and even more?

Like what even is this question supposed to be, obviously war should be avoided if possible because it is profoundly negative