# General Discussion > Opinions >  Do you belive one day there will be total pacifism?

## TimF

I was talking to this person today and this person thought that oneday the world was going to be a totaly peaceful place and I dissagreed with this person I said as long as there are 2 people on this earth there will always be disputes and fights and this person didnt belive so. So I wanted to turn to the intellectual minds of the Jref forum. And ask you 

"Do you think that the world will achieve total pacifisim?"

I would also like to say that the opinions posted here are just that, opinions so take them as such this is a mature thread so lets not get carried away and argue like children. Thank you I am eager to hear your responses.

----------


## King of Tokyo

*Do you think that the world will achieve total pacifisim?*

No.

----------


## Frank D. White

even have peace on our own Forum. I don't think humankind can ever live without hate, anger, and ocasional sex.

Frank

 :Blush:

----------


## jovial_jon

I don't think it is possible but it wouldn't hurt to try. It's a bit defeatist to say - 'it'll never happen so why bother getting along'. It won't ever happen but it'd be nice to see how close we could get eh?

----------


## bossel

Voted "yes". There will be total peace when mankind got extinct (or when the universe collapses).

----------


## jovial_jon

That's an excellent point Bossel. I didn't think of that.  :Smiling:

----------


## blessed

well, if we exclude the option of "universe collapsing" (which would be pretty fiery anyway, and moght not be the end...), then no, no way. history would have to end since there would be no war... yadayadayada... oh crap, thats what Karl Marx said... so, no, no peace cause no worldwide communism.  :Laughing:  (appart from no, this post is not meant to be a _serious_ opinion I express  :Laughing: )

----------


## Satori

I voted "yes." Why see the glass as half-empty instead of half-full? Now, how soon that could happen in the world is another story ... :winklove:

----------


## Duo

I dont know if there will be, but there could be. Now, what do we exactly mean by total pacisifism? No more wars ? Sure that is plausable hypothesis. I got the perfect example. Look at Europe and the European Union. Europe is one of the continents that has seen probaply the most wars in history, from the times of greeks until 1999 in the Kosovo bombings. Now look at the EU, all these european countries who once hated each other, were even rivals, some of them, have come all together and forgiven each other because they realized that working together on a something is much better than fighting over it. Germany and france have had bad blood since napoleon, and now look at them, all nice together parading down the EU headquarters in Brussels with their hands in each others back pokets. So, yeah, there could total peace in the world, but i donnu if there will, human nature is a such a b***h sometimes.

----------


## blessed

nice point duo, globalisation might bring peace... but, there is at least one thing you forgot: civil war, which arises from difference of opinion, and that will persist unless our civilisation goes through an_ unimaginable_ makeover. and this makeover will make us unrecognisable. so, we, as we know ourselves, cannot achieve peace.

----------


## Winter

There is always a way to achieve the impossible; in this case, world peace.

But I think a lot of this question relies on what the meaning of 'total pacifism' would mean.

----------


## TimF

Well the the way him and i were talking about it was total peace right down to the point that there is no crime anymore. Beacuse like i said as long as there is 2 people on earth there will be diputes and fights and what not. Then this person told me i was wrong. Lets face facts here people total pacifism will never be achieved as long as mankind lives on the planet there will always be dissagreements. 

Note: I prolly should have made things a little more clear to bossel lol.  :Laughing:

----------


## Winter

I believe that is possible. Not likely with the way humans are evolved now in the way many may be thinking, but still possible.

Provided we A: live long enough to evolve more, or B: live long enough to develop brutal methods of law prevention, thereby acheiving pacifism by force, I think one way or another, it is possible.

There's always a way.

----------


## Brooker

Who was it who said, "We have achieved peace in our time," like a year or so before Hitler invaded Poland?  :Doubt:

----------


## Duo

Chamberlein mabye! Also, sure there can be no crimes in the world. Is just a matter of thinking, of education. If you educate someone, the way you want them, you can make them live and think a certain way.

----------


## CC1

*Do you think that the world will achieve total pacifisim?* 

Not as long as my wife and I are both alive!  :Laughing:  We fight at least once a week! 

But seriously, I don't think so. There will always be disagreements over something! That is only natural. No two people will see everything the same way. You see that everyday on these forums. It may not be an all out fight, but just a simple misunderstanding. Person A says something, and Person B takes offense to it because he didn't understand the way it was implied, or he didn't like the tone in which it was said, or maybe he just didn't like the idea that the other person had his own opinion, there are so many little things that tend to set us off for no particular reason. Pretty sad actually!  :Sad:

----------


## Duo

Sure, but total pacifism doesnt mean disagreements. Take Japan for example, the crime rate there is very low compared to other countries.

----------


## CC1

> Sure, but total pacifism doesnt mean disagreements. Take Japan for example, the crime rate there is very low compared to other countries.


That is true, but disagreements lead to more serious forms of fighting. It all starts somewhere! If you believe that the world will someday transform itself into a pacifist state, I'm sorry to say that it will not happen. Without pointing the finger at any one group, there are religious groups that seem to believe that violence is ok...there is always going to be fighting somewhere.

----------


## cross-platform

> B: live long enough to develop brutal methods of law prevention, thereby acheiving pacifism by force, I think one way or another, it is possible.


I think pacifism by force would only work temporarily. Eventually, it would end up angering more people than anything. If there is to be total pacifism, it is going to have to be voluntarily.

As to wether it will ever happen or not, it would have to be a loooooooooooooong ways away, and would take a lot of evolving. I bet it could happen eventually (unless a less peaceful species from another planet comes to "visit"). Just not anytime soon.

----------


## Sinspawne

I have little faith in man-kind... It won't happen in a thousand years! (if we don't kill our selves in that time)
When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate eachother.
And when those groups meet, both parts want the other to imitate them/be like them. A conflict is bound to happen... 

"None of us is as dumb as all of us" (I love that quote) and dumb people fight because they can't solve things using words, and eradicating those who disagree is the easiest way to become the ones who are 'right'
Mankind needs a world threatening catastrophy to even think about co-operating with eachother  :Okashii:  
But I'm an optimistic person, and a comet can strike earth any day now  :Joyful:

----------


## mad pierrot

This is might sound strange, but who would really like _TOTAL_ pacifism?

 :Doubt:  

I think war is the least favorable way to resolve conflicts, and violence is almost always unnecessary, but _total_ pacifism? To be honest, I like fighting sometimes, and I don't think things were ever intended to evolve toward total pacifism. If pacifism was nature's policy, existence would be very dull indeed. For that matter, can there even be existence without somekind of conflict? I was always under the impression that black needs white, so to speak.

----------


## King of Tokyo

> This is might sound strange, but who would really like _TOTAL_ pacifism?
> 
>  
> 
> I think war is the least favorable way to resolve conflicts, and violence is almost always unnecessary, but _total_ pacifism? To be honest, I like fighting sometimes, and I don't think things were ever intended to evolve toward total pacifism. If pacifism was nature's policy, existence would be very dull indeed. For that matter, can there even be existence without somekind of conflict? I was always under the impression that black needs white, so to speak.


Yeh.. Like in "Demolition Man" .. Now that would be boring as hell.. Heh.

----------


## Miss_apollo7

No, I don't think there would be total pacifism - I am sorry to say this but as there are conflicts always between governments - there would always be governments which disagree with one another because they are different ideologically and politically.

However, I do not want to hide my preference: pacifism and and a peaceful world would be fine, but this would happen in:

*UTOPIA.*   :Laughing:  

When I come to think about it, pacfism in individual people is not all that great is it? 
I mean taking action is more my way of life instead of being passive and smile if something bothers me...and this "action" can sometimes start conflicts between people if not done in a humane way. But I think I am good at resolving things - the good diplomat!!  :Smiling:  I have never had a conflict which lasted many days...
But now I am of course talking about individuals and not governments.

----------


## Lacan

...total pacifism isn't possible as long as people are starving.
When there is not enough for all, one tends to take far more than he needs, cause he is not sure he will find tomorrow. Look, there always a REALLY rich family in every poor country...I think Pacifism can only be achieved if you can prevent eagerness and greediness.

----------


## God

The universe has an equilibrium where good balances out evil. Good can not be the only that exists for why should it? You're answer is no, but on earth you may have it. But somewhere else, no. For every action there is an equal and yet opposite reaction. The universe is based on want. It's what made it all happen. But hey,  :Laughing:  anything's possible.

----------


## Reiku

It is human nature to compete and fight, it fact that is an integral part of every living thing on this planet. A God said, "the universe has an equilibrium".

Many people seem to see peace and goodness as a desireable goal for everyone, but that is pure selfishness. Good and evil, peace and war, everything has a place in the world and is needed in order to maintain balance. Wishing for the entire world to change for your comfort is the epitome of selfishness.

I personally do not believe there will ever be total pacifism in this world because if that ever happened it would cease to be this world and become something it was never meant to be.

----------


## bossel

> Wishing for the entire world to change for your comfort is the epitome of selfishness.


Oh well, I happen to be very selfish.

----------


## Ma Cherie

I firmly believe that mankind cannot live without some kind of conflict. Besides, there would be a lot more wars in the world before we could truly have pacifism. That's what I think.  :Yeahh:

----------


## TwistedMac

in the words of Butthead "if nothing sucked, how would you know what was cool?"

I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like that.

----------


## lexico

Good of you to bring it back, MaCherie.

I think it also depends on ideas that people have. If everyone had it ingrained in the brain that hurting a person, any person, is not what you want to do, then why not? A lot of times there is a convenient excuse to be cruel. We can easily confront or even hate what is unfamiliar. Familarity not only breeds contempt, but eases down the tension we normally have for what is strange. 

As for the need to have the bad to have the good balanced out, it's only an idea (observation). We can have sports as substitutes for conflicts. Give people just the right formula, and they'll do it. Of course even some nice software can have bugs, but these can be ironed out. Lacan suggested giving enough food, and we could eventually plan the population level so everyone gets enough to eat, and other goods. 

The difficulties can be listed; a realistic formula can be figured and put into effect. I think it's just a matter of time and a will to achieve it. I am selfish enough to hope for something like that.

EDIT: I have seen people from war torn countries, and they make me feel miserabel. That is my selfish reason.

----------


## Danscot

Not a peace of cake. I sure agree with most of you. 
Pacifism is not a politically correct opinion, nor a social behaviour (i.e. staying out of trouble). Peace is a inner condition to realize, to be reached in the bottom of my heart, before and beyond any question if any "-ism" will prevail or not. That's why fortune-telling sucks, at times. We meet what we deserve, Love or Hate.
Trying to discover truely myself, 
understand what I really desire in this life,
not just by thinking (it's such a mess in a man's brain),
but what inspires me, 
Uh.. and I almost forgot the most important thing :
express gratitude when I get a hint from my soul... 
Then, may be I'll think again about peace

----------


## Duo

I think there could be total pacifism, ie, no conflicts between groups, but no one can prevent a derranged person from doing things.

----------


## lexico

Good point, Duo. I'd say give him a pacifier, and don't give him a gun no matter what. :)
But seriously a derranged person doesn't come out of the blue. Perhaps there's a way to help the person before bad things happen. The derranged person usually shows signs that things are not all well.

----------


## Ma Cherie

Yes, you can't forget about the pyschological factors. But it's difficult to get to the root of these pyschological problems.

----------


## Doc

> even have peace on our own Forum. I don't think humankind can ever live without hate, anger, and ocasional sex.
> 
> Frank


My thoughts exactly.  :Cool:  

Doc

----------


## lexico

> even have peace on our own Forum. I don't think humankind can ever live without hate, anger, and ocasional sex.





> My thoughts exactly.


I missed the sex part, which prompts me to ask.
Does that mean "on our Forum," that members hate, get pissed, and have occasional sex ?
But my foolish question also gives me an idea. Why not have the following ?

1. Rehaul J-bot to specifically act like a total imbecile engineered to give you all the hate and anger to the daily recommended amount by USFDA ? Given that is technically possilbe that is.

2. Add peripherals besides the audio-visuals such as;
A. one or two gloved fist(s) that will punch you occasionally for anything that sounds annoying to J-bot.

B. a moulded latex face with all the bloody effects when you punch it for a bad reponse, a good response, or a non-response when you are not in a good mood! 

3. As for the sex part, I leave it to your imagination in consideration of some members who might take offense; let me just say that the principles of mechanics, materials engineering, and robotics are already there to achieve whatever you desire. 

I hope I covered everything. Does that mean we can have world peace now ? :)

Edit: Keeping within one post :)
@ Psychologists/Pschiatrists/ or people with a bent in that direction:

Your mentioning "inspiration" inspires me.
To quote one example of an infant/child chimp deprived of a mother, I have heard that the most damaging part is neither nutrition nor bodily warmth, but the stimulus from the mother that a healthy child chimp gets.
Without that, the child is slow to grow both physically and mentally. There are psycho-somatic problems, low immunity to various diseases, unusually frequent skin problems from nervous scratching and not enough grooming. Extending the chimp experiment to humans may be stretching the logic, but it seems to make some sense.

For humans who're past the infant/child years, that positive stimulus could include inspiration. You've also mentioned finding inner peace, which is more difficult to characterize. But that too can be the source of isnpiration. What do you think can offer enough stimulus or inspiration for humans? 

Sports, games, good stories or film, or going to school, finding a job that you like, volunteer work, finding people whom you can relate to, finding a good person of the opposite sex, adventure, exploring the unknown, having a good debate, or listening to good music,....joining a religion you were born into or one that makes most sense to you...um, what can one do to find this good stimulus, inspiration, or inner peace ?

----------


## Doc

> I missed the sex part, which prompts me to ask.
> Does that mean "on our Forum," that members hate, get pissed, and have occasional sex ?
> But my foolish question also gives me an idea. Why not have the following ?
> 
> 1. Rehaul J-bot to specifically act like a total imbecile engineered to give you all the hate and anger to the daily recommended amount by USFDA ? Given that is technically possilbe that is.
> 
> 2. Add peripherals besides the audio-visuals such as;
> A. one or two gloved fist(s) that will punch you occasionally for anything that sounds annoying to J-bot.
> 
> ...


 :Relieved:  To many questions, not enough bullets!  :Uzi:  :Evil:  

Doc

----------


## lexico

> To many questions, not enough bullets!  
> 
> Doc


Yadda yadda yadda yadda yadda...my tongue is my lance, my words my missiles.
An evil tongue will make your day!  :Bikkuri:   :Evil:   :Bikkuri:   :Clap:   :Flamethrower:  :20: :122: :52: :137:  :Samurai:   :Joyful:  
And the pen is mightier than the swordfish!  :Note:   :Laugh out loud:

----------


## Doc

I'm Jack Slate *****! :Evil:  Oh boy, I'm all worked up for the new Dead to Rights game. :Poh:  Yep, the pen is mighter than the sword, and of course the writing is on the wall. :Smiling: 

Doc

----------


## S-K

Pacifism is impossible; war is a biological necesarrity for mankind.

----------


## iann_allein

> Pacifism is impossible; war is a biological necesarrity for mankind.


I agree with you.

Pacifism is possible when our planet will be like Mars.
No life, no war.

----------


## LeBrok

We are closer than you think. There is no war in Europe, both Americas, Pacific and Australia, most of Asia. Only parts of middle east and parts of Africa with ongoing conflicts, and at the moment there is no fully blown war anywhere, just small battles. At least 5 billion people live in peace now, unheard off! We might be as close as 50 to 100 years to full peace on Earth, maybe not a permanent one yet, but a good beginning.

It will happen thanks to production, education, science, communication, good living. We won't have too many reason to want to go and kill someone in other country.

----------


## iann_allein

Cconcurrence, business, globalization, media, films are a kind of war. The war is changing .....
Life is a war ....

----------


## LeBrok

hehe, not that easy, you know what that mean, tratatatata, boomboomboom, many dead bodies..........hmmmm, that's like in the film I just watched, so maybe you're right. ;)

----------


## galychanyn

Some day when there will be no faith, race and countries.

----------


## Minty

No, throughout history if one group of civilisation was to meet another civilization that was considered inferior, members of the more advance civilisation would always try to invade them, and they still do.

----------


## edao

conflicts arise from a difference of opinion if there is only one then there is peace. BORG! :Grin:

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

Globalization makes countries mutually dependent from each other, so yes, total pacifism is possible in the future. But such thing possible only in the multipolar world.

Attachment 4893

----------


## LeBrok

What do you mean by multipolar? Many centers of power?

----------


## Gavroche

Of course the world will be in peace, this is our destiny...
That why we invented "democraty", "separation of the state and the church", "diplomacy" or "sport"...if all the countries have these innovations, there will be no reasons to make war and no tyrant will can take the power...

----------


## Reinaert

I don't believe in a peaceful world as long as pirate states like the USA and the UK constantly are waging wars.

----------


## Anton, Bear's den

> What do you mean by multipolar? Many centers of power?


Yes, many centers of power. I believe that it's the only way to stop unilateral actions and agression for no reason between the countries.
Plus development of commerce and interdependence between the countries.

----------


## LeBrok

I agree, either multi center of equal strength, or one world center will do the trick. I also agree that interdependent commerce, communication, free media, common goals, and prosperity will be the bridge for a world peace.
The main reason for wars was to get richer. If all countries are rich, and citizens can enjoy good loving, with home, family, lot of food, cars and other atractions, then nobody would want to go to war to fight if one have a lot. 
The problems might be dictatorships, if they don't care what people think and want. Dictators might send people to war just because they feel like it....
Democracy, economic prosperity, freedoms, free media are the key, I guess.

----------


## iapetoc

Yes only when 1 man is alive on planet,
or a global Junta
or all the world becomes muslim
or all the word speak chinese

yes that day will be global peace (or global warming?)

----------


## Antigone

Total peace is a lovely idea but is as unrealistic as wishing for utopia, I don't think it would be possible until humans have evolved further. Maybe in another thousand years or so but right now, no.

People are still intolerant, argumentative, aggressive, violent, selfish, racist, jealous, greedy and there are still those who are puffed up with their own self righteousness and would impose their ideas on others by force. The three main Abrahamic faiths would also need to be eradicated as they have been the main breeding ground for a majority of the unrest.

----------


## himagain

We human, as with other mammals, practice dominance and submission instinctively.
When a peaceful human mutation develops it will surely be marginalized or destroyed
outright by the overwhelmingly entrenched forces already in existence.

----------


## errantbit

Yes,when human race get extinguished.

----------


## Twilight

There will always be evil in this world, and when there is evil there is violence. We are human beings and that is what makes us special and imperfect, we can try to be perfect and pacifist though.

----------


## Tabaccus Maximus

> there are still those who are puffed up with their own self righteousness





> The three main Abrahamic faiths would also need to be eradicated



...with crew-served weapons and jack-booted infantry??  :Laughing:

----------


## Twilight

> Yes only when 1 man is alive on planet,
> or a global Junta
> or all the world becomes muslim
> or all the word speak chinese
> 
> yes that day will be global peace (or global warming?)



Yeah but the thing is is that we would need to be flexible with eachother because we humans are still capable of waging civil wars on eachother so I'm not sure if dominance is going to solve violence conpletely. And we would also need equal rights for all

----------


## toyomotor

I don't believe that the world will ever be free of violence and war. Human kind are greedy and vindictive. There are some who still want to prosecute wars for centuries old grudges. Others will always covet what someone else has got, take oil as a commodity of topic. As the worlds population increases the demand by some countries for more and more resources will increase and those resources will be taken by force from weaker countries. The annexation of Mongolia and Tibet years ago by China, using the rationale that those countries were originally Chinese or under Chinese control should not have been permitted by the world community-it sets the scene for what will inevitably happen over perhaps the next century. But this is only one example, there are others, and none of us is truly safe.

----------


## LeBrok

> I don't believe that the world will ever be free of violence and war. Human kind are greedy and vindictive. There are some who still want to prosecute wars for centuries old grudges. Others will always covet what someone else has got, take oil as a commodity of topic. As the worlds population increases the demand by some countries for more and more resources will increase and those resources will be taken by force from weaker countries. The annexation of Mongolia and Tibet years ago by China, using the rationale that those countries were originally Chinese or under Chinese control should not have been permitted by the world community-it sets the scene for what will inevitably happen over perhaps the next century. But this is only one example, there are others, and none of us is truly safe.


Did you notice that in recent decades we have fewer wars, especially interstate wars. Maybe because it is more to lose than gain these days from the war?
70 years ago we had WW2 in Europe, 60 million killed and everybody hated Germans. 60 years later we have European union with Germany giving their money away to help and develop poor members. What a turn around, wouldn't you say? On top of it the new and peaceful Europe is more prosperous than ever before.
I don't know about you but this real life examples give me understanding and hope for our future.

Don't worry about China, soon communists will relinquish power, this will make china democratic and free, which will give Tibet and few other provinces chance to separate. Unless they will see a big advantage to stay in Chinese Union for material benefits. Remember Soviet Union? Now we have Russia with some republics staying in federation.

Yes some of us are greedy and vindictive, but most are compassionate, friendly, loving and caring. And we have so much these days that it is not easy to go to the war and lose it.

----------


## toyomotor

LeBrok: Yes, I see what you mean but countries with huge populations (which continue to increase annually) and few resources will ultimately need to look elsewhere for resources which they need but can't probably afford. Don't forget, decisions to go to war are never made by the people, but by a small group of politicians, regardless of the public will. The USA is a good case in hand, it goes to war, unbidden by the population which then really has no alternative but to support its troops while condemning the war._ "Yes some of us are greedy and vindictive, but most are compassionate, friendly, loving and caring. And we have so much these days that it is not easy to go to the war and lose it._ " I'd like to think that was true, but history shows otherwise.

----------


## LeBrok

> LeBrok: Yes, I see what you mean but countries with huge populations (which continue to increase annually) and few resources will ultimately need to look elsewhere for resources which they need but can't probably afford. Don't forget, decisions to go to war are never made by the people, but by a small group of politicians, regardless of the public will. The USA is a good case in hand, it goes to war, unbidden by the population which then really has no alternative but to support its troops while condemning the war._ "Yes some of us are greedy and vindictive, but most are compassionate, friendly, loving and caring. And we have so much these days that it is not easy to go to the war and lose it._ " I'd like to think that was true, but history shows otherwise.


Yes, the limited resources can be the flaming point of future conflicts. However looking at Europe or other developed countries make me hope for the best. Europe got richer than ever before in its history and yet it got more peaceful at the same time. We are faster and faster inventing new technologies than we are running out of old ones. Denmark produces 1/3 of its electricity from wind already. Once we muster thermonuclear energy we will have almost unlimited energy. Solar power should become very efficient and affordable in 50 years too.

Looks like from end of Cold War world is quieting down.





http://www.systemicpeace.org/conflict.htm

----------


## toyomotor

*@LeBrok:* Latest News-China is relaxing it's One Child Policy, as it now finds itself in the position of not having sufficient people to fill the future work force requirements. Resource wise, I wonder how this will end up? I take your point on the decrease in Cold War friction and the expansion of renewable energy. But there also factors such as food production, already a major problem in some African countries. Agricultural technology is the obvious answer but it seems that not much, comparatively, is being done in this area. I think we should sideline space exploration for a while and concentrate on the existing problems on earth. What do you say?

----------


## LeBrok

> *@LeBrok:* But there also factors such as food production, already a major problem in some African countries. Agricultural technology is the obvious answer but it seems that not much, comparatively, is being done in this area.


Yes, this could be a major obstacle in world peace for decades to come. Seams like the food production is stretched to the limits these days but every year there are 80 million new faces to feed. The unfriendly political climate to GM foods is not helping to feed hungry either. All middle eastern revolutions were started by unhappy and hungry citizens. Imagine feeding your hungry family with a dollar a day when prices of rice tripled in last few years. We might not see peace much there in this region for many years to come.
And I'm usually the optimistic one.




> I think we should sideline space exploration for a while and concentrate on the existing problems on earth. What do you say?


I used to love reading sciencefiction and loved to see men in space. Now I say, screw the space, lol.
Well, I wouldn't mind sending little robotic missions to explore space for few million apiece. Instead we have spent 150 billion on international space station, and nothing interesting or benefiting came out of it.

----------


## LeBrok

Not much is happening at the moment, only domestic wars. Mostly about Taliban, Alqaeda and drugs.
Start of conflict
Conflict
Continent
Location
Cumulative fatalities
Fatalities in 2012
Fatalities in 2013

1964
Colombian conflict (1964–present)
South America
 Colombia
220,000-600,000[2][4]
4,692 (Insurgents killed in combat)[5]


1978
Conflict in Afghanistan (1978–present)
Asia
 Afghanistan
1,405,111-2,084,468[6][7][8][9][10]
8,398+[11][12]
144 (only coalition)[12]

1991
Somali Civil War
Africa
 Somalia
_ Somaliland_
500,000+[13][14]
2,620[15]
68+[16]

1992
Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen
Asia
 Yemen
3,711[17]
2,333[17]
81-98+[b]

2001
Islamist insurgency in Nigeria
Africa
 Nigeria
15,000+[18][19][20]
792+[21]
1,000-1,007+[c]

2004
War in North-West Pakistan
Asia
 Pakistan
49,921[22]
6,211[22]
4,784[22]

2006
Mexican Drug War
North America
 Mexico
110,000+[23][24]
18,161+ (by November)[25]
10,000+[26]

2009
Sudanese nomadic conflicts
Africa
 South Sudan
 Sudan
7,441[27][28][29]
3,200[27][28]
869+[_citation needed_]

2011
Syrian civil war
Asia
 Syria
120,300[30]
41,900[31]
35,000[_citation needed_]

2011
Inter and Intra-Sudanese conflicts
Africa
 South Sudan
 Sudan
4,900+[32]
1,119[32]
2,500+[33]

2011
Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal)
Asia
 Iraq
12,360 [34]
4,573 (civilians)[34]
7,400 (civilians)[35]

2013
Islamist protests in Egypt (July 2013–present)
Africa
 Egypt
1,182 [40]
-
1,182



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...rmed_conflicts

Less than 100 thousand people died from conflicts in 2013, out of 7 billion. That's one in 100,000, or 0.0001 percent, or about 300 a day. That's probably some sort of record for the peace on Earth.
To put it in perspective 3,000 people die from cars every day on this planet, that's 10 times more!

----------


## pacificbreeze

Yes i do believe )

----------


## Leandros

Pacifism is against Nature.
So, no, it will never happen

----------


## paul333

> I don't believe in a peaceful world as long as pirate states like the USA and the UK constantly are waging wars.



Short Memory, a lot of Americans and UK people fought a war, and were killed or wounded, to free your country, even stopped the war to drop you foods. There can be no pacifism Human Nature rules it out, look at 'Ants' been here millions of years, have war after war, we are no different, and not too far away genetically.

----------


## Salento

No, it will never happen. We are a Belligerent Specie.

----------


## LeBrok

There were times when provinces were fighting each other in every European country, or city against city. Domestic wars brewed every 5-10 years in every country. Now they are not!
There were times when countries fought each other constantly, and Europeans hated each other so much that they slaughtered 100 million people in 20th century alone! Not anymore.
Europe was never so united, cooperative, sharing, mixing, traveling, having fun, rich and helping like today.
Do you see this positive trend?

----------


## paul333

"Europe was never so united", seems cracks are appearing, ie most recently, the Spanish/Catalan issue, and Brexit. Germany is once again flexing its muscles, using a financial dominance of Europe programe, it seems, which will no doubt cause concerns again soon.

----------


## LeBrok

> "*Europe was never so united*", seems cracks are appearing, ie most recently, the Spanish/Catalan issue, and Brexit. Germany is once again flexing its muscles, using a financial dominance of Europe programe, it seems, which will no doubt cause concerns again soon.


Did you notice that this is a relative term? And in context to my full post, you should gather that I was compering Europe of the past centuries to today's Europe.

----------


## paul333

> Did you notice that this is a relative term? And in context to my full post, you should gather that I was compering Europe of the past centuries to today's Europe.


Europe is presently in a very difficult position, the closer we get to each other the bigger the risk becomes in my opinion. We are now preparing defence's as a guard against further Russian Agression, look today in the North East etc, 'Estonia' 'Poland', and look what is happening to Eastern Ukraine. It is only a few years since the Iron curtian was opened, where Europe was very much prepared for Nuclear War at short notice, against its European nieghbours.

It is mostly Nato, and its American componant, that has kept the peace in Europe, and they now have an insular ideology emerging, and NATO may be changing. I actually think Europe is in a historically similar position as it always is. 

There has aways been Allies within Europe, since recorded History, from against and for Julius Ceaser, to the present, the situation today is no different, in trying to keep the peace, we make alignments. The new player on the block is the Terrorism war now growing in Europe, which adds to the new dangers.Religeous devisions in Europe have grown significantly recently, and they are changing the face, and future, of Europe, and making Europe one of the most dangerous places on earth. In my present opinion, I cannot see Europe being a more peacefull place, quite the opposite, a more frightening and dangerous place, therefore I cannot see that one day there will be total pacifism especially in Europe, not in the forseeable future I feel.

----------


## timetraveller

Er...No, I don't think that's a case. Whenever there is inequality in benefits between 2 parties, there still be war, dispute, competition..
.

----------


## Mmiikkii

Yes, we could have peace.
Someone in the thread said that as long as there are 2 different people on Earth we'd have conflicts.
Conflicts, disagreements, differences... of course.
The wars we have now, no way. That thing has been dying in front of our own eyes. The reconciliation after WW2, the UN, and the Cold War never becoming a Hot war have been a blow to brute force it will never recover from.

Of course in the future we will have much more trouble. At some point, we'll start having serious wars again for sure(don't know exactly when).
To SOME extent everything is cyclical, there are periods of height, and decadence.
But on the other hand, time is mainly linear. Just because Rome fell and the early Middle Ages were the Dark Ages. That doesn't mean we were worse in terms of warfare after that period of turmoil. Christianity is not as barbaric and violent as the Romans were. That is only one example.

In the short term, the pessimistics of 'we'll always have war/armed peace', are right.
In the long term, they're absolutely wrong. In part because globalization has always make people very uniform, and eventually you run out of differences to fight over.

----------


## Eric Jenkins

Maybe someday it will happen, I really hope.

----------

