World peace

From Free net encyclopedia

World peace is a future ideal of freedom, peace and happiness among and within all nations.

1 History
2 Assessment
3 The democratic peace theory
4 Cobdenism
5 Mutual assured destruction
6 World government
7 Self-Organized Peace
8 See also
9 External links
10 Notes

History

Some historians identify a long-term trend where nation-states stop fighting and become united. For example, old Europe with wars culminating in World War I and World War II, compared with the European Union; warring Chinese states compared with the modern Chinese nation. Certain historians theorize that the whole world will eventually follow this pattern as well.

Dr. Frank Laubach, an American missionary to the Philippines in 1935 saw poverty, injustice and illiteracy as impediments to world peace. He developed the "Each One Teach One" literacy program which taught about 60 million people to read in their own language.

World peace is often claimed to be the inevitable result of some political ideology. Thus, communist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace, and neoliberal thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama assumed that the rise of liberal democracy will inevitably lead to the "end of history".

The plausibility of world peace tacitly relies on the assumption of rational agents that base their decisions on future consequences, which is not self-evident. Bertrand Russell once expressed his scepticism regarding world peace:

After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, I believe is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.¹

[edit]

Assessment

Whether world peace is achievable or not depends on what exactly we mean by it.

The utopian ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all sentient beings) is seen by some as highly improbable, due to the wide range of behaviour and personal circumstances that exist. Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the individuality that makes us human.

Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of conflicts. If we only include armed conflicts, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for that). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like trade conflicts or border disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.

Even if world peace (in whatever sense it is taken) is unachievable, this does not imply that striving for it is not a worthy (personal) goal. In this sense (and others), it is much like perfection.

[edit]

The democratic peace theory

Proponents of the controversial democratic peace theory claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies almost never make war against each other (with certain exceptions, such as Britain's declaration of war with Finland in December 1941). An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution. A world peace may thus become possible if this trend continues and if the democratic peace theory is correct. However, while democracies never seem to wage war on one another, they seem to find it necessary to wage war on other non-democracies, due to security issues.

[edit]

Cobdenism

Proponents of Cobdenism claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars. A simplified way of putting it is that if one country produces firearms and weapons parts and the other ammunition, they cannot fight one another, for the first nation will run out of ammunition, the second will run out of servible weapons. Critics argue that free trade does not prevent a nation from establishing some sort of emergency plan to become temporarily self-sufficient in case of war.

[edit]

Mutual assured destruction

It has been noted that the number of deaths due to wars between nations as a fraction of world population has declined dramatically since the development of atomic weapons. Proponents of the policy of mutual assured destruction during the cold war attributed this to the increase in the lethality of war to the point where it no longer offers the possibility of a net gain for either side.

[edit]

World government

There are many different kinds of world governments that have been proposed. An argument often brought up in support of world government is that such an institution could have the power to prevent wars and establish world peace. Critics tend to focus on the question of whether world peace under the authority of a single government is a desirable goal.

[edit]

Self-Organized Peace

World Peace as seen as a consequence of local self-determined behaviours which inhibit the institutionalisation of power and subsequent violence. The solution is not so much based on an agreed agenda, let alone investment in higher authority whether divine or political, but rather a network of self-supporting mechanisms whose emergent property is a sustainable politico-economic social fabric. Such a realisation can only be brought about through mutual future projections by all participating subjectivities, and is similar in significant ways to the formation and maintenance of this wikipedia.

[edit]