The Plan For World Peace?

[14Heisenberg4]

Whoa, dude.  That's...intense.  While I get the frustration with gun violence, your plan is, let's just say, a tad extreme.  Even if it were possible (which it absolutely isn't), the societal upheaval would be catastrophic.  We need better solutions, not a global, medieval-style disarmament.  Maybe focus on less...dramatic approaches?

[7531Leonidas]

On 12/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, MatSpikeYinsen said:

Each of our causes for conflict could be solved, and we'd have nothing to fight about.

Each of the 1.0x10^12 sources?  (Estimated)

On 12/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, MatSpikeYinsen said:

if I identify the things we need to remove, people who like those things will fight to prevent their removal

If WHOM identifies?  Who made you God?

On 12/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, MatSpikeYinsen said:

if people have enough food to eat

Again whom decides what is enough?

On 12/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, MatSpikeYinsen said:

someone to satisfy their need for love

Oh, so the polyamorous among us will be some of those removed?

On 12/1/2024 at 7:29 PM, MatSpikeYinsen said:

and no ideological conflicts to pointlessly fight over

The only way to achieve this is to have a world population of one...  Humans are individuals.

[MatSpikeYinsen]

On 1/4/2025 at 8:31 AM, HeyYou said:

No we won't. There will always be those that want something someone else has, be it land, wealth, resources, or something else, that is willing to use force to get what they want. Violence IS in our nature, and that is not going to change. At least, not in the foreseeable future.

I can forsee a lot more than most.

On 1/4/2025 at 11:50 AM, 7531Leonidas said:

Each of the 1.0x10^12 sources?  (Estimated)

If WHOM identifies?  Who made you God?

Again whom decides what is enough?

Oh, so the polyamorous among us will be some of those removed?

The only way to achieve this is to have a world population of one...  Humans are individuals.

1.  Yes

2.  If I were God, I'd have done a better job than has obviously been done.

3.  Qualified nutritionists.

4.  Strawman harder.  Me saying everyone should have "someone" to love does not prohibit them from having multiple someones.  I'm skeptical of how many people can responsibly engage in polyamory, I think it's generally not the wisest of ideas, but I absolutely never said or implied that it was disallowed.

5.  Humans are less individualistic than they like to think they are.  It's a fetish for everyone to try and prove themselves unique, yet they reliably make similar choices in similar situations across huge demographic categories.  If a sufficiently beneficial system is put in place, the majority of people will get onboard, and detractors will either be dragged along or just left out in the proverbial cold, either way producing similar results.

[HeyYou]

The majority..... And therein lies the problem. There will ALWAYS be those that don't like the current system, and think their ideas are better. They will draw others to their cause, and then try and implement THEIR system, by force, if necessary.... (and it usually is....)

 

World Peace is a pipe dream. It will never happen. So long as there is religion, and politics, there will be no peace.