World Peace: A Perfect Day?

Posted: April 8, 2011 in Uncategorized

I was thinking about the naive people who wish for “world-peace” and other things along those lines. I have always tried to give examples of what is wrong with that ideology. Then I was thinking about animals…

What do people admire about a cheetah? Its agility speed & its spots.

Think of the beauty of a turtle. It is protected by its shell. Imagine a turtle with out its shell, creepy eh?

Think about traits of many animals. They have those differences due to survival, from their environment, or from predators.

Even a nut has a shell to protect the contents. Everything has some form of protection, defense, camouflage.

If food sources did not have shells to crack, competition to fight off, if food was constant and available. There would be no need for speed, agility, strength, cunning, etc. Add that creatures would all be the same, since there would be no need for differences (which exist for survival). All things unique, beautiful, “ugly” or otherwise would have no point or purpose.

Sex would be another thing that would have no point or purpose, since such a difference would cease to exist if there was a completely equal playing field. Sex is another thing that causes conflict, in order to build on the best genetics, strengths of a species.

Any form of carnivore or omnivore or even herbivore would also need to be eliminated, since that would be a source of conflict.

What would be left? Basically the world would be nothing much more than a fungus, mold, algae, bacteria and a several other asexual organisms.

Meet World Peace:

Yes world peace would be a world with out people, but also with out animals, insects and a significant amount of plant life. Even plants have a point of survival. Many plants need water, and space.. and insects.

So for those who want world peace, a world without differences and or conflict, think about what that truly means. Think on other levels like the point of art, and creativity.. if there is no pain there is no joy, if there is no joy or pain there is nothing to inspire art, song, books, movies.. the world would be nothing more than one gray tone, with a din of silence, empty of emotion, empty of achievement, empty of love and desire. Just as there can not be joy with out pain, there can not be love. Everything that has ever existed, developed, created, achieved has been based on love or desire of one kind or another. it was a point of survival, a point of competition, a point of achievement, or point of need. There has always been a point to all things, good or bad. When we have wars we develop more technology, we have advances in medicine.. why? because there was a need. Why did we have wars? because of desire, want, or will.

If life is void of those desires, the only point of existence would be based on decomposition (ie a mold or fungus, etc). BUT.. yet again if there is nothing to decompose, there is also no point to a fungus or mold. Ahh the circle of life. Every facet has a point and purpose, with out one element all others cease to exist.

  1. bob says:

    Such is the yin and yang of life. The Chinese understood this concept many centuries ago. Opposites only exist in relation to each other.

    I think only shallow people think things like world peace would solve problems. They look at the world and assign their moral value to things. War is evil, peace is good. But where is good without evil. And can’t conflict be good? People who search for world peace or a pristene environment, etc. have no understanding of the world, physical or metaphysical.

    • gypsy says:

      Bob definitely the yin/yang.. and sadly people forget this logic, they ignore it. Ignorance is the doom of society.

      Now as far as “world-peace” people.. I do see it as more as a naïveté. I think their perspective could be adapted if they were taken out of their bubble.

      A perfect example of naïveté is Obama.. it may be a political ploy that he used to get elected.. but I do think he suffers from a shielded and protected life. In just 2 years he switched gears from being against Gitmo & war.. to leaving Gitmo as is, and starting war. So either he always had that intent, or he has seen new reality? tough call, and remains to be revealed.. but good grief I hope we don’t get saddled with him for 4 more years.. or any other inept, inexperienced, naïve.. poor excuse for someone who is supposed to be leading our country.

  2. bob says:

    It’s naivete. He couldn’t close Gitmo for real because he found out that in the real world there was no alternative to the camp. As far as war goes, his initial alternative would have been to leave the countries. Once elected, reality hit him in the face and he realized the mess that would create and he was not prepared to have that as his legacy so went along. He is all about his image and legacy. He is not about policy or leadership.

    • gypsy says:

      “he is not about policy or leadership” so true!

      Image is definitely his only focus.. though the reality slap sure is jarring, i am shocked he opted for re-election, but I think that too is a “save-face” measure.. he feels if he bails out on his own it will prove to his followers that he realized he could not do the job, but if they is not re-elected he will spin it to something else..

      sigh.. sigh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s