Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Showerthoughts_Mod t1_j6kzldj wrote

This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.

Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"

(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)

Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.

1

eeeeeeeeEeeEEeeeE6 t1_j6kzvnr wrote

I mean, slipping on a banana peel, falling backwards into a cab, tumbling out at an airport, sliding backwards into a plane, flying to Russia, falling out of the plain, and landing dick first in Putin's mouth is technically not impossible too, doesn't make it likely.

185

yax51 t1_j6kzzzh wrote

The only way you'll have world peace is if all the humans are dead

39

mvnnyvevwofrb t1_j6l0tqo wrote

It's not because people are selfish. And through selfishness, they become evil. And this will always be the case, as long as humans exist.

3

phatspatt t1_j6l2075 wrote

fastest way to world peace is alien invasion. us or them amiright?

5

aap1015_ t1_j6l2gfp wrote

Not sure man, humans have greed— desire for me. Look back in history. Khan didn’t stop conquering more land, bro was being greedy.

1

SpecialistAd5537 t1_j6l6g48 wrote

I disagree, world peace is impossible because we have set our entire society around it not being viable. Say tomorrow world peace was achieved, million of people from lawyers, and police, to doctors and physicians would be out of work. Nevermind the sporting industry. If you mean peace as in no major conflict between nations, then I'd change my position.

3

IndianRedditor88 t1_j6l73ir wrote

Nope

Because what's okay for me may not be okay for others.

That's where the problem is.

10

flashingathena t1_j6l868z wrote

Agreed. There are so many things we're capable of doing in terms of diplomacy and cooperation but people give up before even trying or even thinking about trying.

  1. The ICC (Intl Criminal Court, which prosecutes crimes against humanity and war crimes, is a great tool for peace, and that's the spirit in which it was conceived. If the major world powers (namely the U.S., China, and Russia) recognized its jurisdiction, we could go after bad individuals and groups instead of going to war with entire countries.

  2. The U.N. was also created for the primary purpose of keeping peace, intervening in conflicts, and finding diplomatic solutions to problems. But the Security Council is always deadlocked and can hardly take action on any intl conflict because, again, the world powers who are the controlling, permanent members (the U.S., China, Russia, plus the U.K. and France) each have veto power and block any resolution the "opposing side" (Russia-China vs. U.S.-U.K. typically) suggests. It's stopped the U.N. from intervening in Syria and Ukraine, most recently.

  3. We can cooperate on environmental issues and resources NOW instead of waiting until there's a conflict and going to war. We can plan and take action together. There's so much potential here for this sort of "preemptive cooperation" A term I made up, I think?? And I don't even care if a think tank steals it! I flatter myself but anyway, this isn't actually my original idea but the idea of a guy, an Iraqi environmental engineer whose name escapes me, who brought the Iraqi marshes back from the brink of extinction.

  • One problem is, peace is boring.
10

IIIMjolnirIII t1_j6l907f wrote

Technically achievable, yes. Likely achievable, probably not. As long as there are finite resources, there will be conflicts, from the individual level, all the way up to the level of nations.

51

phunkjnky t1_j6ldm6m wrote

The same logic says that it’s not impossible that all tax returns this year will be 100% legit.

Well, yeah, it’s possible… As is the 27 pitch complete game. That’s not the same as achievable, or even reasonable.

3

TheJuda2112 t1_j6lg8yv wrote

Replying to IIIMjolnirIII (#1,641,464)

Yes there are finite resources, but there are still more than enough finite resources for absolutely everyone to have an abundance of them, there's enough food, oil, shelter and luxuries that each person could live comfortably and without worry. However like you said, human greed is probably the worst thing that can happen in society

13

SlackerNinja717 t1_j6lhski wrote

Not good business for the military industrial complex, though.

2

IIIMjolnirIII t1_j6linio wrote

Replying to TheJuda2112 (#1,643,722)

I'm not of the opinion that greed alone is bad. Without it life would be miserable.
But there does seem to be a type of short sighted, self serving greed that I think is without merit.

I can get $100 by working for a few hours, or I can get $100 by robbing someone. Both actions are motivated by greed, but one moves the world forward, and one moves the world backwards.

8

TheJuda2112 t1_j6liycs wrote

Replying to IIIMjolnirIII (#1,644,522)

I can agree with this, however I would add rational greed to other as well, each person might be motivated by greed in some way, shape, or form but if you have enough rational thought to see when your greed is being harmful instead of helpful. That line seems to be crossed too easily by too many people

1

lenthech1ne t1_j6lje27 wrote

theres not a single thing in this world that every single individual can agree upon. not even when it comes to something as trivial as if a song is good. (seriously, someone would try to convince you coldplays Viva La Vida isnt a killer song)

the only universe where world peace exists is within a global dictatorship.

2

Lets-Go-Fly-ers t1_j6lmrdp wrote

I completely agree. All it takes is multiple nukes going off leading to nuclear winter. Boom! World peace.

2

ExNihiloish t1_j6lmvc4 wrote

Replying to IIIMjolnirIII (#1,644,522)

I work for money, not out of greed but for self preservation. Unfortunately I can't live too well without it. I don't have the skills to survive and don't believe myself capable of obtaining them before my untimely demise.

4

Moerdac t1_j6lmywd wrote

One way or another it will happen. With enough conflict there won't be enough left to disagree with each other.

2

Ginandexhaustion t1_j6lnxw5 wrote

Replying to teabagmoustache (#1,639,281)

Why would you think it’s not impossible?

Since the dawn of civilization, war has pretty much been a constant. Thousands and thousands of years of history and it’s never been done.

Everything history has told us indicates that violence and war are an inherent part of the human condition.

World peace may be obtainable, but you are looking at the wrong species to accomplish that.

0

Ginandexhaustion t1_j6lp185 wrote

Replying to teabagmoustache (#1,640,826)

So you attain world peace, everyone is living in harmony. Weapons serve no purpose and are disposed Of.

Then Kang and Kodos land and conquer the planet with a two by four with a nail in it.

And now we’re all slaves to aliens.

Thanks John Lennon.

−1

PaxNova t1_j6lpt2r wrote

The only way to achieve peace is to give up on justice. Most fights are about something believed owed, or taken.

2

GraffitiTurtle t1_j6lr7ch wrote

Replying to Ginandexhaustion (#1,646,541)

One could argue that certain species of animals sometimes go to war with each other or different species altogether (examples of the top of my head that I can recall are chimpanzees and crows), but it really depends on how you want to define it. It’s certainly more complicated than people would like to believe. But peace could absolutely exist without people, why do you think species learned to coexist before humans came around?

3

dale1320 t1_j6luyng wrote

Methinks you are more likely to experience whirled peas than world peace.

7

D34TH_5MURF__ t1_j6lwktb wrote

Sure, all you have to do is get rid of religion, nationalism, class warfare, and anything else humans use to devalue, control, and dehumanize other human beings.

1

Cornflake6irl t1_j6lwr06 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,646,552)

How do you eliminate different views? If you hold the beliefs of those eliminating different views you might think you'll have peace, but those whose views you try to eliminate are only thinking about eliminating you. You are in the delusion of peace until reality fucks you up.

2

Cornflake6irl t1_j6lxhm1 wrote

Replying to lenthech1ne (#1,649,042)

Wrong. There will never be no conflict within government and we've had plenty of dictators to pose as examples as to why dictatorship is regressive. No one man or woman can make decisions for the entirety of civilization.

0

FrosttheVII t1_j6ly4pb wrote

The main reason things don't get fixed is because people high up in the social/financial ladder make money off of things being broken or causing malfunctions.

1

eggtart_prince t1_j6lycea wrote

Think of it at a smaller scale. We can't even achieve peace in a small community, city, or locality, never mind the entire world.

5

cnicalsinistaminista t1_j6m1dx6 wrote

Replying to teabagmoustache (#1,639,657)

It's impossible, improbable, and very highly unlikely. We Humans are bastards and will continue being bastards until our robot/alien overlords enslave us all. People have always had selfish vested interests in things. Just like how lions and hyenas and leopards are in competition for food in the wild, it's ingrained in us. Survival of the fittest. Natural selection and stuff. For world peace to occur, every single person has to change their perspective and be more accomodating. What's the probability of that happening? As long as there has been things that happened before and people remember them, there will always be strife.

The best example of this is something I might have read or heard somewhere.. someone said if White Supremacists had their way and absolutely eradicated all black people, the hate wouldn't stop there. Then it'd be "your hair is dark and your eyes aren't blue, you are not truly white." It's a nice thought but would never happen.

0

Samih420 t1_j6m3f2z wrote

Replying to IndianRedditor88 (#1,640,912)

I think everyone would stop having conflicts if they knew it would lead to world peace, but they know that preventing one conflict won't stop all of them, so they continue to have them. It's like helping the environment. If one person was in charge of all pollution's and you told them that if they were to stop, then global warming would end, they would stop. But let's be real, one more person recycling their water bottles, isn't going to save the world, hence why it isn't such a big thing.

2

tximinoman t1_j6m598r wrote

Most world issues are "easily" fixable, and they don't get fixed, not because we don't know how to do it, but because the people who could fix them don't want to.

Wether it is because of idiotic politicians that want to protect their power or sociopathic businessmen who don't want to lose money, at the end of the day there's always that one asshole who ruins it for the rest of us.

1

out2seeagain t1_j6m5ktq wrote

The first problem that we have, are the filthy rich people that have say over our lives, even though they are completely disconnected from the normal life realities that we all face, and frankly they don’t give a shit.

1

TheRomanRuler t1_j6m5pwm wrote

Well its certainly possible to have a situation where there are no "hot wars" anywhere at any one time. May be possible to have situation where for a while you also don't have colder/more limited conflicts. But its impossible to prevent that there would any wars forever. Wars would ignite sooner or later.

But can we have 100 years of no hot wars between nations? Eventually yes. Can we have 100 years of no cold wars? Not for ages, if ever.

2

SoggyCuticles t1_j6m61z9 wrote

You have probably have an astronomically higher chance of winning the lottery tomorrow than achieving world peace

2

Conscious-Ball8373 t1_j6m7o2l wrote

This is logically incoherent. It's just saying that we'll ignore all the reasons world peace is impossible because they're part of the world not being peaceful. We could just as well say that it's possible for humans to fly by flapping their wings - all the reasons why it's impossible are part of humans not flying.

4

Oblivious_Shanks t1_j6m8iw3 wrote

The only way this is achievable is by having a 1 world government.

1

TaxFraudDaily t1_j6m8sq9 wrote

Things need to be yin and yang, I don't think people realize this. A perfectly peaceful world would be flawed in it's own way. The things you would have to do to create such a world would make it one not worth living in anyway, so what's the point? The world isn't perfect and that's fine.

1

Burstar1 t1_j6m90mh wrote

An interesting thought, but what I find more interesting is how strongly opposed it has been. For me, the furor of the debate has been more eye opening than the instigating technically true statement.

2

Timetraveler01110101 t1_j6ma2n1 wrote

There are more solutions to ever problem than there are possible problems. Unity is only being held back by the greed of the ultra wealthy.

1

ButFez_Isaidgoodday t1_j6mafmu wrote

You're not wrong, but it's kind of a moot point, as we've been fighting since forever. Someone recently said to me 'There would be no war if everyone stopped fighting'. Whether peace is technically possible is not the issue, the problem is that there is no practical plan on how to achieve it.

1

Leggi11 t1_j6mbx1h wrote

Replying to Paranormalishh_ (#1,648,155)

This showerthought is interesting at least.. most are just fucking stupid. I disagree with this thought but I would not say it's wrong like so many other posts in this sub are. It's just reddit and redditors.

1

LifestylePoet t1_j6mcli3 wrote

The more you educate yourself on the topic the more hopeless it actually is. It’s sometimes nice to be naive

1

TexasTokyo t1_j6mcnza wrote

“Beware the beast Man, for he is the Devil’s pawn. Alone among God’s primates, he kills for sport or lust or greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother’s land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him; drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of death.”

1

Jedi5676 t1_j6mde1p wrote

If you deny all the reasons against it... yeah, anything is possible. the fact is that the reasons against it exist and therefore it will never be possible. There are way too many different thoughts and groups in the world to achieve world peace, especially nowadays with social media. There will always be conflict. The best we can hope for is tolerance for other cultures and trying to do good to our cultural standards imo

1

ArchinaTGL t1_j6mdy6d wrote

In a perfect world, yes. World peace can be achieved. However the impossible factor isn't due to a lack of cooperation yet because humans exist on the planet. We're hard wired to be greedy and are tempted to exploit things when the opportunity arises. It's why every tribe from ancient times that were nice to others were wiped out as greedy tribes saw their kindness as weakness and exploited it by invading them before they had a chance to build defences. So the only ones left to pass on their genes were the greedy humans.

It sucks but that's just how we are and chances are always will be.

1

ARAR1 t1_j6me9jp wrote

Not achievable;e due to human nature. We don't fight because someone invented it. We fight because that is who we are.

1

rilles94 t1_j6meafs wrote

Whats your definition of world peace?

No international wars? No civil wars? No interpersonal conflicts? No gang violence? Economic warfare?

2

flashingathena t1_j6meg0t wrote

Replying to smileymn (#1,646,157)

Well, I'm American. The U.S. public needs to insist. Personally, I am beyond disgusted by my country's meddling and shady deals and pouring arms into conflicts. When it comes to Ukraine, maybe we have to, I don't know, but there are a lot of conflicts that we should never have been involved in. I think the US public is, unfortunately, underinformed about a lot of bad actions of some of our government and military leaders. If more people were made aware, especially young people, there might be more support for cooperating with the ICC.

Edited to add...I know I'm being optimistic about my fellow Americans.

Edited again to add... what's with the downvote? Tell what's wrong with what I said. I'm trying to be nuanced yet optimistic here.

0

Bigbadbobbyc t1_j6mesty wrote

Replying to Ginandexhaustion (#1,646,285)

Hence the technically impossible

Theoretically it's possible, just keep removing human problems until it becomes possible, remove religion, remove social class unhappiness, remove starvation, remove financial burdens and so on until everybody is happy, this isn't impossible if humanity either all got on the same page or a great war wipes out a huge amount of the population, it's just never going to happen

In theory it's possible because it's entirely based around human element that humans if they so choose can deal with

In reality its just not going to happen, even if you could solve a few of the problems there will always be somebody around to ruin it, humans just aren't capable of all coming into agreement

2

Vaeldyn t1_j6mfri3 wrote

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but no it is not at all. Literally every plan to achieve something is tainted by the perception of the one making the plan. So he/she will naturally not take every possible human reaction into account.

So without a forceful silencing of those who oppose world peace it is not possible. It is against human nature even, because almost everyone is susceptibal to corruption of mind.

While it is a nice thought, it will always fail because not all humans are going to align.

1

GiveMeRoom t1_j6mhu25 wrote

For as long as religion and multiculturalism exists we can never truly have a peaceful world where everyone co-exists peacefully.

1

LazerWolfe53 t1_j6mhwfb wrote

Ending air pollution is even more achievable and would save even more lives. Dream bigger!

1

Coraiah t1_j6mizpx wrote

War is driven by religion, ego or both. That’s why we can have world peace.

1

black-fuse t1_j6mjac2 wrote

Even if all human conflicts stop, I don't think the western antigen ants are willing to stop their war with the fire ants just because a giant spoke at it in a language it doesn't understand

1

Shreddersson t1_j6mm7qt wrote

When you give 8 billion idiots rights and let them have opinions it becomes impossible.

Alien X couldnt move because of two beings dissagreing lets think about 8 billion

0

0K4M1 t1_j6mqhbt wrote

Oh sure like world anger and war and wealth / inequality... it's just a matter of time. Wait for humankind disappearing and it will happen in no time

0

Ginandexhaustion t1_j6mztl1 wrote

Replying to GraffitiTurtle (#1,647,314)

Species don’t learn to coexist, natural selection takes care of that.

Again, it’s not peace, because peace is a human concept. Therefore peace couldn’t exist without humans. What you are talking about is existence, a fully balanced eco system.

And the lion will still eat the gazelle and male butterflys will still force themselves on the females, so many of them die during sex. Doesn’t make it war. A clownfish coexisting with an anemone is not peace, it’s evolution.

Peace is a decision. But it only works if everyone decides on the same thing

0

Paranormalishh_ t1_j6olfg8 wrote

Replying to Leggi11 (#1,652,869)

Yeah, not all shower thoughts are intelligent, like the one ppl repost "if ketchup is a fruit does that make it a smoothie?" there's an obvious, logical answer but in theory it could be the latter ig? Just like this thought suggests

1

flashingathena t1_j6orkti wrote

Replying to eggtart_prince (#1,649,372)

Conflict is different than wars fought with horrendous weapons that can destroy the environment and wipe whole civilizations out. Conflict will always exist, yes. That doesn't mean that we have to have catastrophic wars or wars at all.

It's really getting under my skin that people are misconstruing what OP is saying though I think they probably know better if they think about it. It's like you're being deliberately obtuse.

1

flashingathena t1_j6osbn2 wrote

Why was this post deleted? And why do people act like war is a given? Conflict is a given, yes. Not war.

1