US Casualties in Iraq 2005: 846US Casualties in California 2005: 2,503 (but, they call it "murder" instead)PeaceCalifornia is more dangerous than being in the war.... 3 times as dangerous.

If you allow for the population difference there would have to be over 720,000 annual murders in California for it to be 3 times as dangerous as Iraq.

Brad's right, there will alway be conflict as long as there is compitition for resources.

Good news is this compitition will not always be there.

So unless we find some ET's to fight with there will eventually be peace on earth.

Or, what about being killed during a robbery? Or being killed while being car jacked? These types of murders happen every day- they just happen more frequently in big cities due to larger populations

US population right now?? Say ..... 260million. Let say one person was murdered every minute whilst you slept at night. Lets assume you are sleepy head, call it nine hours - 540 dead. But, 99.9998% of the population managed to make it through the night. At the same rate throughout the year 197,100 dead, but 99.92% still managed to survive the "carnage" - albeit at that rate no politician would.

Stats can prove black is in fact white if you work at it. At the end of the day the US is a big place, any reporter / newsteam that cant find a murder needs firing, and drama/death sells papers and boosts viewing figures - sad though those facts are - so they go looking for trouble, and nearly always just show trouble. As a teenager most of us went through the "World Peace" phase actually believeing it could happen, solutions seemed so simple. Later we found out that human nature gets in the way, dang reality. Thats life, it will not change, you just need to change the mindset. If you look for trouble its easy to find.

My general take on life is "Plan for the worst, Hope for the best" - I get cheerfull about the 99.92% odds, not spend my life chewing fingernails about the .08% odds - even the bookies will not quote you odds on it, and if thats not a clincher, nothing is.

We passed 300m last October.

oops   

Good news is this compitition will not always be there. So unless we find some ET's to fight with there will eventually be peace on earth.

I think you are quite wrong.  We might not always be at war with another country, but we have plenty of war on our own soil.  If we can't figure out how to keep people from killing each other over drugs, money, possessions, etc., then how will there ever be "world" peace.  I'd settle for "country" peace, personally, but that will never happen, either.

US population right now?? Say ..... 260million. Let say one person was murdered every minute whilst you slept at night. Lets assume you are sleepy head, call it nine hours - 540 dead. But, 99.9998% of the population managed to make it through the night. At the same rate throughout the year 197,100 dead, but 99.92% still managed to survive the "carnage" - albeit at that rate no politician would.

Actual population for America in 2005: 296,410,404   Murders: 16,692 (that doesn't include violent crime or the people who lived after attempted murder).  Violent crime was: 1,390,695.  almost 1.4 million Americans experience violent crime in 2005.  Sorry, but I don't care what the population is- that is still unacceptable.

If we can't teach our own civilians to respect life, then how are we supposed to help the rest of the world?

 

 

 

 

There has never been peace of this little planet for as long as people have walked it. I don't believe it (violence) has grown worse, it just hasn't gone away. It's a fact of life and always has been.

In order to achieve true peace of the type you write about, one would have to change the core nature of the human being, and that's not likely to happen.

Honestly, almost all of the Man's achievements are a direct result of this same violent nature. Civilization itself came about largely due to people's need to band together for protection. Agriculture grew out this as they had to find better ways to feed these new large groups (tribes, cities, whatever you care to call them). A huge part of our technology grew out of finding better ways to defend ourselves and kill the 'other guys'. In one manner of thought, if we weren't violent by nature we could very well still be living in Stone Age conditions and wouldn't be having this 'conversation' in cyberspace.

I see this article as questioning the peace that many seem to use as the foundation over how we, as people, deal with the problems of the world. Every time someone complains about how a country treats its citizen, for example, the complaint is based on how the world should be, at peace. It’s never about how it can be based on the reality of life, as best as it can be. In other words to accept that the world is never gonna be perfect.

As Draginol put it, as long as someone wants what someone else has, there can never be that peace Darmagirl speaks of on this article. But all of our complaints are basically based on the idea of the same peace that Darmagirl speaks of but is not possible. (Theoretically speaking) When someone says they want everyone to live in a house and a statistic is done to see how many people don’t live a house and come to find that 5% of the population does not live in a house. There will be an outcry based on this peace (universal happiness) Darmagirl speaks of. But what if these 5% don’t live in a house by choice? What if they like sleeping outdoors, on the streets, in a hotel or apartment? Because of this there can never be peace because someone will never be happy, even if they want to live outside a house someone will complain we have 5% of our population not living in a house and something needs to be done.

I think there are 2 kinds of peace:

1) The one Darmagirl is talking about. A world were we all get along, no wars, no selfishness, love and joy. Like something out of that Star Trek episode where they went to a planet where everyone was happy, they all lived to make each other happy (by any mean) and crime barely existed. A utopia you can say.

2) Peace from within. A peace that satisfies you. Where it’s good enough and it makes you happy enough. I believe basically what LW was trying to say.

I dont deny it, but your odds for surviving murder just shot up to 99.994%, and your figures mean 99.53% dont suffer from violence. As for the rest of the world, you dont want to know the odds out of 6.7Billion.

I understand where you are coming from, but mentally falling on a sword over it is not going to resolve it, it just means you waste your existence in a cloud of depression. We should not ignore it, thats for sure, but by the same token you are allowing the morons who cause it all to gain even more from it - your unhappiness.

You cant solve the worlds problems, never happen, just give it your best shot and accept that some things can never be solved no matter how deep the feeling on it. Be happy you are one of the 99.53%, and be content you are one of those rare people who really do care.

Just dont wreck your own life doing it ....

 

There will be an outcry based on this peace (universal happiness) Darmagirl speaks of. But what if these 5% don’t live in a house by choice?

Not exactly a comparison.  Do any of the people who have been murdered (either on US soil, or in war) do so because they chose to?  Being homeless may be peaceful to some people.  Being murdered, or being a victim of violent crime is never peaceful.

1) The one Darmagirl is talking about. A world were we all get along, no wars, no selfishness, love and joy. Like something out of that Star Trek episode where they went to a planet where everyone was happy, they all lived to make each other happy (by any mean) and crime barely existed. A utopia you can say.

First, you are confusing my with Dharmagrl (we're not quite the same )

I'm not talking about Utopia.  I am talking about the fact that you can live the most peaceful existence, not harm anyone, yet some ass who has no value on life can step in and ruin it.  Until humans become more civilized, then "peace" will not exist.  On a World view, if we can't even become more civilized here in the US, how are we to expect the less civilized countries to quit killing each other?

but mentally falling on a sword over it is not going to resolve it, it just means you waste your existence in a cloud of depression. We should not ignore it, thats for sure, but by the same token you are allowing the morons who cause it all to gain even more from it - your unhappiness.

This article has nothing to do with my life or mental state.  I can assure you that the people who actually know me know that I am happy with my life and the way I live. 

I'm starting to feel like people think it's "OK" that human nature is so violent.  OK, maybe that's the way it will always be.  If so, it just proves that "peace" is just a concept.

 

In an absolute sense of absolute peace and perfection, Frankly yes, there will always be "violence".

That doesnt mean to say its "ok" to be violent, nor that people accept its "ok", because it sure isnt. Just because someone pragmatically accepts that violence to one degree or another will always exist, does not mean they wouldnt like peace, desire it, and fight for it. Not to do so would be heading for Armagedeon.

Its just a simple fact of life - wishing for something dont make it so, doing does, and even then it may not happen.

Its Life - anyone clinging to a High School concept of World Peace is going to meet those nice young men in their clean white coats pretty quickly ....

Questions: How does me being peaceful cause others to be so?  How do you "fight" for peace? 

So, is world peace ever possible?

I take your point - delete fight, insert "strive" - the effect is the same.



No.

As to why in that case call it "peace", your right it is an unobtainable concept in an absolute sense, but still valid even though its not attainable to perfection. In life the best challenges, goals (etc) as those just out of reach, but theoretically worth achieving. The fact you will never get their, doesnt make the concept invalid. Life is full of anomalies, it will never be black and white, clear cut etc.

Drill down further is real head banging, and people have sat on top of mountains for thousands of years trying to work it out, and still not got there, because like the definition of Pye, its infinite, there isnt one.

At that point its over to the Zen Buddist ... I am too simple a soul to go there   

oops missed one


Thats the cornerstone of leadership - leadership by example. It does not only apply to Leaders. Its arguable we are products of our environment, and our values are to a great degree set by that environment ie Culture. If that environment strives for peace, you are likely to follow that example as its the only one you have known.

Drill down on that with the Buddist   

I enjoyed reading your article, Karmagirl...as well as all the comments.

Let's start with peace in our own home. The home, our haven, should be a place of peace for all those who live there and for all those who visit.

I wasn't trying to compare them as one being violent and not the other but that we see things as wrong based on the idea of a perfect world, what the world should be like when in reality we can only strive to reach the best possible world, 99.99% you can say. Which would mean that people may still die due to murder but it would be maybe 1 here and there and most likely we will catch the criminal possibly 99.99% of the time.

Same as people in houses, we can not strive for 100% of people living in a house when 5% are ok with living outdoors. But a statistic will still show 5% people not living in a house and some may see this as a bad thing even though they may not know it's by choice and not by not providing help.

Sorry I was not more specific. Hope I made more sense this time.