World Peace is a Terrible Idea

World Peace is a Terrible Idea

Every pageant princess since the dawn of time has spouted off that she would like nothing more than to live on a planet with world peace, but world peace isn’t all that great of an idea. In fact, it’s a terrible idea. For the purposes of this analysis, let’s go textbook with this and say that “world peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations and/or people. It is an idea of planetary non-violence by which nations willingly cooperate, either voluntarily or by virtue of a system of governance that prevents warfare.” Sound charming, but the effects of world peace would be completely disastrous.

1. Massive Unemployment: In the United States alone, there are currently about 2.7 million people employed within the military, both active and reserve. The military is the US’s largest jobs provider. Presumably in order to obtain world peace these individuals would be employed briefly in the destruction and dismantling of all the nations guns, nukes, war ships, planes, military instillations and the like, but after that process is done, there will be at least half that number, the active personnel, in the US alone who are completely without employment and or benefits. How and where would we employ 1.4 million people on top of the already high unemployment rate we currently have? And that’s just in the US. The problem becomes worse in other smaller poorer nations where citizens join the military because it is often the only place in which their government or their nation provides any sort of financial benefit for families to live upon.

2. Living Toll Rises/Overpopulation: Globally about 378,000 people die due to war per year, and about 1,000 people die per day from small arms alone. Just by virtue of world peace, the population would automatically begin to increase exponentially. It is a well-documented fact that in peace times, the population swells. Without that pesky killing going on, there’s not much to do but get it on apparently. Baby Boom anyone? So we now have 1.4 million extra people coming home and getting it on (and that’s just in the US) and creating a population crisis which then creates a massive shortage in our resources. Housing, food shortages, school overpopulation, etc. which will drive the price of goods and services up dramatically to try to curb the use of our resources creating a financial burden for most of the world not to mention the quick destruction of the world’s natural resources.

3. Famine and Disease: Even with the exclusion of any weaponry, physical violence will be on the rise as the fight for resources increases dramatically. You cannot inject a million people or however many into a populous, plus the new baby boomers, and expect peace within a nation as resources dwindle. With space now at a premium, much the way we see in Japan today, you will see more and more outbreaks of disease and an increase in famine as people just cannot afford to buy food and pay for the now premium resources and space available to live.

4. A Boon in Corrupt Governments: Now that all nations would be at peace, essentially we’d be trusting that nations could now peacefully rule their own people without interference from other nations, but this would have disastrous consequences on already corrupt nations. As much as I or anyone else can rally against war and violence, sometimes throughout history it has been proven the only way for either the people of said corrupt nations or outside nations to enforce change, peace, or rid their nation of overt violence and corruption, is through war. World peace simply means, countries aren’t warring with each other but that doesn’t mean they still can’t do what they’ve always done to their own nation. Just because we’ve rid the world of guns and weapons of mass destruction doesn’t mean we’ve rid the world of all violence. Hands, tools, anything can be used to subdue, torture, hunt and capture anyone. Things like surveillance would increase in an attempt to strong hold a people, kidnappings would increase. With peace will come this idea that we must increase the amount of jail and be even more diligent with those actually committing crimes or those that will be presumed to be committing crimes all for the benefit of peace. It will be these nations biggest propaganda campaigns to date and they will be effective because no one will be coming to help these people. It would essentially be impossible if other nations intend to uphold the idea of world peace which would be a frightening proposition.

5. An Explosion in Other Crimes: Time and freedom in theory are wonderful, but with a swelling unemployment and population rate, the fight for resources, a baby boom, and with countries suffocating their own nations through pre-existing corruption, there must be a place for this extra bad energy to go, and those that have no desire to maintain peace, those individuals who have always existed, will still exist and seek out other ways by which to obtain power, control, and violence over others. Cyber hacking, extortion, exploitation, theft, a rise in gangs, just to name a few, would increase. Remember world peace would only stop you from warring against other nations. It doesn’t solve the problems within.

Unfortunately we need war and death to control our current population, to stave off disease to some degree, to employ individuals and provide benefits, and to prevent another baby boom on our already strained planetary resources. War and a lack of world peace is quite literally a necessary evil. I do think at one point in our history world peace could have indeed been possible, but today our world history, previous wars, the strain on our population, the current level of world corruption, and our interconnectedness actually have had unforseen negative consequences on the ability to obtain a planet of peace.


0|0
3|20
BeeNee is a GirlsAskGuys Editor
Who are Editors?

Join the discussion

0/2500

Submit

What Guys Said 20

  • Very interesting take never thought of it that way.

    1|1
    0|0
  • This is the first time someone actually takes note of this potentiality on GAG since most people here would be "hur dur, we needz wurld piis bcus vilence iz bad, m'kay?". And a girl at that. So Kudos to you, nice take.

    0|0
    2|0
    • Thanks. I mean its the old problem of how do we get rid of the bugs that are eating all our crops in Australia, well we ship in a bunch of frogs to get rid of them, and oh wait, now we have frogs that are killing everything and running a muck everywhere. Sometimes it is the supposed solutions that can make things that much worse and I don't think people spend enough time on not just hypothetical questions, but real world ones where the outcomes can be worse than the current problems.

    • Show All
    • @Azara I never implied that. I was merely pointing out that a it's very rare to see a woman knoweledgeable/ interested on this subject matter.

    • @Azara I really think you misinterpreted his comment.

  • "As long as there are people there will always be war" -Solid Snake, Metal gear Solid

    World Peace simply can never happen the way we want it to, because humans are in their nature to destroy themselves and each other and because of the natural order's rules that are in place in this reality that cannot be altered or changed in any way or form. Specifically "Survival of the Fittest"

    Also, depending on perspective and perception: Mathematically it is always 'peaceful' on worlds and planets where there are no living things in existence thus absolutely no possibility of war or fighting over resources, etc.

    Mathematically speaking, Complete Extinction is the only "guarantee" that there will no longer be any possibility of any more fighting over resources or for survival, so if that is 'world peace' for whom ever's perception or perspective, then it is, again only mathematically.

    Everything gone and dead thus all the fighting, hurting and suffering stops forever, permanently, rendered impossible. And obviously no one would truly desire or want that kind of outcome for "World Peace".

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wow! This is what I've been saying for 5 years, now. You should still pursue peace, but not world peace. And the line between War and Peace is REALLY thin and fragile. But no one cares...

    1|1
    0|0
    • Beauty pageants are operated under the mentality that you're pretty and don't need to be smart. You picked that assertion apart with surgical precision.

    • ? what?

    • You annihilated that mentality with extreme prejudice. Anyone who thought this just got owned.

  • Your take makes no sense at all.

    1 -The US Military’s total spending is 610 billion dollars. If it has 2.7 million people employed; it means 226.000 dollars per prospectively unemployed military personnel will be available. It is a massive amount of money to create new jobs.

    2 – With a fair distribution of global wealth, overpopulation would not be a problem. You can build new schools, housing , farms etc. There is still a lot of uninhabited land on Earth as well. It is also a fact that developed nations have negative population growths therefore as all nations start to develop, the overpopulation issue will disappear.

    Your other pointers don’t even reflect world peace anyways.

    1|1
    0|0
    • ... a fair distribution of global wealth (laughs for 15 minutes). We have people currently dying of starvation in several countries despite the sending of international aid because you have corrupt leaders who step over the bodies, take the money and supplies and distribute them to their own families or people they deem fit. Money has been a leading factor in corruption in peaceful and non peaceful nations since its invention. As far as infinite land and such, you cannot just keep on building on land and using up resources indefinitely. More people, less land, less natural resources, more pollution, rises in crime and disease.

    • Show All
    • Everyone keeps saying peace is the best thing, but no one is really willing to do what it takes to allow it to happen, so you talk about peace in the abstract whilst ignoring the fact that there are people right now who have been trying to obtain peace by the means you suggest and that should work between intelligent adults, which is negotiation, peace talks, treaties, etc., but again, why do we still have war and death? What if you'd been alive, were you going to do to help the Jews for example from more death from WWII, simply talk to Hitler over and over again when he clearly wasn't giving way whilst mothers, children, fathers continued to die? Hence sometimes war is necessary. When you've done, which is what most have done, all that they can do to obtain peace. Are you going to be the one to say try and negotiate with North Korea, if they were dropping bombs on your house while your neighbors and family were being killed. It's not so black and white...

    • Hitler is a great example for this case. You are an advocate of militarism. So was Hitler. You are contradicting yourself there, you are talking about how terrible it would be to dismantle armies but if Hitler didn't have an army he couldn't have killed 80 million people. But for you it is great that so many people died because if they didn’t there would be “overpopulation, famine disease, and massive unemployment."
      About your America example; I am not suggesting a one sided disarmament. I am talking about changing the paradigm, the perception, the philosophy... We should teach our children that peace is possible and necessary, it is the ultimate goal an it is not at all terrible.

  • please... only i know what needs to be done. you humans are the biggest problem.

    the Caucasian that run the world easily could have made everyone live in harmony, but they use methods to make earthlings stupid so they can kill each other for senseless materials.

    0|0
    0|0
  • 1. Without all the money used in fueling war efforts, I'm sure enough new cooperative companies can be built and upheld by the state to employ all those people. Also, if the government gets as corrupt as you say it will get, anyone who knows martial arts or some form of them (like soldiers) would be in high demand.
    2. Again, with all the money that was being spent on weapons and stuff now aimed at more creative things (like space travel), ¿what prevents us from building a colony on the Moon in 50 years? ¿Or on Mars in 200?
    3. There is more than enough food in the world how to feed everyone that is starving right now. Amount is not the issue, how it is divided is the issue.
    4. War has so far fixed nothing. Nothing. No war has ever caused ANYONE to live better. I challenge you to give me an example of a war that "fixed" anything.
    5. None of those problems will exist if the money from war is diverted into better welfare programs. Effective public education will prevent the rise of gangs. The creation of mass factories for the smelting and dismantling of any weapon will thwart disemployement for decades, considering the current amount of weapons. After that, road and house building companies will take over.

    0|0
    0|0
    • And if all these are fixed our population will only grow larger and we will be out of recourses within 5000 years. If that long.

      This is going to make me sound like a cunt. But we need these issues to keep us from destroying the planet completely.

    • Incorrect. These issues are only distracting us from technological advancement. Without them, technology would progress faster.

  • Good take. Good and interesting points.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Your analysis and reasoning is so spectacularly flawed that I don't know where to begin. Exponential population growth? The global population is growing by 70 million per year, but that's slowing. You say 'Baby Boom'... well, they're going to start dying in the next two or so decades. Many Western nations are barely at levels to maintain their current populations. Even war-torn nations are popping babies by the score. An extra 400,000 people not dying per year is almost insignificant.

    Your 'world peace' ends almost immediately because you are convinced it will lead straight to resource wars because there's no space. Yet many parts of China, Canada and Russia are untold miles of uninhabited wilderness and untouched resources. There's plenty of space.

    I'm especially amused that in your ludicrous utopia, firearms cease to exist, so all these resource wars and upheaval are being fought, in your own words, with hand tools, and presumably tree branches, crutches and pool noodles.

    You want a flight of fantasy? All that money that is no longer being spent on war in your world being spent on space exploration. Have you ever noticed that trend in science fiction, where people leave the overpopulated, polluted Earth in droves for adventure and a better life, seeking their fortune among the stars? The human thirst to explore and build and expand will push us towards that anyway, but a big pile of money would certainly speed it up.

    0|3
    0|0
    • So exactly what happens to the creatures that inhabit these areas you're suggesting we take? What about the environment? We're destroying our planet. Everyone knows this and no amount of 'world peace' (which is in fact unachievable) is going to fix that.

      Regardless of what happens or how much funding goes into some project that will never take off we will die off. We will over populate (if we haven't already) and tear this world apart.
      If you're so focused on the money saved then you should focus on what we spend it on. We shouldn't be focusing on running away from the planet we have stripped bare. We should be focusing on cleaning up our mess and fixing it. It's not that hard.
      Yet we're all acting like children who don't want to clean their room.

    • Show All
    • @meatballs21 the thing is, just about everyone who has disagreed has given there two cents on what could work, and perhaps some of them could, but getting an entire planet on board with them has and it appears, almost always will be, the issue in making these solutions viable for everyone. I could give you my own all points bulletin list for you to then chip away at and tell me how and why it wouldn't work, but what would be the point. Even in peaceful times we can't even agree on how, at least in the US, we intend to deal with the environment, or health care, or education, or police, and on and on. We've long ago lost that sort of collective attitude ironically hatched from being a nation at war, that we should work together in the bad (or good times) for the greater good. That's really more my overall point, a sad one at that.

    • I suppose it's human nature to unite against the greatest threats. Another example from science fiction is the Ender's Game trilogy. (spoilers) As soon as it's confirmed that the alien race that nearly destroyed humanity has been exterminated, the global coalition disintegrates and begins fighting. We're talking the very same day. They all want to secure the military commanders who just won the alien war and use them for their own ends.

  • "War, huh yeah. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing. Sing it again!!"
    War doesn't bring life it only takes it away. There's plenty of better ways of dealing with those problems you mentioned besides blowing up people. As for your unemployment argument that was just bad. Nobody should want to be in the business of dealing death. If you're that worried about the workers then change their factories to make something peaceful.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Using what resources? If war stops then people stop dying. If people stop dying there will be a fuck load more of us. with so many people using up resources, what will we have left to fix anything?

      Nothing. That's what.

    • @BaileyisDarcyvPeople die from other things like cancer or car accidents or AIDS. The answer to the problem of overpopulation isn't to just kill a bunch of people all the time, the answer is to teach humans population control and make us take responsibility for having too many children. People die from all sorts of other things besides war. In case you haven't noticed war isn't going on in many countries right now. There's no war in the US or Canada and we're doing just fine.

  • everything had their up and down i guess

    0|0
    0|0
  • Interesting read, however I think I'll have to disagree!
    We've simply adapted ourselves to war which is why it seems this way.
    Though I believe we can adapt to Peace and overcome these problems!

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think a lot of people disagree. I was expecting that, but for reason A, you listed, reason B. None of us have ever known a history that did not include war so its almost an impossible notion to think of peace. We simply don't agree enough on how this can be achieved or with one another on how it could be sustained, so people throw their hands up and either actually agree with war as a solution to everything or most things, or whether they like it or not, have to think of it as a necessary evil.

    • Show All
    • We've not tried it yet. You never know...

    • Actually we have. People every single day are trying it. UN, presidents, volunteers, humanitarian aid workers, people of various religions. To say we've simply done nothing and let war happen is ignoring all the efforts made by those that constantly strive for a more peaceful world for not just themselves, but everyone... but again, its not working b/c people aren't listening. It's great to be idealistic and to want these things, but we just aren't there yet and sadly, may never be, but most of us anyway, secretly wish for it, or literally try and obtain it the best we know how.

  • you are very well confusing peace with utopianism and very frequently interchange the 2 at convenience. for instance, you surmise that if there is world peace, there will be a lack of need for military personnel. leading to high unemployment and go further to say that it will lead to higher crime rate. well, if there is higher crime rate, obviously there isn't world peace and would eventually lead to a necessity in military personnel. same with corruption in another point. also, world peace leading to overpopulation is practically impossible because 380000 a year is comparatively nothing out of 7.5 billion people. less than 1%. you think that the tipping point would be that small? and that excludes any other form of death like natural disasters, any sort of accident or natural causes as well. and the final point i want to bring up is that just because there is world peace doesn't mean that there isn't wealth disparity. you'll still have people who live in slums and ghettos or places that are not as well off or advanced as the average person. so that can also cause discourse as well... leading to violence. but on a last note, i want to point out that the military has a lot more jobs than simply soldiers. you have pretty much every major type of position you see in the civilian world (engineers, doctors, mp's, financial advisors, etc).

    0|0
    0|0
    • I think the differences between people's ideas of world peace vs. utopianism are at best, a confused point because for me world peace simply means we stop warring with other countries, but for many that somehow equals all these nations that basically get along so well now because of the cessation of war that everything is perfect, and everyone is good... and confusing as that may be, I tried my best to debunk that myth that one does not necessarily equal the other. And once again, I must point out repeatedly to everyone reading this to put our own national egos down for a minute, because we are talking about WORLD peace, not US peace. That population number and number of soldiers as a pointed out is that of the US alone. Korea, 1.2 million active soliders, China 2.2 million, India, 1.3 million active soldiers. There are 174 countries with active military personnel that would need employment, that would now have no direct threat on their lives, and who are going to have sex and procreate

    • We, nor they, can simply say, oh you were a doctor in the military and therefore you can be one now. If that were the case, then every single ex-military person who had applied for a job, would be gainfully employed right now but an unemployment rate still exists for them in our current climate. The supply for jobs would simply be outweighed by the new current demand. And of course wealth disparity exists. I think I was actually pointing out that it would only get worse as the price of housing and food goes up and the population swells.

    • america has nothing to do with what i said. there are many countries that still run a similar system to what i said. and again, that still doesn't equate to world peace under what you said and still doesn't answer all of my questions. unemployment has a correlation to crime rate. so at the very least, you'd see a marginally higher employment rate of police and doctors in a country. and housing prices and food prices wouldn't be affective. the figures you brought up didn't make a dent in population change. and people living in military still have homes and eat food for the most part so the price of food won't go up. in fact, it would decrease because a country doesn't have to export it's food or doesn't have to buy off other countries so it would drive down the cost. and again, you conveniently ignore poverty in this case because you are assuming everyone will have the buying power to buy homes in the first case.

  • and that is why man can't accomplish peace.

    1|1
    0|0
  • So u think " no world peace " balance the whole system right?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I completely disagree, and am considering calling you a complete idiot. it may not be polite so do so, but if you truly believe any of what I've just read here, then I have no choice but to burst your bubble.

    for instance: "Remember world peace would only stop you from warring against other nations. It doesn’t solve the problems within."
    I really just don't think you understand the concept of peace. Id est, consensual, mutually beneficial cooperation, at the individual, local, national, and global level, which can pretty reasonably be done so long as everyone gets to eat. un"employment"(a form of extorted labor) isn't a problem. resource management and distribution is the problem, mainly because the people with more resources tend to think that those without any have no right to them. as if a starving man has no right to eat. as if a human being can hold the deed to this planet, to which WE belong (not the other way around, not before we're an interplanetary species), and which, reasonably, no man should have more right to than another.

    I guess this is just my opinion though, but to me, mutually ensured survival and enjoyment seems a lot more intelligent and reasonable than mutually ensured destruction and flawed social Darwinism.

    Other social problems such as corruption and cruelty are simply a matter of behavioral psychology. Basically, we don't know how to raise our children to be decent human beings, being rather like animals ourselves. (but we're learning)

    If you'd like to have a more in-depth conversation about this, I'd be happy to oblige.

    1|1
    0|0
    • This is a hypothetical assessment of what would be the after affects of a supposed world peace and the problems that would arise mainly from a then under producing overpopulated planet. We've seen some of these cases in peace time situations on a small scale, but this is to suppose it were happening on a global level. Death, no matter the source, helps control the population. This is an ugly truth. One that most everyone seems to want to voraciously deny. If there weren't the sheer numbers of deaths currently through war, there would be an automatic and then exponential increase in the population which will lead to x, y, z. This isn't about holding up a banner for war and celebrating it but it is pointing out some of those hard facts about some of the yes, unfortunate, benefits to the planet.

    • Show All
    • Most people never read the full take before they launch into their comments. I can't say I'm really surprised. Anyway, good luck to you.

    • thanks. same to you.

  • it's an excellent idea. it's just a highly idealistic idea.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Since when is peace the greatest good? People should aspire to be moral, and in doing so they should not be afraid to stand and fight for what they believe is right.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Your conclusions are so wrong, you entire premises are wrong... you don't even seem to know right from wrong.

    0|0
    0|1
    • By all means, I welcome your rebuttal because although a lot of Anonymous respondents, by the way, like to tell you you're completely wrong, they rarely if ever have the means to back up their own argument. I'm no advocate of war, but to me these are some of the hard truths about the world we live in that NO one wants to think about. No one talks about how they benefit from war. No one talks about how in this hypothetical at least, we'd be unable to render aid to a lot of countries run by corrupt leaders other then "peace talks." Peace talks only work with individuals who want peace, who aren't corrupt, or can see some sort of means to gain something out of it. You think North Korea is going to suddenly treat its own people better without any outside threat from the world? Hard truths...

    • Show All
    • World Peace is of course in theory a good idea, but for the reasons listed above, and based on the way we know human nature to be, it is a terrible idea. To achieve world peace, we would need a totalitarian big brother style government strangle hold on a global level b/c crazy, corrupt, and violent individuals don't just disappear under the umbrella of world peace. We can wish for a lot of things, but as with any idea on earth, if there are no real world sustainable ways in which to achieve this, we would be asking for bigger problems then we already have in a world where war unfortunately exists. The ultimate problem is as it has always been, even the good people of this earth disagree and don't always do what is in the best interest of themselves, humanity, or the earth. Add to that our individual, ideological, cultural, and religious differences, and even without war, we are still in a place where even the best of people struggle to work together in harmony for the greater good.

    • Yes that is correct, we as humans can't rule ourself in peace.

  • There has been so much progress in the world due to war.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 3

  • That's true.

    Then there is natural disasters to even out the shit, humanity pulls on each other.

    0|0
    0|0
  • i like to see you look on the brighter sides of things

    0|0
    0|0
  • personally i dont think millions of people being murdered, homes destroyed, years of suffering, never having any rest from bombs, guns, death, losing loved ones
    is worth any of these so called negative effects.

    you site famine and disease as a problem, not really because do you know how many billions and trillions of pounds is invested into war and weaponry? instead that money could be invested in medical care, and technology. "too many people", this is silly, the evidence of there is PLENTY to go around is all around you, see how many obese people are walking the streets everyday? there's enough in the world to support everything, and death will not stop all together.

    If you had ever seen war, been in a warzone, seen the effects of war, you would never commemorate war. Personally I found this is insensitive and ignorant

    1|0
    0|0
    • I am not advocating war, what I am saying is sometimes in this world, you cannot fight fire with more fire. Like it nor not, war is a necessary evil, one that has controlled the population from growing exponentially and given jobs and benefits to millions of people. Should we celebrate this fact and take joy in why this is so, no, but the facts are that death, of any kind, helps control the population. The same goes for those other things we don't like to think about like cancer, heart disease, murder not associated with war, and car accidents. You cannot have a population which grows uncontrollably and hope to sustain it long term. The reason we, in the US, have an obesity problem is because food is plentiful now, but without population control our resources would quickly deplete with the exponential growth of the population, the rising prices of food and housing, and all the other things listed. You think famine across poorer nations is bad now...

    • add thousands of people to those populations who are already suffering. You think the US is going to be so magnanimous if we are all fighting for resources. Although I was a baby at the time, my family had to flee from a war zone. Wars shouldn't be glamorized or portrayed as the only solution to problems, no, but like it or not every person on this earth is the beneficiary of the outcome of some war that has happened. We don't like to talk about the ugly truths like populations control, starvation, war, or who or how we benefit from them, but we do. I would love to have peace throughout but the effects like not being able to give aid to other countries or fight for another countries liberty which leads to places like North Korea and Holocausts, cannot just be cast aside as "just a negative effect," either.

Loading...