The Forum > Article Comments > Should we bother about the UN’s International Day of Peace today? > Comments
Should we bother about the UN’s International Day of Peace today? : Comments
By Andris Heks, published 21/9/2021Amazingly, over the several hundreds of thousands of years of human history, peace ruled over 99% of the time and warfare was simply unknown.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Piffle.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 21 September 2021 8:20:59 AM
| |
Anthropologist Jonathan Haas:'Archeologically, there is negligible evidence for any kind of warfare anywhere in the world before 10.000 years ago.'
This is backed by other anthropologists such as Lesllie Sponsel, discrediting the Hobbsian assumption of the intrinsic warring nature of humanity. Posted by Andris, Tuesday, 21 September 2021 9:30:04 AM
| |
It is really quite debatable that there has oft-times been an absence of warfare for substantial periods of time anywhere in the world. A good place to start would be the book by Barbara Tuchman titled The March of Folly From Troy to Vietnam.
That having been said the impulse to take the World Peace Day is certainly admirable, and necessary too. These references describe why. The first was written in response to the Kosovo crisis at the request of a high ranking UNHCR diplomat. It was slightly reworked in response to Sept 11. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/peace_law/index.html Then more recently there is the urgent calling provided by this reference. http://www.dabase.org/p4formula.htm http://www.priorunity.org/excerpt-no-enemies http://www.da-peace.org/excerpt-all-modes-of-true-religion Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 21 September 2021 9:47:29 AM
| |
Sentimentalism V Cartesian Doubt.
(In layman’s terms: protecting the Crown Jewels V giving away the shirt off your back). Sentimentalism: *…in current usage the term commonly connotes a reliance on shallow, uncomplicated emotions at the expense of reason. Wikipedia…* Shooting ourselves in the foot with sentimentalism, is the situation most proved to lead to disastrous outcomes. And it is highly disingenuous to accuse the early settlers of Australia as an invading army. It’s beyond laughable, portraying Cooks small disparate collection of exhausted, hungry and thirsty sailors as any sort of threat to the original occupiers of the future Nation Australia was transformed into by his simple act of coming ashore! And the balance of the sentimentalism of the article, should be confined to the ears of the pews, where history is too often ignored. Dan Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 21 September 2021 10:16:14 AM
| |
Ok. I don't care for fighting! It's a zero-sum game that has no real winners!
Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 21 September 2021 10:41:14 AM
| |
Footnote. Albeit, we need to remain eternally vigilant and armed so well we don't have to fight! And for mine, that means nuclear power and nuclear capability!
Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 21 September 2021 10:45:39 AM
|