cont'd ...

Not sure how the situation in the Ukraine fits into
all this. And also not sure if we'd want the answers
"to be blowing in the wind," if they're going to be
radio-active.

Peace is transient. Survival dictates that all species be self-serving, otherwise they don't survive. Humanity is no different, but learnt that a certain amount of co-operation increases our chances of survival, thus humanity has prospered by being gregarious and working together.

However, due to our capacity to invent technologies to assist in that endeavour, and the fact that we spread across the globe creating different cultures, sub-cultures and sensibilities, we cannot unanimously agree upon anything, but remain essentially tribal, competing for resources collectively.

Add materialism, hubris, wealth and the plethora of other features unique to humanity, and it's a dog's breakfast of competing interests, making universal peace a pipe dream. Until we are above such mundane things as materialism, there can be no peace, for humanity functions as parasites, having no regard for its host (the planet) but only for immediate gratification. Change that, and you change the world. Otherwise, it WILL be "blowin' in the wind" since Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD...the only acronym that is more meaningful than what it represents) is the planet's only saviour. Humanity needs to evolve to another level to save itself, or suffer the inevitable consequences.

Dick, you are absolutely 100% correct. But I'm more pessimistic regarding homo sapiens than you. We are no different from the entire animal kingdom regarding our survival instinct, and our "instinct" in this regard is no more advanced than any other species.

Unless humanity finds a way to change our DNA and alter this specific instinct, homo sapiens is doomed. Why? Because we don't have just nature and other species to deal with ... we have "ourselves" to deal with. And because we can invent and use technology as a destructive force against ourselves and the planet, we are doomed to one day destroy ourselves and also change our environment.

Possession of this destructive ability is not a sign of the superiority of our species, it's a sign of our inferiority.

Homo sapiens has been on this planet for a very tiny period indeed. We will be extremely lucky to even double that short amount of time. We will become extinct, and sometime in the future will be replaced by another, different species that will dominate Earth in it's own way. Then they will become extinct, and so on and so on. That's nature at work.

Political dogma is of no use if politicians ignore reality.
Too much dogma is centred on the US (& Aus) because the US and others
are involved in wars we in which we should not be interested.
Certainly there are some cases where that is true but Afghanistan is not one of them.
Afghanistan harboured AlQuadia while they trained to attack the arch
enemies embassies in east Africa, the USS Cole in Aden, the Australians
and others in Bali, the Tube bombing in London, the Madrid train
bombing and the World Trade Centre in New York.

You could say the last was a bombing too far.
The whole justified a total invasion and declaration of war.
That should have been done.
At the time the Taliban was the government which made the whole
country a target, not just the training camps.
It is to be hoped that the Islamic countries now realise they dare
not allow such activities on their soil.

That should now be political dogma.

Nhoj, what? That wasn't pessimistic enough?!? LMAO.

I don't believe changing our DNA for survival instinct is an answer, since by definition, we wouldn't have the will to survive. No offense, but you may want to re-think that reasoning.

We already have all the tools necessary...intelligence and technology. The problem is greed, corruption and entitlement. For example, communism is a great system...until bastardised by humans desiring position and advantage over others. Capitalism is a great system, until bastardised by humans desiring position and advantage over others. The common denominator of flaws is always people. This is why I'm apolitical, for both sides have good qualities, but usually poor leadership and implementation, due ostensibly to greed and corruption.

By the same token, we don't want to all be Vulcans either, for logic alone is no answer (much to the chagrin of Star Wreck fans) since it's emotions that are the driving force for empathy, and more importantly, matured emotions create empathy. Immature emotions lead to lack of insight and empathy, and so to be only self-serving like a child. Just look at Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory, and though he's an extreme example for comical purposes, epitomizes what I'm talking about...chronologically mature, but emotionally no more than a 5yo child. And it's scary how many Sheldons there in the world...they're the perfect bureaucrat...black & white thinkers, cowardly, self-serving, unable to admit fault, live stringent routines to gain their sense of security, live by policy and procedure manuals due to fear of consequences of a bad decision, and consequently the insight of a gnat.

So the question then becomes, how do we get everyone to simply grow up? I have no answer to that question. I understand how we are now, but not how to get everyone to be emotionally mature, since the lack of emotional growth in most is due to their upbringing, and you can't create uniform upbringing. Life is not a controlled environment.

Cheers.

An important element in any peace process is the
international community and its mechanisms for
restraining conlfict among its meembers.
Of course there are problems. Today's societies have
entered the nuclear age with political institutions
inherited from a previous era.

The human population is spread among a series of sovereign
independent states - most of them with their own armed
forces - and so there is a built-in potential for
warfare whenever two nations have conflicting interests.

In fact, before the twentieth century there were few
institutionalised ways for hostile nations to achieve
peaceful settlement. When negotiations took place, they
often occurred only after a war - for the purpose of
agreeing to a peace treaty that would specify the spoils
of the victor.. Although the structure of international
peace-making is still rudimentary, it now offers
infinitely better prospects for helping nations to avoid
war.

Particularly in a world where all nations face a common
threat of direct or indirect involvement in nuclear
warfare, some reliable method is needed to limit conflicts
among sovereign states.

We have two vital elements for international peace-making
already in place. The first is the United Nations, which
although not perfect by any means - provided a forum for
world opinion and a mechanism for conflict resolution.

The second is a growing body of international law that
specifies the rights and obligations that nations have
toward one another - particularly with respect to
aggression. Over the years, as we've seen the UN has
intervened successfully in a number of wars (Korea,
the Middle East) and in several situations that might have
led to war - Cuba, Berlin, to name just two.

A major difficulty with international peace-making,
of course, is that compliance with the resolutions of the
UN and the rulings of its World Court are voluntary, for
no country is willing to surrender its sovereignty to an
international body. The UN is probably most effective
when superpowers are able to agree on a course of action
and mobilise their blocs to support it.

cont'd ...