world peace

World peace is an ideal of freedom, peace, and happiness among and within all nations. It is the professed ambition of many past and present world leaders.

History

Some historians identify a long-term trend where nation-states stop fighting and become united.^{[citation needed]} For example, old Europe with wars culminating in World War I and World War II, compared with the European Union; warring Chinese states compared with the modern Chinese nation. Certain historians theorize that the whole world will eventually follow this pattern as well.^{[citation needed]}

Dr. Frank Laubach, an American missionary to the Philippines in 1935 saw poverty, injustice and illiteracy as impediments to world peace. He developed the "Each One Teach One" literacy program which taught about 60 million people to read in their own language.

World peace is often claimed to be the inevitable result of some political ideology.^{[citation needed]} Thus, communist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace, and neoliberal thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama assumed that the rise of liberal democracy will inevitably lead to the "end of history".

The plausibility of world peace tacitly relies on the assumption of rational agents that base their decisions on future consequences, which is not self-evident. Bertrand Russell once expressed his scepticism regarding world peace:

After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, I believe is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.¹

The utopian ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all sentient beings) is seen by some as highly improbable, due to the wide range of behaviour and personal circumstances that exist. Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the individuality that makes us human.

Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of conflicts. If we only include armed conflicts, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for that). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like trade conflicts or border disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.

Even if world peace (in whatever sense it is taken) is unachievable, this does not imply that striving for it is not a worthy (personal) goal. In this sense, among others, it is much like perfection, for which people strive despite it being unattainable.

The most suitable progress toward world peace is a step-by-step improvement of current processes. Doing one more peaceful thing today than one has previously done is a truly attainable goal. Also, all people would benefit at taking a long look at history and learning the triggers of armed conflict. In each war which has occurred since the beginning of time, many of the same lessons can be found. Unfortunately, as a whole, our species is slow to learn each of those lessons. These lessons may include a strict arms ban, peace negotiation, a global and collective security agreement, a minimum food supplies and foreign aid to stabilize necessities.

The democratic peace theory

Proponents of the controversial democratic peace theory claim that strong empirical evidence exists that democracies never or rarely wage war against each other. One possible exception to this is Britain's reluctant declaration of war against Finland in December 1941 due to pressure from Stalin. However, this formal declaration was not followed by any battle. An increasing number of nations have become democratic since the industrial revolution. A world peace may thus become possible if this trend continues and if the democratic peace theory is correct.

Cobdenism

Proponents of Cobdenism claim that by removing tariffs and creating international free trade, wars would become impossible, because free trade prevents a nation from becoming self-sufficient, which is a requirement for long wars. For example, if one country produces firearms and another produces ammunition, the two could not fight each other, since the former would be unable to procure ammunition and the latter would be unable to obtain weapons. Critics argue that free trade does not prevent a nation from establishing some sort of emergency plan to become temporarily self-sufficient in case of war.

Mutual assured destruction

It has been noted that the number of deaths due to wars between nations as a fraction of world population has declined dramatically since the development of nuclear weapons. Proponents of the policy of mutual assured destruction during the Cold War attributed this to the increase in the lethality of war to the point where it no longer offers the possibility of a net gain for either side.

World government

There are many different kinds of world governments that have been proposed. An argument often brought up in support of world government is that such an institution could have the power to prevent wars and establish world peace. Critics tend to focus on the question of whether world peace under the authority of a single government is a desirable goal.

Isolationism

In contrast with world government, proponents of isolationism claim that a world made by many nations can survive as long as they each establish a stronger focus on domestic affairs and not try to impose their will on other nation's affairs. Nations like the United States of America, China, and Japan are perhaps the best known for establishing isolationist policies in the past.

Self-Organized Peace

World Peace as seen as a consequence of local self-determined behaviours which inhibit the institutionalisation of power and subsequent violence. The solution is not so much based on an agreed agenda, let alone investment in higher authority, whether divine or political, but rather a self-organised network of mutual supporting mechanisms whose emergent phenomenon is a sustainable politico-economic social fabric. Such a realisation can only be brought about through a shared thought experiment by all participating subjectivities, inclusive of diversity, and is similar in significant ways to the formation and maintenance of Wikipedia.

Buddhist view of World Peace

Many Buddhists believe that world peace can only be achieved if we first establish peace within our minds. The idea is that anger and other negative states of mind are the cause of wars and fighting. They believe we can live in peace and harmony only if we abandon the anger in our minds and learn to love each other.