82,853
edits
World peace: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
We might not like the idea of conflict, but isn’t its ''absence'' even more horrifying? | We might not like the idea of conflict, but isn’t its ''absence'' even more horrifying? | ||
World peace — ''the total absence of conflict'' — implies a settled ''consensus''. It takes as a given that all mysteries have been resolved or at any rate agreed upon, that all possible questions have catalogued, taxonomised and satisfactorily answered, that all [[unknowns]] have been eradicated. World peace implies ''total homogeneity of need, want and value''. There are no inventions left, no efficiencies to be gained, no services to be improved, no sunlit uplands to move towards. | World peace — ''the total absence of conflict'' — implies a settled ''consensus''. It takes as a given that all mysteries have been resolved or, at any rate, agreed upon, that all possible questions have catalogued, taxonomised and satisfactorily answered, that all [[unknowns]] have been eradicated. World peace implies a ''total homogeneity of need, want and value''. There are no inventions left, no efficiencies to be gained, no services to be improved, no sunlit uplands to move towards. | ||
World peace allows of no tribes, no cultures, no in-groups; no partisanship, no contest, no sport, no allegiance, no competition for resource. It requires no hesitancy, no uncertainty, no opportunity | World peace allows of no tribes, no cultures, no [[diversity]], no in-groups; no partisanship, no contest, no sport, no allegiance, no competition for resource. It allows no protection, no defence, no pre-emption, no optimisation. | ||
It implies no ''love'', for love implies preferment. Irony: taken to their logical conclusion, love and peace are mutually exclusive. | |||
Peace requires no hesitancy, no uncertainty, no opportunity to improve: the objects of universe are mapped, their infinity of trajectories mapped, calculated and projected to the end of time; that we are disempowered automatons on strict deterministic rails; we know and accept and will doggedly do that, and only that which is required to stay upon them. | |||
There are no disputes, doubts, disagreements or ''contrarians''. If one were even possible a contrarian would simply be ''one who is wrong''. But a contrarian would not be possible. ''Error'' would not be possible. Indecision would not be possible. If it were possible to err, it would be possible to dispute the consensus, and that would create ''conflict''. | There are no disputes, doubts, disagreements or ''contrarians''. If one were even possible a contrarian would simply be ''one who is wrong''. But a contrarian would not be possible. ''Error'' would not be possible. Indecision would not be possible. If it were possible to err, it would be possible to dispute the consensus, and that would create ''conflict''. | ||