Human's Inevitable Downfall

So few of you seem to notice that humans and the whole concept of world peace is virtually impossible....Humans are going to end up destroying them selves in a vast torrent of fury and chaos.....so few of us are civilized...I'm certainly no exception...

interesting statement.

i'm curious to hear your theory on how civilization and violence are connected.

I like how you think Yami. Humanity as a whole has no comprehention of hte power they could have to do more than destroy and kill. Granted even the most primative of the Animal kingdom does not kill simply to kill or for the petty reason humanity attaches to their destructive and murderous actions. Humanity claims to strive for peace and harmony... but the only harmony I see them seeking is the harmony of their own voices in the chants for War... "Justice" and destruction. Masses of people can be led like sheep into the slaughter of themselves or others because they willingly give up the power of independant thought to the lure of mass minded chaos. The truely deadly force is the person not afraid to think for themselves in the midst of that mass minded sheep mentality.

To further explain my views on this please see the quote

Although I agree that world is in all probability impossible I do take issue with you're reason. It is not a lack of civilty that humans posses, I resent the implication of civility. I believe Mark Renolds theory about man is most accuate; He states that man is a fighting animal, we fought to get out of the trees, we fought for land on the ground, we fought for space to live and we keep fighting for our own survival. And although all of these points apply to most animals it is human resiliency that is our major problem. While most species give in when the opponent proves to be much stronger humans do not we fight tooth and nail until the bitter end. The introduction of bombs merely strenthens and highlights this facet of our nature. Furthermore' following the same theory, if ever we should atain world peace the price may be far to great; we may lose that drive to better ourselves and our species could become self- destructory. After all crime is lowest in countries such as sweden, but suicide is higher than anywhere else in the world.

you say stuff about people and being uncivilized, what exactly do u consider civilization? is there a clear distinction between civilization and uncivilization?

oh yeah do any of u guys know much about theater of the absurd and existentialism to give me an idea for a ten minute play i have to write including both concepts? thanks.

Theatre of the absurd is a play in which nothing has to make sense. Not so much the diologe but the chronology, setting and characters. The story has to be there but things seem to happen randomly enters and exsits of charaters, also charaters need no intro, they are just there and then gone. Waiting for Godot is the best example.

Existentialism is the position that life has no meaning in and of itself, no god. Existentialism says make your own meaning, set up your own rules on ho to live your life.

I could be wrong about both. Definatly read Godot though, it is absurtity.

I believe humans are the same as the animals we consider so savage and simple. We have the same needs. We want the same things. Humans get into territorial disputes as well. We may have more intelligence, but it all boils down to savagery and stupidity.

As for my two-cens worth...I have seen the most deprived in human nature and I have seen near sainthood....If you live your life on one spot you can see a wealth of change happening around you. It all depends on cercumstances around you...I myself believe humans are worth the effort to someday smarten up and realize they have the opption of makeing wonderful strides in creating this world as a better place to live in...not just for he who lives now but for generations to come...You will always have those that hope for the better and make a lifetime out of trying to do something that will make a difference; and then there will always be those that need to change through destruction....?????? History repeats itself...only the chaos looms larger.....

I'm new here, but, Yami is right, world peace is just impossible... I also wanted to say something about the world's so-called "civilization," I hear people go on and on about how the human race has come so far, but have we? The Ancient Egyptians for example, most people would call them an early civilization, is civilized the fact that they can build something, or is it that they killed or stole for what they wanted. I am definitely not saying that they were stupid or anything resembling that, but I am saying that there is hardly a line between civilization and "uncivilization," as I've heard it put.

Let's not say that civilization and civilized are the same thing. I hate it when people equate two inequateable things. Sometimes death is the best outcome, sometimes war is justified. This does not mean we don't have a civilization.

Now I'm against the idea that there will never be world peace, It seems to me that there will always be hate of course. But I do think that World peace is achieveable, People said that living in space is a silly idea and that it will never happen and Of course from what we can all see it happend.But World Peace and Hate are two different things, And to say that it is not a goal that the human race can reach, it will never be.
Now to Address Danipogs thought on that we are just as much Animals as Animals are. Their are Quite a few Diffrences, Humans for one are not Stupid we make Descions that are not always right or good and Animals can not Decipher the diffrence by thinking it out themselves. They will not rebuild which they have destroyed, they will not try to fix something that they have done wrong etc. And as far as Savagery goes and territorial Disputes go is it not are right to protect which is Ares? If World PEace did Occur there would Still be plots of Land for people to live on which they call there own.

hello. i'm new to this forum.

world peace is a goal for some, but not for others. the thing about goals is, we never really reach our goals because once we do, we make another one. the goal, in a broader sense, is something we can never reach; world peace is no different in that respect. so long as there's individuality, free thought, and dissidents, there can never be world peace. besides, the term "peace" itself is as ambiguous as "justice." who of us can accurately define it? we can grasp its concept, or what we perceive it to be, but can we count on others to see it the same way? what you consider to be world peace may differ from what others believe it to be.

and, after reading §hÄDÉ's post, i'd like to say that humans are animals. we forget that sometimes, and because of this, we treat other animals cruelly. no, humans are not stupid, but we are foolish. we know better (for the most part), but we don't always show it.

also, i'd like to point out (i know someone else already did) that civilization isn't the same as civility. on the same note, hate is not the opposite of peace. In My Opinion, you can have hate and still be at peace. not that i'm a big fan of hate.

Personally I didn't like the idea Yami had. First of all, there will never be world peace if people are unwilling to realize there is a possibility for it to take place, that's a given. Second of all, it is very difficult to describe "world peace". World Peace in that every human on the face of the earth does well for each other and gets along with each other? But that isn't even logical. Where we are standing now, America and the Middle East are deciding outcomes through gun fire, and the Muslim nations hate the Jews (and Vice Versa), but besides that, there is very little international disputes going on. I hate to say it, but numbers in casualties really do tell us alot about what's going on. If a guy from Russia goes to China and kills one man, it doesn't mean there isn't World Peace going on. Or if an American kills another American, it still does not mean the world is not in general harmony.

In my opinion, the complete perfectness of everyone getting along and there not being one fight about ANYTHING is ludicrous. As I said before, thinking on those terms isn't even logical. But there have been decades (quite a few) in the history of man where no countries were at war with each other. That is what I would define as world peace.

Are We Animals
No.. we are animals because we got classified with them. We have bigger brains and such that we can think. Not think for ourselves. We can think. Other animals can't really think, they just live off of instinct. Now if we were to be animals that are bent on just being savages then our race would of been wiped out a while back. Yes there still remains some savage in us, but for the most part we know how to control our "inner beasts"

About Civilized and Civilization(these are just shortened more basic definitions, if you want the exact meaning, get a dictionary)

Civilized and Civilization are two different words. A civilization is when a group of people decided to stop running after their food and grow their food. When people started to get more intellectual.
Civilized is when you act nice to something. You treat that object with respect. We are talking about being civilized. And yes, many of us are civilized. Actually more of us are civilized then others. It is just that the people with more power then we do, are greedy. And when you get greedy, you become uncivilized.

The Real Downfall
This might sound wrong and such, but it has to be said and it is true.
There isn't supposed to be world peace. In a distant way all the wars we have are kinda natural. If we were all at peace, we would have more problems then we do with war. The world is getting over populated and look.. look at the past 5 centuries, notice that there has been a lot of devistation to the world with mass slaughters and disease. Yet, we are still growing in numbers. Even if we wiped out 10 whole countries it wouldn't have an effect on us.

What is happening is what happens in nature. We fight to survive. Though unlike in nature if we don't get what we wanted we don't die. Yet competition does occur. It has to. It isn't something we want to happen our has to happen but we have to understand that we can't keep everyone alive. I have thought about it. You want there to be drugs that let people fight cancer and such, but you have to remember that keeping people alive longer is just going to cause a lot of problem. World hunger is one that isn't being helped by the mass population growth.

Unless we are ready to give up on war and find a new planet to colonize or what not, then something has to be done. War isn't going to be our downfall. Reduction of resources will be. Our planet will probably be destroyed before we can even get to a point of too much war.

Now I don't like the fact of having to have people die. For one reason it's because I don't want to be that one person that dies. Yet, if I shouldn't be that person, then why should anyone else. We are supposed to die off fairly throught nature, but aparrently we are finding ways around that, and now we are growing older and older, we are lasting longer then we should. I am not saying that war is good. But war isn't our problem, or the least of it. If there is going to be a downfall of the earth it sure won't be because of some war.

Perhaps a bit simple but in N.A. thinkiing is to live in harmony is to be at peace. As long as men strive to overcome each other instead of seeking to live in harmony, they will to war.
This is prevalent in societies view.
Tiny ships that brought us to these shores weathered stroms, yet we see them as battling these strom to survive.
Societies basically promotes this view, you must compete with others to survive instead of working with others. Just look at theweb, the attitude of & toward MS and other browser providers. Compete with yourself to put forth your best, competing with co-workers may raise your position but the expended energy represents wasted energy to a great extent.