Live to Learn and Learn to Live

Carter, I encourage to find reputable sources to back up some of your points. 

Carter, you present some controversial ideas about why you believe conflict is inevitable. I agree with you that war is a very profitable business for some, however does that make it right? You also comment that war is human. I have to agree with Chiara when she says it is not in her nature, or in the majority of people's nature to resort to violence and war whenever a conflict ensues. Again, to echo what Chiara said, when faced head on with war, where it impacts you, your family and your own country directly, it is very difficult see the benefits of war. With the world becoming more connected and countries being held more accountable for their actions, going to war for the sake of war cannot feasibly occur. Generating a profit is important, however, more and more countries are investing in ethical and sustainable businesses. Money can be earned by bringing peace and equality to the world. One last thought, yes having an armed forces within a country is important, but roles can be redefined and defending a country does not have to mean being on the defensive or the offensive. It can mean supporting your country by developing mutually benefical relationships, sharing (not enforcing) approaches to development and still feeling like you have a purpose that consists of more than just dominating the weaker. 

Your argument for how our world can become a place without tension is well supported with empathetic research. You express how it is nurture not nature that makes people exhibit conflicting/harmful behaviours. Although I agree that by being more connected digitally, we have more of a community to be empathetically connected to, I wonder how you see the world addressing those external factors that inhibit empathy form developing (abusive parenting, lack of education, etc)? Do you believe empathy should be more explicitly part of schooling and societal/government actions?

Gaddiel, you were able to capture the natural conflicts that lie within human nature powerfully. Your quote underneath the paint splatter about how when we are forced to merge we change is quite provoctive and insightful. As soon as we attempt to alter something in its natural state it no longer ceases to exist, in other words, it is permenantly changed. Which actually makes me feel that this could represent the argument that society can change for the better. As soon as we start challenging the status quo, we can't move in reverse, we are on a trajectory of change and if the people who are challenging the current reality are advocating for positive and sustainable change, then a cold-less world is possible.

You made a comment in your video that we should start looking at conflict as beneficial. I agree with this and as I have stated on a few blogs, conflict can lead to peace and acceptance. What I think is in the process of changing is how people engage in conflict. Gaddiel mentioned on your video that he believes the only way peace could be possible is if there was a government system that followed one ideology and essentially political parties would cease to exist. I disagree with this and your clip with the presidential debate seems more to support 'healthy' conflict than 'cold' conflict. It is how we interpret and act on conflict that needs to change and will change.

I completely disagree with the fact that communication can bring about world peace. Despite the Treaty of Versailles, to the annual G20 summits, to the Treaty of Lisbon, no matter what we do, there will NEVER be world peace. When Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles, they went into debt, and the infamous Adolf Hitler came about. It is said that the pen is 1000 times mightier than the sword, but that statement is completely untrue. Our communication and word- filled pacts usually turn into violence and conflict. No matter how much we communicate, history and philosophy shows that we will NEVER find total peace on the face of this earth.

Have we seen another Hitler? Have we engaged in another failed treaty? Change is slow, but it is visible. 

What a provocative poem! You certainly captured the seemingly impossible task of accomplishing peace. One of my favorite lines of your poem- When asking if it is possible to live in a cold-less world is a conflict within itself- made me stop and truly contemplate the stance I have been trying to stay true to. However, I have mentioned this on a few other posts that conflict actually can lead to peace. It challenges people to question their own assumptions, forces people to engage in dialogue and inevitably moves the world forward. The aspect of society that I think is changing and will eventually become obsolete is violent and ignorant conflict. I think it is a change that will start from the bottom and work its way up. People have already changed tremendously in the last 50 years, accepting (even if not agreeing with) diversity that I believe will lead to a tipping point where the majority of the people will be promoting a 'cold-less' world and the 'others' will no longer be powerful enough to control the trajectory of peace. 

I think you make a great point about how the problem with diversity is how people handle it. If we were more supporting of diversity and encouraged different ideas, there would definitely be less conflict. But I also feel that there is a difference between accepting and agreeing on something. If an idea is accepted, then is it agreed with?

Good question Gaddiel! That is where I think the disconnect is. People think accepting something means you agree with it. There are many things I accept are a reality but don't necessary agree with, however that does not mean I am going to oppose it. Having differing ideas and opinions are important and are needed in the world. However, it does not mean it will lead to conflict. 

Mrs.Savoi-I believe that people without laws are naturally bad. But people are not born bad, it is an acquired trait. A kid isn’t born racist (He learns it) A kid isn’t born wanting to shoot people (He would learn that from some where too). Its this damn world that screws our youth up, its this world that does these things, its the world (And the People in it) That make problems. 

I agree that it is nurture over nature that leads to people becoming bad. Yet, there are just as many ways that society actually develops positive and compassionate people than evil people. 

Im going to have to agree with you partially, i think that its impossible to live in a united world without conflict. I believe that people are naturally bad and evil and without laws people would be awful. But i think that your wrong in assuming that with advances in technology come peace, this i believe is opposite. With advances come more conflict, more advanced ways of killing.War will never cease, War, War Never Changes… 

Carter- this is in response to your comment on Jassem's blog. I struggle to believe all humans are evil in the absence of laws. Do you truly believe the only thing preventing you from committing murder is the consequence of jail? Every day people act in ways that go above and beyond the actual laws. People give resources to charities (not because it is a law), people hold doors open for strangers (not because it is law) and people selfishly sign up to fight for their country everyday (not because it is law).

I am confused by what you mean by, " possible but not achievable"? This seems contradictory. Do we not want to achieve it or is it not possible? You also bring up a lot of different aspects of what you think is preventing peace but my question to you is, does peace mean total equality? I agree that there will always be some sort of  natural hierarchy amongst people but doesn't having these class divisions help give purpose to a person's life? Being compassionate, ambitious and inclusive doesn't mean everyone has to be the same.  I actually think diversity prevents conflict. Conflict arises when people are trying to force their ideals on others. If we embrace differences, then conflict will subside and eventually dissipate. 

You have articulated yourself extremely well Jacob. However, I have to challenge you to consider that conflict free does not actually mean sameness. There are a multitude of local and global communities that exist where varying and differing perspectives and ways of life come together to solve problems, to learn and to converse. If it was human nature to be selfish and sinful, how could we have people like Ghandi? Nelson Mandela? You? Your classmates? Can you truly say the majority of humans you interact with are at their core, are bad? I have to end with reiterating the idea that fair doesn't mean equal but it can mean peace.  

If words are so powerful, could they not be seen as a solution? I was fascinated by this experiment and if people truly were aware how impactful their words are on others and on themselves, do you not think people would be more thoughtful with the words they use? Have you ever tried to challenge yourself to only say postive things for an entire day? It is difficult because we are not conditioned to see everything through a postive lens, but if people can physically see how words impact people and things, it will become less of a challenge and will eventually develop into a natural state for everyone.