Would you choose Peace or Money ?

**Maciamo** · Dec 14, 2004, 11:22

If you were given the choice between a huge sum of money or peace in th world (don't ask me how, or it would already be done), which one would you choose ?

I'd certainly go for peace in the world, whatever the sum offered.

My prime concerns in life are far from being topped by money as I mentioned in another thread.

My ideal world is one of peace, happiness and reason. Money is just a necessity created by some futile cravings for material possessions. Only food, a home to sleep and feel secure, and access to information (eg. the Internet) are absolutely necessary for the good development of a human being. All the rest is optional and should not be a cause of unhappiness. At best, the external factors that influence happiness are the weather (sunny and comfortable enough) and the relations to people ("the society") around us.

I am sometimes appaled at the shallowness of people. In Japan, for instance (as it is where I live, the example springs to mind more quickly), many people I know seem preoccupied by giving each other presents (o-miyage, o-chugen, o-toshidama...), helping a old woman carrying her heavy bag, being polite, arriving on time, etc. These are all relatively important things, but what shocks me is that these very people would certainly choose money over world peace, because money and material possessions is all that ultimately counts for them. I can't agree with that because I can control my cravings, relativize them and make them feel unimportant. My Japanese just do not understand that buying lots of stuff won't make you more happy in the long-term. It may cause some excitement and satisfaction at first, but then the novelty wears off and another craving replaces it.

Isn't weird that in a country supposedly influenced by Buddhist values, the most basic principle of Buddhism (renunciation of desires for material possessions) should be so startingly absent from people's minds ? But we could say that in the most Christian countries (USA, Southern Italy 50 years ago), the most basic principles of Christianity ("love and forgive all") should be as blatantly at odds with the behaviour of people. The US is after all the developed country with the highest crime (and esp. murder) rate and the country of the vendetta par excellence, where people sue other people over anything. That is a far cry from Christian forgiveness. I'd say that Japanese people are much more "Christian" (i.e. following the teachng of the Christ) in their behaviour than most Westerners, but particularily compared to Americans.

This kind of "Christian" behaviour does not distrub me at all (as an Atheist). What bothers me is "the only true and almight God" and "fear the divine punishment" thing and all cult (mass, prayer, crucifix...) and superstitions (saints, Xmas...). Jesus was otherwise a good chap, but not very realistic in his expectations, as 2000 years of Christianity (in name at least) have proven.

**TwistedMac** · Dec 14, 2004, 12:34

1 billion!
peace is overrated and a generation of it would only breed worse wars next generation, a generation revolting against the last only in epic dimensions...

ok so I'm just really selfish and I justify it with that.

**RockLee** · Dec 14, 2004, 21:01

peace ofcourse...no doubt

**jovial_jon** · Dec 14, 2004, 23:07

Peace.

Money is not particularly important to me and having more than enough to get by leaves me feeling pretty empty in a way as it is. The knowledge that others were living peaceful lives is certainly worth more to me.

If you balance up $1million for yourself vs peace for 6 billion people (many of whom could really do with peace in their lives), I think it's a pretty easy choice.

**kirei_na_me** · Dec 14, 2004, 23:12

Peace.

If we had peace, it would give those people in turmoil a chance to make something of themselves, and then maybe everyone could prosper as a result.

Forget the money. I'd be much happier knowing that my children and all other children in the world would be safer.

**EscaFlowne** · Dec 15, 2004, 00:03

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

1 billion!
peace is overrated and a generation of it would only breed worse wars next generation, a generation revolting against the last only in epic dimensions...

ok so I'm just really selfish and I justify it with that.

Ditto

And besides the thought of peace is like a fleeting dream.

**Mimmy_08** · Dec 15, 2004, 00:05

Definetely PEACE

**Fantt** · Dec 15, 2004, 02:30

Peace. Though, I don't think I'd really want to have to choose anything that would artificially alter the future. The future is as it will be and I'd rather leave it at that.

**Jungle Boy** · Dec 15, 2004, 11:45

I would choose the billion dollars. Simply because you stated in your hypothetical "World peace for at least a generation". After that generation no doubt that mankind would descent into the same pattern of voilence that it has followed for thousands of years. There will never be world peace, call my synical but it's man's nature to kill and that will sadly never change.

**Fantt** · Dec 15, 2004, 12:14

The world is a much happier place when your thinking is more optimistic. At least for me it is. I can imagine a world with no wars or killing. There's so many more constructive things we can do as a species. Once aging, senility, heart disease and cancer have been cured, people will think differently about death and killing.

**TwistedMac** · Dec 15, 2004, 12:42

yesssss.. it will be done much more efficiently and in much larger quantities thanks to development and science!

ax · Dec 15, 2004, 13:06

Has there been peace in this world? even the goose that queitly float on the lake, its feet is not at peace

ax

**ragedaddy** · Dec 15, 2004, 13:33

Originally Posted by Jungle Boy

I would choose the billion dollars. Simply because you stated in your hypothetical "World peace for at least a generation". After that generation no doubt that mankind would descent into the same pattern of voilence that it has followed for thousands of years. There will never be world peace, call my synical but it's man's nature to kill and that will sadly never change.

My sentiments exactly, In a Utopian world there may be a chance for world peace, but the fact is that this is reality, and it is never going to happen. You can have all the optimism in the world, but as long as there is money, natural resources, and power in this world, peace goes right out the window.

**jovial_jon** · Dec 15, 2004, 14:45

I still think depriving the rest of the world of peace for their lifetime so you can have some money is pretty lame, regardless of whether the peace will last. If somehow we could guarantee peace for a generation, then who knows what could happen after that? It's impossible to predict how the future would turn out due to the arrival of peace because it's never happened. Humans are weird creatures and it's impossible to say 'this is how we will react' to something which would be such a major change to what we're used to.

**Elizabeth** · Dec 15, 2004, 21:56

Originally Posted by Fantt

The world is a much happier place when your thinking is more optimistic. At least for me it is. I can imagine a world with no wars or killing. There's so many more constructive things we can do as a species. Once aging, senility, heart disease and cancer have been cured, people will think differently about death and killing.

I definately don't think aging is a disease, much less one that will be 'cured' anytime soon, perhaps heart disease, Alzheimers and cancer in the next generation or two. But then what will there be left to accomplish ?

It reminds me of a book which came out a few years ago called "War is the Force which gives Life Meaning" by a former NYTimes war correspondent who was ultimately irrefutably repulsed by the horrors of political violence at least and argues it is only perpetuated by certain types of people addicted to killing like addicts to drugs. On the other hand, there is space for reflection and thought in the title. So I'd have to say peace, but only for a generation at a time.

**Fantt** · Dec 15, 2004, 23:01

Some very smart scientists think that aging is a curable disease.

One hundred years ago people would have laughed at the thought of sending people to the moon or travelling from Europe the the states in a matter of hours. Curing aging may be controversial, but again, I'd rather be optimistic. People a lot more intelligent than me are working very hard to make it a reality.

**Elizabeth** · Dec 15, 2004, 23:11

Originally Posted by Fantt

Some very smart scientists think that aging is a curable disease.

One hundred years ago people would have laughed at the thought of sending people to the moon or travelling from Europe the the states in a matter of hours. Curing aging may be controversial, but again, I'd rather be optimistic. People a lot more intelligent than me are working very hard to make it a reality.

But what would be the point ?

There are other perspectives on life besides the challenge of scientific pursuit, obviously.

**Fantt** · Dec 15, 2004, 23:39

The point would be to eliminate the suffering caused by growing old.

**Elizabeth** · Dec 15, 2004, 23:43

Originally Posted by Fantt

The point would be to eliminate the suffering caused by growing old.

At what age should aging be eliminated, though ? And why is it not sufficient to simply work on the diseases concomitant with old age which directly effect the degree of suffering ? The answer must lie in those links I haven't made time for yet....