takes israel's nukes and give them to iran.
... ?
someone just blow up earth already then there will be world peace
World pieces. Not world peace. World peace implies that there is still humans left on Eath to be peaceful to one another.
while I agree that the proposal of blowing up the world is stupid and I hope that was said in jest, I don't think that the presence of humans is necessary for a state of world peace. mind explaining yourself further, phi?
When I say or hear "world peace" I don't mean harmony amongst animals and trees. Those bastards [animals] are always tearing each other up. Besides, "peace" is a human concept thus requiring humans to fulfill it. Nature will equalize--that's normal, but not peaceful.
this is kind of an interesting thing to talk about since you have to define world peace first. is it the absence of organized fighting or war? is it the complete absence of any violence on the planet? I'm really not sure!
I still think that it could exist without humans on the planet though. just because they're absent doesn't make the fulfillment of a human concept impossible. it makes identification of it impossible, but it's still there. that's my take at least. any philosophically-inclined people feel free to tear me a new one.
I still think that it could exist without humans on the planet though. just because they're absent doesn't make the fulfillment of a human concept impossible. it makes identification of it impossible, but it's still there. that's my take at least. any philosophically-inclined people feel free to tear me a new one.
I define world peace as truly peaceful behavior amongst and between all the people on the planet. This means both your definitions are true, asemi. There would be a lack of violence and a lack of organized warfare. A utopia, if you will.