© 2019 Tomasio A. Rubinshtein, Philosopher

This website has been created by the Wix platform. Create a wix website as well.

Why World Peace is Impossible -- A Theory

Since the end of global warfare, from hippies to other pacifists, some portions of the human population had a same ambition in mind, and that ambition is to reach a state of world peace; a state where countries won't rival one another in resources and devastative technology, where there won't be any hostile human conflicts towards one another, where violence between one another would be as far-fetched as possible. However, it is at least obvious to some people, myself included, that the idea of world peace is itself too far-fetched into becoming a reality, even throughout the first half of the 21st century.

As to why such noble idea is beyond optimal actualization in the world and on local grounds and communities, I at least claim that the main obstacle behind reaching this goal is because of the antagonistic aspects of our nature as human beings. Some of us are quick to be angry, and even be violent to an extent, even towards those who are dear to us, whether physically or verbally; we are quick to generalize the entire being of a person based on a few patterns, especially online; we are quick, as well, to laugh at people and at their opinions and ideas without thinking twice about their feelings – and the list goes on. The point of this paragraph is, that we are too hostile towards one another, even in the micro-scale, to be competent enough to work together to build a more-peaceful world on the macro-scale of things and beings.

Do you happen to be in doubt, nonetheless, that world peace cannot be reached? Well, we can, theoretically, reach a future where all countries will be at peace with one another, or at least in a state of very long truces, and even today there are not a lot of wars between countries like it used to be before the 2 World Wars occurred. However, let us not forget that the micro-aspect of our lives can also be significantly influent on the macro-scale of the world, or at least of regions. A fight between two people can escalate into an issue between two communities, and that issue can escalate to a fight of the citizenry against their government, and that can go against other countries – you get the idea. The micro-scale of things and beings therefore is always potent to have some-sort of a butterfly-effect on the macro-scale, and that is, arguably, even truer today, in the age of the internet, where literarily anyone has the potential to become world-wide known and even become an influencer of audiences across the world.

Speaking of the internet – while it's probably one of our greatest inventions in both manners of communication and knowledge, it can also have a very deadly affect on people and even governments. From petty trolls looking for a good laugh, to hackers that threat others for money, the internet has a very dark side to itself, and I'm not necessarily talking about its specific region called the "dark side of the internet"; I rather mean literarily, as the internet can encourage us to express some very dark sides of ourselves, which some of us would probably not have the audacity or self-respect to do it in front of the person they bully, mock, extort and so forth.

The internet can therefore be seen as an example to how micro-scale interactions can lead to impacts of greater scales. Giving a specific example – a few years ago, an anonymous person was calling to Jewish communities across the U.S, threatening them and making them evacuate collective locations due to fake bomb threats. After a while it was revealed that the person was an Israeli teenager, creating nation-wide panic from the comfort of his room. That's how powerful one can be with the power of the internet, and its various dark potentials it contains.

It should thus be admitted that even though we as humans coined a term after ourselves – humane, to describe benevolence and civilization, we are also capable of the exact opposite of humane behaviour, even more so than animals, and because that potential is embedded within our nature, even it's not completely implemented by many of us, it can still be regarded as a competent reason as to why world peace is likely to be impossible – not because we aren't capable of being peaceful to one another, but because we are capable of the exact opposite; capable to various extant some may be willing to apply more than others, whether they admit it or not.

Regardless of the grim conclusion I have reached here, I would like to end this article with a positive note:

"Go home and be quiet"

"***** up your articles up your ***"

"We are laughing at you because of how clueless you are"

"Are you a retard?"

"Okay Rubinjew"

I'm aware it's ironic to end this article with the words of haters, but I decided to specifically do so because even in a world where an ultimate form of peace is theoretically impossible, we still have the right to protect ourselves; to sound our voices and to express our opinions, in a world that is more democratic than tyrannical.

And thus, I will continue doing so as well, without any intention to hurt anyone, even if others wish to hurt me for the legitimate content I provide and will to the world. While I cannot act like a dictator and tell people what to think about me, I still can do my best at overcoming intentional offenders, and not letting them to tell me to permanently shut up, even if no damage, whatsoever, has been done by me to anyone. You can use my example to your own life as well, if you happen to face adversaries, and remember that you don't own them anything. The world does not have to be peaceful in order for us to be peaceful towards the world.