Do you think the World needs a plan for people to work towards to achieve a world at Peace? And how do you think the plan should be presented, e.g. a book,film,video,digital disk,personal presentation etc?

If only it were that simple...

I imagine there are many learned scholars & philosophers who are always working on just such a plan. It would take a joint community effort made up of the greatest minds all over the world. It should then be presented, as much as possible, in person, but all other media should be utilized to get the message out to the 'far' corners of the earth.

There should be a pill everyone can take that will cause world peace. The only difficulty will be forcing everyone to swallow it.

I think the whole world should be given a collection of culturally-tailored fairy tales and stories to tell our children, all with the same message or moral or whatever. We can't fix this, but I bet the next generation can if they are all raised with this as a primary goal (and not in a brainwashy big-brother sense, in a loving, caring, nurturing, gift-to-them sort of sense).

A world at peace is impossible to achieve. You would need everyone to agree to the terms. We can't do that and still have any sort of independent thinking. There will always be people who do not want to take part. Will Saddam Hussein take part? I don't think so. So, do we replace the governments of the countries that refuse? Do we use troops to do it? Or do we use economic sanctions? Either way people will have to be forced to bow to the great plan of peace. It' s a nice idea, but simply impracticle.

A plan? Just one? Better to have lots of plans presented in every way possible.

It doesn't need a plan (in fact that might be detrimental), but it may need a vision. It would be unlikely to be effective if the vision were presented in a single medium.

Hey, if the plan is great, why not all of these mediums? Now that
we have the technology, lets stage a multimedia version of say,
a reconstruction of Plato's Republic (or pick your favorite Utopia).
Get Disney involved to create amintronic people, plop it next to
the Epcot center...ohhhh....the money you would make!

Nah. I think we've had plans (various religious teachings, the Communist Manifesto, etc.) and not enough people are actually interested in peace to make them work. I'd rather see a democratic world government. (Actually, I *rather* have an enlightened despot, but judging enlightenment seems to be beyond us.)

that's an interesting concept ... a World Plan.... I think the only plan than can work is to change yourself.

there is already a plan out there....it's the underlying theme in 1984...by George Orwell. Unless you really want society to end up like that.

Anonymous comments are starting to get on my nerves. Using them on surveys about, say, drug use or rape is understandable. Using them cause you're a wuss and don't want to stand behind what you say is annoying. anonymous: I don't have "debates" with people who are too wussy to reveal who they are. Get over YOURSELF and stop being such a wuss.

elijahblue - get all the way over it
lisashea (why did this not link?)- because being on surveycentral for so long with the same username has put me in a position where people react to me in a certain way - being anonymous once in a while breathes new life into my interactions and makes it more fun. Why do you need to assign a particular set of ASCII characters to my comments - why does 'anonymous' tweak you? It's not like you can't flame me anyway as 'anonymous' - I will still read elijahblue's nastygrams and know they are crafted lovingly just for me. I guess it throws a welcome bit of randomness back into the mix - but I see some of you don't like a moving target - you want a username you can attach your judgements to - even on the most mundane of issues. NYAH!

"digital disk"? World Peace on a floppy? Sort of like the floppies AOL send us, but much much better.
* Let me just offer my complete support for anonymous commenters and survey creators. I stand firmly behind people who choose to remain anonymous for what ever reason. Ignore the complaints, what you are doing is valid.
I find that I am annoyed by people making assumptions about my personality. I enjoy the freedom that anonymous commenting give me. I hate it when someone dismissed me because of some other statement I've made in the past. "Oh, he's an atheist - you can ignore him", or "he doesn't believe in socialism, he's heartless, so of course he'd say that, cretin."
People love to put other people in boxes, label them, make them into a stereotype. If any of you are finding that your Survey Central persona is getting to weighted down with assumption people make about you, I also support you simply creating a new alias (a new account) - go for it! Break the shackles of assumed personality, it's OK to change and be someone else if you like!

How about something like stone tablets or something. You could carve into the stone...oh...say 10 sort of "rules to live by".

Sorry kid...it's been done...doesn't work.

Between people's need for power and the economy (yes, Virginia, wars ARE money makers) it will never happen.

elijahblue...Since I've been on here I've noticed comments under certain "nicks" get torn apart more than others. I've also noticed there are a few people who's "nicks" are conspicuously absent. I'd like to think these people are still using SC under "anonymous" rather than abandoning it altogether.

The last thing the world needs is another plan.

*** elijahblue - I agree with you.

*** anonymous - that seems to be true; what I object to is people using 'anonymous' as a a shielf for taking pot shots at other people.

No.

.
reality: Thank you for your encouragement. Loved your colloquialism.
I agree with your analysis. Its the reason I purchased this computer 3 months ago. I am very excited by the results of the questions I have posted at Survey Central. I love a challenge. Something I read a long time ago gave me the wherewithal to aim for the stars. I cannot quote it verbatim but it goes something like this: 'If you have an idea and its a right idea, and you can get 10 (perhaps 11?} people to join you, then you can make it work'. So I will welcome anyone on board that believe in the maxim, 'Let mankind share equally and fairly the Earth's natural wealth and let everyone benefit exclusively from their own labour.'
i.e. we all own the Earth, and there should be no taxes!.
Taxes are not required if you consider the whole Earth's surface, including the oceans, the property of mankind, both present and future (that should sit well with the greenies).For then you can look at every square metre/yard and divide it economically into the 6 billion or so equal parts that each and every person owns.We are the stock/share holders. Every dollar rent the occupier pays for the exclusive use of whatever area they require for their business or residence, can be divided by the population of the Earth and used in whaterver manner the elected representatives see fit. Do you get the idea? Imagine, you own one six billionth or so of every square metre/yard of the Earth's surface and you are entitled to one six billionth or so of the rental revenue generated in a free market. Now put all those six billionths of income for every square metre/yard together and you have quite a tidy income. And this also applies to all mineral resourses. My god I hope the current owners of the oil deposits do not read this message. Just kidding-I think.

reality: Really enjoyed your response. I understand your view that the difficulty is in getting people into the mindset to accept the idea. However there is a way to eclipse this. We do not have to change the mind of the majority.
History has walked a path of timely changes and we are on the threshold of the next change.
A change normaly occurs without the agreement of the majority. However if the change is wrong then the majority can cause a new change.
The change I am proposing will be embraced by the few that understand the rightness of it. It matters not one whit that the majority are not interested for it will be a 'fait accompli'.

reality:I agree the good wins most of the time specially the big issues, thank goodness. However the good is not always apparent in the beginning.

lisashea: Your questions are to big for my small mind."I'll be back" after I have given much thought to your thoughts. Many thanks for them.

Bizarre. I think groups like the UN try to do this in general - with their committees on children and such. They solicit us for funds for these. Also, we get tons of messages about how to recycle and conserve, if we would only listen to them. I don't know if there ever can be a single, coordinated message about "this is how we all should live to best serve ourselves and our planet". We're too varied for that to work :)

(anonymous debate deleted)

Miykal: "change is normally done by a minority, but if the majority doesn't like it they can change it back"?? It's been proven that overturning a law is harder than putting the law in in the first place. I for one don't want a peace designed by a minority to achieve a goal that minority thinks is great and the rest of us are "dragged along with". Regardless of that goal. Hitler had a minority and almost brought the rest of us into his "world vision". He would have had "peace" once he quieted the troublemakers. I think a rational, long term peaceful solution will come from everyone having input and deciding jointly how to proceed, and by its nature this will be a slow process. I will resist strongly any attempt by any small group to "make the rest of us see reason" in their own, peculiar method.

If you admit we don't have peace now, how are you going to drop $800 trillion dollars of "rent" (which is a land tax) into a world-governing-body's hands and say, "distribute this equitably"?

Miykal: I think you missed that Reality was being sarcastic :). He meant that WHOEVER wins, they call themselves "good" and since history is written by winners it tends to make the losers seem "evil".

the World? no. The world would probably be happier if humans just vanished. does the human population of the world need a plan? yes. will you be able to get people to accept the plan? almost certainly not. the only thing that would work is if each and every religious person had a personal visitation from their god, and each and every non-religious person had a vision (or epiphany or whatever) telling them the same thing, that would be a decent step in the right direction. It wouldn't do it because there would be too many doubters. There are too many belief systems that are us and them, people need to realize that it is just us, there is no them. there won't ever be a them unless aliens come down and start thumbing their noses at us, or we can get things together enough to go out and find them ourselves. basically, there needs to be some level of understanding, patience and willingness to not take offense or live and let live instilled into humans. as for the method.. i'd recommend telepathy, because any other method is open to personal interpretation.

*I'm trying to figure out why anyone would take an anonymous comment as less than a regular comment. there is a person writing the comment, does it matter if they are labeled anonymous or feziwig, or flapdoodle? not in the least. or more to the point, if you have a lengthy conversation with a person in 'real life' and you don't get their name does that make the conversation less valid as far as input to your worldview? they may as well be anonymous ebcause you don't know who that person is. what about a heckler from the back row? if you are speaking, you can address the points and never know who they are, but they can raise valid points. btw, don't bother pointing out that you can call them forth and have them identified, if the person makes the comment and then doesn't want to be identified, the point is no less valid (or they are equally a jerk depending on the comment made).
if you are that big into analyzing, then you should be able to figure out an anonymous commenter by their style if they are a longtime commenter. my style of writing is going to be different from others', and I perpetually make (and don't fix) some spelling (and grammatical and punctuation) errors.
alternately, just read the name as AnyMouse and realize there are a lot of people using the account.
*lisashea: so if I just put in oodles of poodles love the blue stroodle (or some equally pointless statement, the line is stolen or misquoted btw), how is that more or less valid if I put my name or AnyMouse? it doesn't say anything, it is just heckling from the crowd. if you know it was me, then it is still a worthless comment, it doesn't carry any extra weight (unless you remember previous comments and want to do a multi survey discussion).
*lisashea: I am all for more complete understanding. I am arguing that an anonymous comment is as valid as an attributed comment in this context. if it is innane, then it is innane whether it is anonymous or not. if it is a valid argument and the person decides not to be identified, then it is still valid. if they choose not to be associated with previously stated ideas, or wish to make this point seperately, then it should be okay, basically treated as a comment from a new person.
miykal: spiffy, I wish you luck, but considering human nature and the learning curves, an electronic, and easily changable method may be best as you improve and take suggestions from others.
**miykal: I will certainly agree with the present and future idea, and I like the concept of a world leader. I will state again that the issue seems to be mostly getting people in the mindset to accept this. I think you'll find that most people will agree it is a good idea(or more precisely a good idea with modification), but the training and experience and human nature(or what I perceive to be nature, which people can be trained out of or leave behind on their own) will probably get in the way. The way things are currently, people don't give a whole lot of thought to the future, and the current attitudes would cause too many people to try to take advantage of the system. I am quite willing to work towards tolerance and understanding, but I haven't come up with anything good to change the minds of masses of people.
*miykal: um, you lost me. initially I thought that you were referring to something that some group would accept and if it was right, others could be made to see(essentially the effect snowball rolling downhill and picking up snow, or in this case followers) and it would bring about peace. I don't see peace 'just happening' or being a 'fait accompli' due to a small group. That doesn't seem peaceful, especially if any significant faction resists it. by significant, I mean anything up to .05% of the population (that is still millions of people). basically, a concerted effort by that many people (or even many fewer) could disrupt the peace. a small group (en)forcing peace onto a larger group is not valid, unless the larger group agrees.
I'll have to agree with lisashea here. I don't particularly like her example, but it is valid. the majority dragged along by an 'obviously right' minority doesn't make the minority correct, it merely makes them the winners.
depressing thought for the day, look at history and realize that the good guys always win.
*lisashea: essentially.

Not feasible, I think. Sad.

"seeker, there is no path. the path is forged by walking." there can be no One True Plan without dictatorship.