We understand the concept of peace. We also understand that it is a fallacy. Or do we??
Our evolution, or really evolution in general, has it's basis on defining adaptations that allow a species to survive within a habitat. In so many words, evolution is about finding resources as effectively as possible in order to propogate a species own existence. And as determined by nature apparently, our bodies and the protiens associated can change over time as needed for successful generational livelihood.
In spite of the need to utilize certain resources, we are unique in the fact that we have defined this abstract idea called peace. Peace: a place or philosphy where all humans can get along without destroying each other or hording neccessary resources. A place where we can share the fruits of the planet. Where everyone has adequate shelter, food, medicine, and happiness. But is thes utopian ideology a realistic future?? And why would we have even defined such a philosophy if it were not possible??
I don't know that peace is a genuine probability. I think that embedded in our DNA is the code for aggressive behavior. We all need to eat. We all would like somewhere to live. We would all like to be happy. But in the pursuit of this comes competition. We can't all eat lobster. We can't all live on the beach in mutli-million dollar homes. The need and desire for certain resources is the death of possible peace. Until we can become a society that values equality across all resource needs we will never become a global peaceful civilization.
But the one thing I find interesting is the deep implications of DNA. We are on the verge of changing ourselves, perhaps in drastic ways. Can we find the aggressiveness gene? The one that neccessarily inhibits and snuffs out peace. It is beyond our control to try and become peaceful on our own (so to speak). That is, perhaps it IS within our grasp to become peaceful. But only by internal DNA manipulation. And this would create such a uniqueness to whatever species we might call it, that it would certainly be a one-of-a-kind. An organism that doesn't seek vital resources for itself only, but calmly and deliberately looks out for the good of everyone.
My thoughts are a bit mixed on this, because if we were to change ourselves into a non-aggressive entity, would it also change and undermine our individualism?? Our indivdual values, morals, and beliefs. As it would seem, this is the nature of being a conscious intelligent human. So, in a sense, perhaps peace is not all it is cracked up to be even if it were possible. So long as there are desireable things, peace will not exist. And without desireable things, what worth is life?? It seems to be quite paradoxical although superficially we attempt to look at peace as the ultimate rung of theoretical society. Hmmmm.
Posts
