Think about this: Who wants world peace? Who? Because that’s important. Not everyone wants it.
If you are a dictator set on world dominance, would you want world peace? Probably no.
If you are poor and hungry and you see a way to gain what you want from your neighboring village, would you want world peace? At that point, you are probably more set on war than peace. You have unfulfilled needs that others don’t. You decide it isn’t fair and so you are set on making it even.
Who wants world peace? It seems to be a theme with the Miss America pageant. One would-be Miss America was asked the question, “What are your main goals in life?” And the pretty young girl said, “Well, first I want to get my own apartment and then”, she paused, thinking, “world peace.”
From my observations, it appears to me that the people who want world peace are those who have enough to survive in relative comfort, they have no goals of world dominance, and they’d rather have peace than “more”. In other words, they don’t need to fight. Generally speaking, they have a satisfactory social structure, and they believe that what they are doing, or what they believe they can do, will get them what they want.
So if you want world peace and you have the means to make a difference, concentrate on that. Today it seems the middle class is shrinking. Somehow, both the upper and lower classes are acquiring new members at an alarming rate. The world has more billionaires than they’ve ever had, regardless of politics. And the middle class income just isn’t covering their needs. And I fear we are on the brink of war or revolution, wars coming from the upper class and revolution coming from the lower class. The middle class just wants peace.
There are pluses and minuses to all categories. Each one has a purpose and a consequence. Without all three classes, we easily might not have survived. As man expanded out of Africa, the human race grew exponentially. As various fingers of the migration expanded into each other, they’d long forgotten they were once brothers (and sisters). All they knew was, as said by the Amish, “I mean thee no harm, but thou art in the direction I mean to shoot.” In other words, I need that space for my expanding tribes, and you are in the way. There was always a winner and a loser. And the winner usually took all. And once you get the taste of winning and know the strength of your troops, I can see it’s a short distance to deciding to clear out all your possible enemies, just nip it in the bud, and take the loot. Fear is a great driver. If you can beat them before they attack, so much the better.
Clearly, this is adverse aggression, however, it has a place. However you want to consider it, the strongest humans survived. We need strong humans so we can put their genes in our gene pool, because, well, we want to survive. So, in an indirect way, it was bound to happen. The strongest, or most fit, always win, no judgment attached. It’s just a fact. You don’t have to encourage it. People will do everything they can to survive. That’s the survival instinct. So maybe it isn’t so adverse. If your tribe is on the winning side, it might not be adverse at all.
But everyone’s abilities are different. That’s what makes up the class system, at least in the beginning. The strong subjugated the weak out of fear and greed. Greed itself can be good and bad. Great things come out of greed, great inventions, great technological advancements, great architecture. Greed is a great motivator. The greed for money and power has tremendous output. And those who allow greed to motivate may have more advances than those who are satisfied with medium pay for medium output. But in the long run, there is a heavy and ugly price to pay for that. Capitalism has a “creative-destruction” cycle that nullifies much of the advancement and makes many people from all classes poor during recessions and economic depressions. Some survive the financial fall and remain in the upper class. Then, a new generation of entrepreneurs arrives on the scene and the cycle repeats. It is a stress filled cycle that was most likely derived out of environments that were especially difficult to live in such as the colder regions with little food or warmth, resulting in desperation.
Communism, in thought, appears to be run like a family, with each pulling his or her own weight. It just doesn’t seem like it has occured that way in reality as those in control seem to control the opportunities as well and take advantage of that. And to keep that advantage secret, they tend to throw an excessive amount of money into the military, which also helps keep them in power. It seems they end up controlling to their own advantage in order to maintain their upper positions. A wealthy ruling class does not benefit from world peace because it equalizes people. Their wealth would have to be spread out over the masses of poor.
It appears to me that the larger the middle class is, the more people want world peace and are willing to achieve it. How can we increase the middle class? It’s a tough question. The problem is, if you get too angry at your neighbor, you want to annihilate them. If you help them too much, they may take advantage of your generosity. When your enemy has a gun, that might not be the best time to turn the other cheek. After all, you have a survival instinct. You have families you want to save. So what’s the answer?
The answer is this: world peace is inevitable. You don’t have to encourage it. Now you are probably thinking I am stark raving mad. But look at the history of man. They go into new seemingly unoccupied lands. They settle. They grow. They build villages and work hard. Then they expand with large families. So they need more room. They send out branches of their tribes to form new tribes. The old village thrives because they are already set up. Some of them become middle class because life is getting easier. A lot of the work has been done. They are perhaps ready for a peaceful life style.
But look at the branch that moved out. They essentially have to start over. They have to build new homes, new buildings, new farms, new ranches, new roads. They have to find food sources. They have to adjust to their environments. Life is hard. They must be more industrious than the old village. They don’t have time to become middle class. They have strong needs. And when they bump into an unknown neighbor, there may be some aggression on one or both sides. This is where war happens. You need all your land. The new neighbors may want to take some of yours to meet their own growing needs. Or, alternatively, you may need some of their land. So you make war. You have to if you want to survive. Suspicion and dislike run rampant. And it will do so until you both have plenty and you both understand and like each other.
Human expansion isn’t finished. We are still in the phase of expanding on this Earth. However, we are in the final stages of it. Never in man’s history have we been able to see and understand our journey from Africa to completion. The world on land is now fully discovered. East and west have met. Though we are still a growing population, there are two things that are governing our decrease in family size. One is that we are not expanding (as much) into new lands that require the building of new cities. Most of us are in established communities where a lot of the work has been done. Like the old village, our attention can be diverted to things other than forming a new community and building it into one. That makes us wealthier as a community, so long as we don’t destroy what we have made. And wealthier means more middle class. More middle class means less desire to fight. The other factor is family size. In many countries, family size has been reduced to two children whereas even one hundred years ago, the average family would have been much larger, ten to fifteen children. That decreases the rate of expansion, and with less expansion, we also have less need to fight. We may want your land, but we don’t have to have it to survive. It’s a battle we might choose to not fight.
Now here is an interesting thought to ponder regarding the fight for peace. In all of history, we’ve had to fight just to stay in the game. Each tribe has to be about the equal strength or they will simply be massacred. And as we become a “fatter” society, we also have to choose equally to fight less. Powers still need to be somewhat equal. To suddenly stand up and declare that you will not fight only ensures your survival if you have someone fighting for you, at least according to historical observations. To avoid war, your enemy must believe that to fight would be more damaging than not to fight, either because you are too strong, or you are protected by someone too strong, or your projected losses would not justify your projected gains. There is always a reason to fight, and a reason not to fight. So long as we all have that reason equally not to fight, we are good. So as long as some country appears to want to fight, the enemy must also appear to want to fight. This may not sound loving, but it’s what kept us around. Without this cultural approach, you would not be here to think it does not sound loving.
And it isn’t loving. It is not a loving world out there. It is a world of survival and competition. The lion does not love the antelope, except the taste of it. The big bull does not love the little bull. For survival, we need the big bull’s genetics so that when the lion comes around, we’ll have the biggest bull to protect us. That’s what fighting is all about, survival of the fittest. But as we all become equally fit and members of the same world family, the culture must change from one of fighting enemies to caring for family members. The first occurence of this that I am aware of was the US Civil War of 1860. There were enough middle class people to be able to empathize with slaves. That was something new. Where else has that occured? What country has ever done that, where half the country fights the other half and gives the lives of their sons to fight for slaves? What an unusual idea. Has that ever been done before? To me, that is a shift in mankind’s thinking brought on by the end of expansion. Our rate of expansion had slowed by then. The very next generation would be the generation to reduce family size permanently in the US. Though there were two steps back for every three steps forward, human life would change forever. There was no new land to expand into. We would have to make do with what we had. We’d fight over it for a while, but eventually we’d settle down and deal with it, like two annoyed brothers, and then, eventually, become two brothers who care about each other.
I say peace is inevitable for two reasons. One is that as we become better equipped at feeding ourselves, as we become adapted to new technologies and a stable world population, we will be able to feed everyone, and the middle class will grow. It won’t be a steady growth, but like the stock market, the trend is upward. The more we understand each other, we can see each other as not someone to be afraid of, but someone who can help us. We can help each other. I was an exchange student in Germany when I was young, and although the Germans are not that different from us, as Americans, we weren’t friends during WWI or II. Yet now, 80 years later, I love Germans and Germany. I understand them. And I have a desire to learn other, more different cultures. But as the world grows in technology and ease of communication and spread of knowledge, the world gets smaller. Customs will grow to be more inclusive. Languages will change with the times and add new global vocabulary. We might not learn each other’s languages, but we might develop a new language we all understand.
I said I believe peace is inevitable for two reasons, and that was one. Here is the second. There are groups of people who are already committed to achieving world peace. So when I say it is inevitable, what I mean is, these groups are already in place, and I believe have been pushing for peace for a long time, secretly. And by this I infer a most inconspicuous group who has long raised eyebrows by their secrecy. They’ve been so secret in fact that many believe they must be up to something nefarious or there would be no need for secrecy. But you see, world peace is actually a very dangerous business to be in, as I said earlier, there are many in power who would not benefit from that and are willing to kill such revolutionaries. One such group that has been persecuted over hundreds if not thousands of years are the Freemasons. It is believed that they have a secret agenda to install a new world order. And I believe that is true. It’s just that I believe the new world order is to be world peace rather than world dominance. Why do I believe this? Look at the list of their beliefs. They are such things as honesty, virtue, brotherly love, equality, education, and so forth. What nefarious group would boast such desirable qualities? We know the members. They are some of our own most beloved figures such as George Washington himself. Freemasons have long been secret to avoid execution by kings whose castles they built. No, not because their workmanship was so poor, but because they knew where all the king’s exits and hiding places were, secrets too important to allow anyone to know who isn’t in the king’s family. Freemasons had to be secret to survive. And I believe all they really wanted was do their job, do it right, and be respected for it, and to live, as a middle class man, in a life of peace. The revolutionary war they started was the war to create a new country of middle class, equal, citizens. We’ve had our capitalistic days of greed and phenomenal inventions that have made us into a nation that stands apart. However, I believe the days of capitalism are waning, that their constructive-destructive nature is wasteful for the cycles of recessions it causes. Most of the people do not see honor in the word “politician”. They could be losing ground as we, as middle class people, desire more peace, less stress, and living within our means. We see examples in Scandinavia where socialism governs, and the people are happy and trust their officials. Yes, taxes are high, but so are benefits. Will we eventually become socialistic? Only time will tell. But I think the near future holds big changes in war and peace and getting along. I predict that within the next 200 years, we will live in a virtual state of relative peace, and that within the next 500 years we will live in complete peace as one planet, one people, governed not by one monarch or president, but by the many local governments who all get to express themselves.
That’s why I believe it’s inevitable and how we will get there.
And that’s my opinion.
Lisa Hering, April 9, 2020