- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Unfortunately, nothing better has been invented since the invention of Christianity… there is only one answer to everything – love . However, we can reflect on this maxim as much as we like.�
At the domestic level, the issue of war and peace is solved quite simply. In particular, following Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, we assume the existence of a social contract between people – a situation in which we give part of our freedom to a third party, thus creating a state that guarantees us the most important rights, the court and the inviolability of private property. This solves the main problem: the war of all against all. In international relations, it is almost impossible to create such a superstate or superstate. As a result, world politics inevitably becomes an arena for war and confrontation.
However, the neoliberal approach to the study of international relations and world politics suggests that a state of war can be avoided. To do this, countries need to be democratized (Kant writes about the republican form of government), because in democratic societies, citizens choose power and will not vote for those who will send them to shed blood. The second aspect is the institutional framework that States create among themselves. This is how they build the structure of the game's rules. Institutions in this system can be both formal and informal, such as reputation. The third limiter of war is interdependence. The situation of mutual penetration of states into each other at the economic, social, cultural and political levels. The more closely states cooperate, the less likely they are to go to war with each other. War in this case becomes completely unprofitable.
The European Union confirms this concept of international relations. Old Europe itself is the Middle East of modern times-a place of constant wars and power struggles. Since the 19th century, for 150 years, wars have been waged between France and Germany over two important resources: coal and steel. The regions of Alsace and Lorraine, soaked in blood, changed hands several times. To solve this problem, first of all, Europeans combine these two economic sectors. The modern EU begins with the Unification of Coal and Steel (1952). The European Union has solved this problem through economic interconnections. They are not at war, because the resources for which blood used to be shed are now shared . As a consequence, Europeans began to build a common home, a common identity based on the values of the Enlightenment, the common tragedy of World War II and the Holocaust.�
Let's debunk it all at once: economic dependence and a republican form of government do not always guarantee peace. Look: on the eve of the First World War (or the Great War), countries were terribly economically integrated into each other, monarchs were relatives, but this did not save the world.�
Marxism, on the other hand, says that wars arise precisely because of private property, the desire for production. The extinction of the concepts of State and private property should lead to world peace. However, we understand that this will definitely not happen yet. Perhaps the sharing economy will contribute to this. Future generations will not need to possess it, but will need to use it (as is the case with the EU). But let's ask ourselves: will this save us from a war for ideas, for faith?
Let's turn our strict gaze to the world. What are the main challenges we face? Whether we are on the left or the right, the problems are the same: poverty (the income gap), the environment, education, religion, general xenophobia and intolerance (let's include all sorts of cultural aspects). Everyone can add to my list, but I think the scenarios will remain the same. �
Therefore, my main answer is: education and upbringing, confidence in the future. Nothing else will save the world from destruction.
Children are born with blank sheets of paper, and what we write on them will burn out.We need to educate and educate our children. They need to instill the complexity of the world. They need to be told that there are no easy answers to difficult questions. No need to be afraid of other cultures. They sometimes follow the same logic as ours. A big role in this is played by the openness of the world, cinema, music and the network.�
For example, Switzerland is the country that has the largest number of weapons per person, but there are very few violent crimes=). In the United States, where even carrying a firearm is allowed, fewer people are killed a year than in Russia from a knife. So we can only conclude one thing: let's educate people and give them the right to vote, give them the right to control their lives. This is the key to world peace.�
If only people, like in the cartoon “Zootopia”, will suppress their animal instincts, and testosterone will stop causing aggression. Well, or people will realize that if they steal the entire planet, then no one will get anything in the end.
It seems to me that this will progress by itself with the improvement of literacy of everyone in the world and the understanding that everyone has the right to their own opinion. However, freedom of choice means loving some people and not loving others. Respect one and disrespect the other. I think that general education and instilling culture, morality, law, as well as increasing the average income, still creates in a person patience or even indifference to someone else's even contradictory opinion. And respect for private property and privacy. I don't think it can be created, because it is absolute and more like a dictatorship, you can only significantly smooth out and minimize the consequences of conflicts, in the form of less wars and kravopolitiya for example. The same freedom of choice allows you not to want world peace or imagine it differently for yourself, so the question itself is meaningless, and development and validity do their job.well Imho.