World peace is a loveable idea that implies freedom, joyful, and peace inside and among all countries and individuals in the world. However as much as it is loveable idea, it is likewise a disputable subject. In this day furthermore, age of internet, social media, news platforms, and instant communication, the possibility of peace is right in front of us every time. We are continually inquired as to whether it is feasible to find world peace, yet all at once not in a direct way. It is asked verifiably on the forms of recordings and news about the continuous contentions all over the world. The civil war in Yemen, the deadly battles in Afghanistan, the tension between the United States and China, the aggression between middle eastern nations, the civil war in Syria, the economic drop of Venezuela, etc. I have asked five colleagues of mine the inquiry we face day to day yet this time in an direct way; is it conceivable to experience world peace? Why or what difference would it make?
Vincent, the first individual I asked, expressed that, "It is guileless to believe that awareness campaigns, government strategy, and genuine pleading will achieve a world of peace since people are not competent for world peace. Humanity extremely large and varied; it is difficult to convey to everybody and persuade everybody to be in total agreement. Arranging an outing with 4 persons is already hard enough to get everybody be in total agreement." I can't help contradicting Vincent about awareness campaigns, government strategy, and genuine pleading on the grounds that while it may not achieve world peace on the get go it accomplishes peace within a certain populace, nonetheless, we need to understand that since humanity is "very large and varied" as Vincent expressed that any single-dimensional way to deal with peace isn't sufficient to oust the complex war system we have suffered over quite a long while. Indeed, even if people have numerous differences, it wouldn't be a reason for world peace to be inconceivable, it simply makes world peace harder to reach since building a culture of peace doesn't mean the homogenization of people's method of lives. Since people have a lot of differences, we simply need to have a healthy respect for diversity. This explanation that Vincent gave holds irony since everyone that I asked the question also was all in total agreement despite the fact that they have not met one another. They all believe that world peace is unimaginable with their reasoning identical, the only difference being in how they said their responses.
Evan, the second person I asked, expressed, "I think not, as long as organisms exist there will be always conflict, relies upon what sort of peace. Conflict is the nature of the world. Obviously, assuming it is people, I feel that peace can exist if it is that human personality isn't an issue. Be that as it may, with what we have now, people can't enjoy peace only because of the nature of negative traits. I mean I am a generally good person yet indeed, even I can cause clashes and hence no peace. I mean it is somewhat the science of peace, cause each action has an equivalent and opposite response, for each opinion someone will have the opposite, furthermore, with facts people will trust them or not. However opinions exist conflict will, and conflict ends peace." I concur with Evan that conflicts won't ever fail to exist, yet I think that Evan and all the other interviewees misjudges what peace genuinely is because that they don't perceive that peace is more than the shortfall of conflict and war. Peace is an approach of managing with conflict that outcomes in satisfaction what's more, justice with the shortfall of savagery.
The last three interviewees Natalie, Mark, and Hannah said exactly the same thing as Vincent and Evan however in less broad statements that reduces world peace being impossible because of the philosophy that human being are destructive in nature. This philosophy is precisely why many people have practically zero expectation and just a little capability to see the far in front of peace in light of the fact that it determines what peace is not, yet not what it is. This philosophy delivered by the nature of education in a war system where war is educated as unavoidable and occasionally justified; that peace can possibly be kept on the off chance that there is a superior power that the defeated and subjugated adheres to. A negative peace is encouraged in which many won't have equivalent equity and security that positive peace provides. This philosophy is essentially false as it sums up the "too large and varied" humanity that Vincent said. Similarly as there are individuals who side with violence and obliteration, there are likewise numerous people with an astounding motivation for peace to exist across the world.
Do I think world peace is conceivable? Indeed, I believe world peace is conceivable in light of the fact that for however long there is a longing for peace that ceaselessly gushes in people's heart and with a strength to satchel it through many changes throughout the long years then we are now a step closer to a world of peace.