Novel wrote:The only thing that you can do as an individual to end the cycle of violence is to choose to not participate in perpetuating the cycle of violence and encourage others to do the same. Celebrate those who help others through non-violent means. Place a higher value on compassion.
We are all being continuously programmed by a power structure that serves the egos and material interests of the have-lots by subjugating the have-lesses and have-nots, ideally without the latter realizing that they are in fact under extreme means of psychological control. Virtually everything is a form of propaganda that serves these ends. We have all become convinced that violence is an inevitable part of human society, therefore we see it as such. We are convinced that violence often equates with strength and courage, and for many of us, it is an essential aspect of our self-identities. Through this complete and total programming, we then become capable of almost any moral travesty in the name of our leaders ('ideals') because our focus is shifted from understanding the cause and effect of our violent actions within the big picture. Aggression leads to fear, and fear leads to aggression - forever.
The core falsehood, the belief that violence is an inherent and inevitable part of humanity, is the product of eons of social 'evolution', but the main thing to remember is that the future of humanity or any situation involving humans interacting absolutely does NOT need to be defined by the habitual responses of the past or the learned manner of perceiving reality. The past can be thousands of years, or five minutes ago, and everyone is challenged by reacting to their programming.
The only way for the cycle to end is to forgive those who trespass against you and help others. It is the only effective path to long-term change, as opposed to short-term pacification.
You are the only one who can make that choice for yourself, in every moment, in your real life, not in some kind of hypothetical situation. bbl gtg
This is a problem of the chicken and the egg;
To renounce violence, you need to be reasonably certain that your enemies will also renounce violence. The only thing worse than fighting and dying is not fighting and dying.
So who goes first? I can guarantee you it won't be me. And the majority of people on the planet have the same attitude. Don't forget that we're related to the apes; tribalism and violence are human nature, and biological urges are very difficult to resist.
The other problem with pacifism is that it takes only one violent person to disturb the pacifistic balance and push everybody else into violence themselves; In a world of 6 billion people, it's likely (to the point of near-certainty) that SOMEBODY will use violence to get what they want, especially considering that there isn't enough resources on the planet to keep 6 billion people living at a reasonable level of comfort. Even if only one in a million people were capable of violence, that's 6000 people worldwide who would force others to react violently to them... Your odds aren't good...
Could pacifism work in small communities? Perhaps. If there were an island with no outside contact, they could exist in a pacifist state of being. With a population of a few hundred or a thousand people, they could play the odds that nobody would disturb the pacifist status quo. But as soon as a resource gets scarce, (a spell of poor weather perhaps?) somebody is going to break the pact and dominate somebody else to get what they want.
So, if world peace is impossible on the macro scale, and at best unlikely and tenuous on a micro scale, is the ratio of humans to resources the problem?
It seems that since we have no natural predators, our violent nature is the only mechanism humanity has to keep our population in check. Perhaps our violent nature is a macro-biological necessity...
Food for thought, I'm just playing devil's advocate.