in the interest of peace


I am a pacifist. The threat or even the possibility of war worries me on end and I will be the first to concede that war has allowed some people who would have been unknown be recognized as heroes. And in America, it does seem joining the military used to be or may still is a sure way of upward mobility.

I am naive also. I know the only way peace would be possible and here I talk world peace, is to have all sides put down their weapons. We know this is not going to happen because humans are not rational actors as we would like to think.

What option is left for peace? I think only an uneasy peace is possible. There will always be threat of war. Nations will continue to build up their armies at the expense of other social services.

Or maybe, nations will fight and those who will be left will agree to a peace agreement till the next war breaks out.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

26 thoughts on “in the interest of peace

  1. maryplumbago says:

    War is about money and power…two things that drive mankind and always will. Peace will come when we are gone.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      in short, lasting peace is not possible.
      have you read that American (Pinker) who has been telling anyone willing to listen that the world is more peaceful and prosperous. That those who say inequality is abound are looking at the wrong sets of data?

      Like

      • Pinker did not assert that we are more peaceful. He simply documented the available evidence of violence in human societies, and that it indicates that per capita incidents of violence have generally (but not consistently) decreased over time. He also cited various reasons for the decrease such as the rise of civilization, the desire of governments to maintain social stability, the promotion of civil and human rights which began during The Enlightenment, and several other factors. Furthermore, he noted that this historical trend is not by any means irreversible.

        I think Pinker’s research supports the contention that human nature is a complex mix of aggressive instincts and cooperative capacities, and that societal conditions have a huge effect on human behavior.

        Liked by 1 person

        • makagutu says:

          I haven’t read his book to comment authoritatively on it. I know there are those who disagree with his claims for example Ali Taib but I haven’t seen his data.
          This

          the promotion of civil and human rights which began during The Enlightenment,

          must have been to just a select group of humans and not all.
          But i think he is right that the trend is not irreversible.

          Like

  2. judyt54 says:

    And since there will always be people who value money and power, there will always be heated discussions about who and what and how many. Sometimes the lines get mangled, and include possession–wimmin or land or cattle–but at bottom it’s about who rides off with the girl and the cows and the land, when the fight is over.

    Some people have much stricter rules about boundaries than others: I cannot step, literally step, on someone else’s property without letting them know I’m going to. Our neighbor is as bad. Even if he’s coming cross-country, the shortcut, he lets us know. The difficulty comes when you have one set of personal boundaries and your neighbor doesn’t.

    It gets even trickier when the ‘rules are one way: i.e.,” I can walk all over your lawn, but you set foot on mine and I’ll brain you with a rock…”

    Gets tricky, don’t it.

    Like

  3. The tragedy of the commons. It’s in everyone’s interest that there be a general peace, but it’s not in anyone’s interest to be peaceful while others aren’t. And all it takes is one spoiler.

    Like

  4. renudepride says:

    I am also a pacifist and firmly believe that all of the world leaders who advocate war should be collected together and let them fight among themselves until there is only one survivor. In order for him to collect his survivors award, he most first swim the earth’s distance – solo. Have a good day, my Kenyan brother! 🙂 Naked hugs!

    Like

  5. Arkenaten says:

    Don’t fret …. as someone quite famous once noted, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Putting all the weapons down, & minding one’s own business would do much.

    Like

  7. Barry says:

    I think the word “pacifist” can be interpreted in too many different ways to be useful. I used to use the term to describe myself but too many people thought it meant “do nothing” when faced with violence. These days I prefer to call myself a “peace activist” or an “advocate for alternatives to violence”. It most certainly does not mean do nothing.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. jilldennison says:

    As long as greed and arrogance exist, there can be no global or lasting peace. Men fight because they believe they are somehow better than others, or because they want something someone else has. Human nature has doomed us to almost perpetual war, but in this, the era where our devastation of the environment has reached a tipping point, man’s wars will likely soon become irrelevant and the main fight will be for survival.

    Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s