What if world peace is only achievable without free will? — Bryce

This is self-defeating. Without free-will, or at least the delusion of it, peace would be meaningless. In other words, freedom is essential for peace.

What was the original idea of free will?

There is probably no way for long lasting peace on earth. However, the world could and should strive to be more peaceful with fewer wars.

I think that it is instructive that the more athestic a society the less warlike it is.

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman summarizes their results in his new book Living the Secular Life:
...according to their most recent rankings, among the top ten most peaceful nations on earth, all are among the least God-believing – in fact, eight of the ten are specifically among the least theistic nations on earth. Conversely, of the bottom ten – the least peaceful nations – most of them are extremely religious.

The Guardian

I think if a world of just atheists were possible, it would be necessarily more peaceful than the current world, (look at the history of Religion) because it would not be tied to an autocratic, absolutist ruler. The same goes (& they seem very close) for any absolutist attempt to have a classless society, such as Stalin.

What if world peace is only achievable without free will?

Would it be safe to assume that if there was only one ideology that the population lived by, that this question would prove true? One religion, one political system, — Bryce

As the Mad Fool noted, zero free-will is self defeating.

World peace, where everyone is satisfied by their share of the good, requires a static environment where nothing changes. New desires can not arise, new resources can not be found, new ideas can not be thought -- because anything new might destabilize the perfect balance. Population, production, distribution, and consumption would all have to be rigidly controlled.

Since we do not, and will not have a static environment (in fact we have a dynamic and unstable environment) we can expect that conflict will arise indefinitely. That's the price of existence as we know it. It's not good or bad, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

World peace, where everyone is satisfied by their share of the good, requires a static environment where nothing changes. New desires can not arise, new resources can not be found, new ideas can not be thought -- because anything new might destabilize the perfect balance. Population, production, distribution, and consumption would all have to be rigidly controlled. — Bitter Crank

World peace becomes a further distant reality with the more people that live on the earth. You simply cannot make friends without making enemies. Not everyone gets along with each other, times that by 7 billion and that's why world peace will never be.

If humans had altered genes they could have a sort of world peace. Some species of creatures basically never fight, and if they do fight, it is not lethal.

What if world peace is only achievable without free will? — Bryce

I first want to comment on the notion of world peace:

World peace seems to be here mentioned, however hypothetically, as though it were some absolute finale to be obtained between conscious agents. It can’t be.

Here’s one possible definition of world peace: a world where no human rapes other humans. Can this even be envisioned by us? It would require quite a lot to be accomplished: a different politics and economy for instance, and this at global levels—obviously one founded on the principle of universal checks and balances. It would also require that no human, male or female, would find any self interest in either raping or in condoning the activity to be in any way justifiable (e.g., well, that’s the way the world/reality is/works).

Is it possible that this ideal can be obtained … in the following week, the following century, how about 10,000 years from now?

To say, “no” is to not struggle for it. Yes, today, many will indeed answer “no, this ideal is not possible to ever obtain”. But let’s say that we’re not omniscient on this issue and that not only is this state of the world possible but that it will be obtained, say, 50,000 years from now.

Will it be “world peace” then? Relative to today’s world, hell yes! Relative to ideals yet to be found of increased understanding between people, hell no. Nevertheless, once obtained as here defined, human relations could always descend back into today’s standards of civility—just as today’s standards of civility can, given an atom bomb here and there, descend back into even more barbaric times of human interaction in the generations to come.

World peace can never be an absolute. But we can be closer or further from what we can currently envision to be a world peace by comparison to today’s standards of living. And, to deny that things can be better is to not invest any effort in attempting to make things better.

In relation to world peace and freewill:

It can only be achieved through the freewill of all (or at least most) so intending it to be. Which, mandatorily, negates coercion as means toward such an ends: just as one cannot coerce another into sincerely liking/sympathizing with you by placing a gun to their head, so too can a human populace not be coerced into treating all people as respected members of a global community. Both fascism and Stalinist (as compared with kibbutz-like) communism come to mind in this respect.

People should be more specific about vague goals such as world peace.

Thought experiment. Remember the Star Trek episode where everyone wears a pain collar to inflict horrible discomfort if they violate the rules. In the end it turns out the society is run by a computer.

Now that is a totally peaceful society. Any brutal slave regime can achieve peace.

Wouldn't you prefer a little freedom and disorder? In fact disorder is the very price of freedom. Instead of the American civil war, would you have preferred to let the south keep their slaves? Lots of peace but no freedom.

World peace without freedom or individual autonomy would be a horrible nightmare.

Remember that Leibniz said we live in the best of all possible worlds. Be careful with your vague tinkering. You might get what you ask for and regret it immensely.

The world is at peace. It is the mind that is restless.

The world is at peace. It is the mind that is restless. — unenlightened

Wait a minute, aren’t our bodies aspects of the physical world?

Gottcha (or so I currently believe …)

Nope, had no real point in bringing this up.

Some species of creatures basically never fight, and if they do fight, it is not lethal. — dannerz2

That's very true, and good for them. But those creatures are not humans. Diplomacy and negotiation is our best non-lethal means of resolving conflict. It works great until someone decides they are not getting what they want by these methods. Then it's pull out the cannons and blast away.

We are lethal in ways that squirrels and whales aren't lethal in their competition because we are bright, emotionally driven tool users who can amplify our anger with everything from sharp rocks to thermonuclear weapons.

An additional problem is that we have fairly soft bodies. We can't bang our horns together until one of the two head-butters gives up. If we bang our heads together, we end up with chronic traumatic encephalopathy. We don't have thick fur and tough skin that allows us to slash and bite each other without causing fatal wounds.

I think I agree with what you've written. I have little to add to it right now. Maybe later.