On any idea, always there's the opposite idea. What is right and wrong, many perceive in different ways.

For Example Globalism is it good or bad?

A divergence grows between different cultures until there is a conflict of interest. — Jonmel

Culture is the identity of the nation. Identity is always a conflict of interest. Only in a world where all people are the same, there will be fewer conflicts

Culture is the identity of the nation. Identity is always a conflict of interest. Only in a world where all people are the same, there will be fewer conflicts — Geo

That's correct, its where people have differences there is the possibility for conflict to arise. But if everyone was the same, like clones, then I think human progress would stall, people would be like zombies not questioning anything. I feel this would lead to human civilization becoming weak without any resilience to external pressures.

For Example Globalism is it good or bad? — Geo

If globalism was allowed to run its natural course then all countries would essentially merge into being one. National identities would slowly be eroded until human civilization would become a mononculture. By maintaining a balance between disparate groups there will always be vibrance and the emergence of new cultures/ ideas/ ways of living.

then I think human progress would stall — Jonmel

Maybe if progress stall its not bad. Progress gives more and more opportunities for humanity to destroy this world

If globalism was allowed to run its natural course then all countries would essentially merge into being one. National identities would slowly be eroded until human civilization would become a mononculture. — Jonmel

For the white race globalism is disastrous, it will disappears as the Neanderthals disappeared.

For the white race globalism is disastrous, it will disappears as the Neanderthals disappeared — Geo

Certain aspects of unchecked globalism definitely do have obvious negative implications for the human race as a whole - human trafficking, money laundering, extremism, toxic waste disposal, centralised power …

Although I'm not sure if I would classify 'whiteness' as a race, skin colour depends more on latitude ie distance from the equator. Example, Scandinavians and Russians could be classified as predominantly white but of different race with different physical traits and cultures.

In the advent of globalism then the difference between all cultures would become less over time. People would become more homogonised so that colours of skin might become less pronounced, but more importantly people's ways of thinking and creativity also become more homogenised. This might make the human race as a whole less resilient to external pressures, such as climate change and biodiversity collapse.

The case with Neanderthals was that they were likely outcompeted and less adaptable than Homeosapiens. Together with the onset of a colder climate they died out even though their heavier and stronger bodies would have been more resilient to cold weather. This is likely because they were thought to have travelled less and lived in smaller networks so resources would have become harder to obtain.

Maybe if progress stall its not bad. Progress gives more and more opportunities for humanity to destroy this world — Geo

Habitat loss, species extinctions, and over population are large threats to this world. If humanity were to stall evolutionary at this point, yet carry on expanding in numbers, then I think it is likely that we will have a catastrophic loss of biodiversity to other species on the planet. This is already happening, we are now entering the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth. It leaves humans in a perilous state because the plants we rely on for food and medicine are more susceptible to disease, genetic loss, lack of pollination through insect decline, and other unforeseen events. Food shortages in itself would likely lead to world wars.

I think world peace can be achieved if humans wisely use the intellect and ability for social cohesion we have been gifted; promote different cultures and ways of life, allow free trade and open communication. Also actually address the issues of inequality, world poverty, education and general dumbing down of the population by centralised elitist governing and corporate powers . This can be achieved by moving away from all forms of centralised systems. It seems clear that small, independent and democratic nations who are allowed to govern themselves without external pressures can thrive through competition and the development of tailored technologies.

This would mean abolishing the power of the superpowers through nuclear disarmament, monetary reform, prosecutions for violations of international law (invasions under false pretences - for example, Iraq/ Libya/ Afghanistan …), dissolution of IMF and forgiveness of debts owing… Unfortunately these things are only possible if small independent nations all act as one so its a bit of a conundrum in that we need dissolution of centralised power but the way to achieve that involves an overseeing body - an 'all seeing eye' - to enforce it.

I think world peace can be achieved if humans wisely use the intellect and ability for social cohesion we have been gifted; promote different cultures and ways of life, allow free trade and open communication. — Jonmel

Long world peace is only possible when there is one race, one culture and one country in the world.

Not necessarily.
Just have to act as one or be oblivious to each other.

you have a very good opinion about people.
The world is unfair from the birth of a man to his death. How in an unfair world can there be a long world peace

My observation is this:
My body is different organs working for a mutual cause.
My organs are at peace with each other; one might even say friends.
Humans can accomplish the same.

As to an unfair world- not really.
We view it as unfair based on desire.
I mean, why shouldn't my opponents beat me down ten times in a row through pure luck? I don't mind.

Indonesia Population: 264 million


Russia Population: 144.5 million


Is it fair?

Isn't it?
What's the problem - disproportion?
There's more water on the surface of the planet than landmass - is it fair?
I have less land to walk on, but that's fine by me.

Is that fair? After all, someone just lucky to be born healthy and beautiful and also in a rich family with great influence

In history, nations that cease to multiply give away their territory to Nations that multiply, and rarely does it happen peacefully. For Russians, the size of their country looks fair, but it hardly looks fair for China or Indonesia.

Emphasis on "for".
Which bases it on personal desire.
In this case, a lust for territory.

If you want to continue this, I plead it be by PM.

How are these kids


Better than these kids



So no need to say that the world is fair and good and honest people live well in it

Viewed under these terms is human conflict inevitable? — Jonmel

In my endlessly repeated opinion, human conflict is inevitable because it's source is that which we're all made of, thought.

Maybe if progress stall its not bad. Progress gives more and more opportunities for humanity to destroy this world — Geo

Bingo, we have a winner!

Long world peace is only possible when there is one race, one culture and one country in the world. — Geo

And should such a situation be created (most likely by force) it would immediately begin to sub-divide in to competing factions, because...

1) we are all made of thought, and..

2) thought operates by a process of division.

So long as that is true, no method of external organization will lead to true peace.

everything will depend on people's fear of the law