Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:40:54 +0100

I think there are too many corporate, rich, white collar, Caucasian criminals ruling us to our injury.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:10:18 +0100

I agree with most of what has been said. But I have to say, nothing will change until Greed and Lazyness are eliminated. People have to understand the concept of everything in moderation. That's the simple fact. If we ate ONLY what we could eat. If we did things that were actually self rewarding and productive. If we actually got off our FAT LAZY asses, and started doing something for everyone and not just ourselves, then I believe we will be on our way to world peace. But until we stop being such a petty species, we're just going to keep blowing ourselves up and killing the planet as we know it.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:47:51 +0100

I think it is a little more complicated than that this whole world peace thing but I appreciate the start. One of the worse conditions in the world is the treatment of woman. Jeffrey Sachs wrote in his book How to end world Poverty that a key role was to get the woman working in an economy and by doing that their decisions of lowering the birthrates etc. etc. help out. poverty is the first viscious animal that needs to be wiped out to begin a world peace. Because the survival action of conciousness precedes the reason action of conciousness.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:22:52 +0100

Sounds like you'uns is making it a we'uns against them'uns. we're all in this boat together. it's not the men against the women. you say that women are better at understanding and dealing with people yet have already excluded any male leaders. as a general rule, it is better to do and show than talk and say. i personally am willing to let anyone who can work solutions fairly do it. they will get my respect, not worship. and it doesn't mean i will over-generalize and say that women are better than men, or vice versa. politics for profit is the norm; not always thinking of the bigger picture.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:02:25 +0100

In Nature there is balance and harmony.

Some man-made things are balanced and harmonious, but most man-made things are not.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:25:10 +0100

Platic bags and nuclear bombs are thought of as unnatural. I also subscribe to this assumption, but what makes them so? And further more what makes them more unnatural then other man made things such as, leather jakets.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 03:19:51 +0100

Yeah like plastic bags and Nuclear Bombs ;-)

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:06:46 +0100

Well the argument about what is natural is a complex one. Some would say that since we are natural beings everything created by us is also by definition natural.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:57:05 +0100

Skeptic44 - You are right, I do tend to simplify things, maybe it's my love for mother nature - the natural balance is rather simple isn't it?

If something is man-made and complex - is it still natural?

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:35:34 +0100

i have come up with my ovn way of tackling world peace which is more relevant to the initial statement which i think you might find interesting, check out "how to really tackle world peace on my page"

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 08:40:51 +0100

i believe that women these days have as easier time getting into politics as men, look at america, it is quite possible that ms clinton will win the election. and margret thatcher ruled over here in britain for a time. i find that until recently there have not been so many women interested in ploitics and it has evened out in all areaas of politics with regards to oppertunities. therefore i see no reason why there should not be a balance. women just need to put themselves in the playing field. but looking at past performance i am not sure they would do any better than men.i reckon it is down to the whole countries structure and also the party. you have to remember that there are not so many dictatorships these days, so the party is probably more important than the person leading it.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:48:01 +0100

I completlly agree that there are to many guys in charge. In fact i think women are best suited for politics, because they are social and as a generall ule are better at understanding, and dealing with people. Politics being a social field i think they would preform better.

As far as the solution to conflict. I think you tend to oversimpllify things nameless. And i think you are a bit too sure that your solutions are infalible and will work. Now i get the concept of balance that you are getting at, but something a simple as rotating leaders will not do it. First of all because there still will be countless men as leaders of various nations at the same time.

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 03:05:15 +0100

Can a king and a queen rule at the same time, all the time?

Sure, that is the natural way. But we live in a "black" and "white" checker-board society so we have to take baby-steps until we realize the blatantly obvious natural balance ;-)

Comment on: World Peace - the ANSWER

Bigthink — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:20:13 +0100

Can a king and a queen rule at the same time, all the time?

Speaking personally, I'd rather be a strong woman, than as strong as a man.