No, the notion seems quite possible, and above all, necessary. Perhaps one of the only things keeping it from being today's reality is, in fact, people considering it a silly and impossible notion.

As you mention though, there are quite a few problems that beg to be addressed before a peaceful world could sustainably exist. I think the most stringent issue is Earth's expanding population. I agree that once we level off and population growth is at a standstill, technology will indeed provide the means to tackle and solve all the other problems.



Derek, it's harder to believe that humanity's altruistic nature has grown, on the whole, when the media is constantly bombarding us with horrific stories of doom and gloom. As everyone knows, that's what sells these days, unfortunately. I have mixed feelings about this... in some circumstances, media attention can help alleviate the problem, but in other instances it seems completely sensationalized and entirely unnecessary.

Again, we must consider the effects of having such a large global population, and the fairly recent ability to send, receive, or search for information nearly instantaneously. The consequence is that more violence-based atrocities happen around the world, and these are seized by those wishing to report on it, hear about it, or search for it, but the total violence per capita has greatly dropped. As soundhertz mentioned, this is definitely due to improved resource distribution and an increase in comfort.



What I'd like to know is exactly why so much money, time, and human lives are sacrificed to this country's current endeavors when a fraction of the resources we're currently using to wage war could be used to cure issues like the genocide in Darfur (just one example, the most obvious). I've heard people make statements like "The U.S. is not the world's police service", but it seems as though we make efforts to do just that in select situations... oddly, situations that potentially benefit none other than ourselves.

Masked Marauder's quote on democracy takes the cake on that one



photojack - Both "Collapse" and "Guns, Germs, and Steel" were recently recommended to me by my uncle. Looking forward to reading them once I have more free time in the summer.

While I whole-heartedly agree that religion is responsible for so many wars, this does not automatically call for eliminating all belief in the supernatural. Embracing science is a worthy cause, but your suggestion that each and every citizen adhering to atheism is the quickest way to change our lives for the better is something I find a bit ironic. Indeed, it is only through unconditional tolerance and respect for diversity of opinion/beliefs that peace will come about.

And what about the large number of people who fall somewhere in the spectrum between "atheist" and "religious"? It's really only when people strictly adhere to dogmatic rhetoric and extremism that violence abounds. Of course, the bounds of "extremism" or "dogma" are things that have no objective basis



Caleb - the role religion has played in creating wars where there was no other basis for them is very subject to interpretation. There are a few exceptions, such as the Crusades, where religion was obviously number one on the list of reasons why organized violence took place.