"Although we remember WW1 we have learnt little"
Any ideas or opinions please post below :-)
I'd probably agree although i think we've learnt the least from the period in the lead up to WW2, the current attitudes of appeasement which allowed ISIS to develop and Russia to expand concern me.
I think we learned a lot from the 2 world wars - the fact that either occurred at all is a tragedy.
Europe has learnt an awful lot. As for other areas of the world - well maybe not so much. But Europe changed drastically post-1950 mainly on the grounds that war was finally seen for what it truly was. An awful waste of time, lives, and resources.
People have no reason to want to learn.
World peace is unattainable and to think otherwise is naive. There are two kinds of peace. The peace of plenty where people would want for nothing, but that is flawed to its core as it completely ignores key things in human nature; ambition, competition, greed, jealousy, and even things as innocent sounding as joy (some people actually get joy from watching others suffering) all corrupt individuals causing them to put their own needs before the needs of others.
The other is the concept of governance over people. Left, right, communism to capitalism, so many individual ideologies exist it would take forever to type them all and it is impossible to fulfill all ambitions. It is human nature that stops world peace. People tend to rebel, you see it in toddlers, teenagers, and adults and under these forms of government (ones that strive for peace among all) they would have to deal with any threat to society big or small with varying means, and if these means ever involved even the tiniest bit of violence in a peaceful world (free or not) someone will rise to call it wrong because that too is in our nature. Unless every person in the world desires goodwill of his fellow man and to seek to support and help that cause without being overcome by anger, greed, ignorance, etc.... you will forever have people speaking out.
There are two systems in the world. There's the single world government or Isolation. Both are impossible due to the formerly mentioned, and the latter is shown to not have been kept by even the greatest of countries, whether that be on the rationale of keeping world peace or the safety of its own people. Another is there is a small fraction of man that rules these countries, even those where the people have greater say, it is the small minority that has the final say and the power to carry through or prevent obstruction. If the small minority is corrupted, driven by anger, greed, and all those emotions and thoughts leading to conflict, then the country could go to war and return from it feeling it was pointless. If there was a system to address all of the factors leading to dispute where all peoples would be contented and satisfied, and then upheld solidly with no twisting of words, propaganda, secrecy etc... then world peace would be much closer in reach. However, the fact each individual has their own beliefs, values, thoughts and feelings, even if they were under one universal roof and maintained transparently, it would take just one person to cause questioning and conflict.
We need to work harder to strengthen the UN and improve the impact of conflict resolution and peacekeeping.
Although total peace is unlikely, a lot of petty conflicts escalate into full war because there's no mechanism for rival parties to express their concerns to an impartial mediator.
Only when forced to change will countries do so. War has improved the lives of many (liberation of people from tyrannical regimes) yet tragically ended far far far too many, one life lost is too many. Is it a necessary evil? I don't know, I honestly don't.
We've learned a lot. The main problem is human nature, no amount of ideology is going to prevent us from being savage animals that will kill one another in the name of ideals and material. It's part of who we are.
The only solution that stands out to me is World Government, which I'm doubtful will occur any time soon.