History

Some historians identify a long-term trend where nation-states stop fighting and become united.[citation needed] For example, old Europe with wars culminating in World War I and World War II, compared with the European Union; warring Chinese states compared with the modern Chinese nation. Certain historians theorize that the whole world will eventually follow this pattern as well.[citation needed]

Dr. Frank Laubach, an American missionary to the Philippines in 1935 saw poverty, injustice and illiteracy as impediments to world peace. He developed the "Each One Teach One" literacy program which taught about 60 million people to read in their own language.

World peace is often claimed to be the inevitable result of some political ideology.[citation needed] Thus, communist thinkers such as Leon Trotsky assumed that the world revolution would lead to a communist world peace, and neoliberal thinkers such as Francis Fukuyama assumed that the rise of liberal democracy will inevitably lead to the "end of history".

The plausibility of world peace tacitly relies on the assumption of rational agents that base their decisions on future consequences, which is not self-evident. Bertrand Russell once expressed his scepticism regarding world peace:

After ages during which the earth produced harmless trilobites and butterflies, evolution progressed to the point at which it has generated Neros, Genghis Khans, and Hitlers. This, however, I believe is a passing nightmare; in time the earth will become again incapable of supporting life, and peace will return.1

The utopian ideal of conflict-free interaction between all humans (or even all sentient beings) is seen by some as highly improbable, due to the wide range of behaviour and personal circumstances that exist.[citation needed] Some people, acting in some manner, in some circumstances, are likely to get into a conflict over one thing or another. Indeed, the case can be made that if we did not conflict in any way with others, we would either be totally independent from them (rendering the issue moot) or we would have none of the individuality that makes us human.[citation needed]

Most interpretations of the concept are not so extreme, however. For one thing, there are many kinds of conflicts. If we only include armed conflicts, world peace may simply entail the resolution of all minor conflicts through nonviolent means (and possibly, the strong guarantee that this will always remain so—whatever is required for that). If, on the other hand, we interpret world peace as the total absence of things like trade conflicts or border disputes, achieving it becomes quite a bit more difficult.

Even if world peace (in whatever sense it is taken) is unachievable, this does not imply that striving for it is not a worthy (personal) goal. In this sense, among others, it is much like perfection, for which people strive despite it being unattainable.

The most suitable progress toward world peace is a step-by-step improvement of current processes.[opinion needs balancing] Doing one more peaceful thing today than one has previously done is a truly attainable goal. Also, all people would benefit at taking a long look at history and learning the triggers of armed conflict. In each war which has occurred since the beginning of time, many of the same lessons can be found. Unfortunately, as a whole, our species is slow to learn each of those lessons.[opinion needs balancing] These lessons may include a strict arms ban, peace negotiation, a global and collective security agreement, a minimum food supplies and foreign aid to stabilize necessities.