The World at Peace?   

From Gandhi to MLK to former president Barack Obama, our society today longs for peace. Peace, in the world, in our nation, at work, and at home, our society longs for peace and we will go to excessive lengths to attain it. In Erich Remarque’s novel, All Quiet on the Western Front Remarque presents war in a terrifying, horrid, and disturbing light. Throughout the story, as a result of his own experience in WW1, you can see his longing for the reader to understand the true brutality of war and to do whatever possible to prevent it in the future. Remarque argues ( through Baumer) that if individuals could just select better leaders in leadership and remove the false aroma of glory and grandeur from war we could finally attain peace. While attempting to attain peace is a noble cause, the problem with Remarque’s view is the root cause of war, the self-preservation instinct commonly known as the survival instinct which is hardwired and ingrained into our species' nature, behavior, and basic instinctual essence. In addition, the nationalistic and ethnocentric trait of humans combined with the simple fact that in some circumstances there is a justifiable need for a war that one has to ask themselves will peace ever be achieved? Will “peace on earth and goodwill towards men” (I Heard The Bells on Christmas Day) ever be attainted? A former veteran put it “I hope not, but I fear so” (“The War Instinct”)  As depressing and discouraging as it may sound, peace will never be achieved. 

If there is a driving force behind the development of our world and nature itself, it would be the survival instinct. It is even called “the first law of nature” by most scientists and as the “Free Dictionary” put it “ All living things prioritize their own survival above all else and will do what is necessary to stay alive.” (“The Free Dictionary”) Now while this instinct created the world that is known today, the perhaps one great drawback behind this is conflict within our species otherwise known as war. As Remarque describes it “the animal instinct that is awakened in us we are led and protected. It is not conscious; it is far quicker, much more sure, less fallible, than consciousness. One cannot explain it. A man is walking along without thought or heed;--suddenly he throws himself down on the ground and a storm of fragments flies harmlessly over him;--yet he cannot remember either to have heard the shell coming or to have thought of flinging himself down.” ( 43-44) One of the problems with conquering peace is overcoming what, as Remarque shows, is an inborn part of the Human species. When our species is threatened the automatic response of our species is to do one of two things: fight or freeze. Instinctively individuals respond to each threat they face with that desire for survival. The Human species naturally “uses’ instincts ( and emotion) first and thinking second” (HUFFPOST). It is not even something individuals concisely think about, but instead, it is something that is so deeply ingrained into the human species that individuals would have to develop to such a point that the base reading and human intelligence would counteract the urge to defend ourselves with force. As neuroscientist Joseph Ledoux put it  “While conscious control over emotions is weak, emotions can flood consciousness. This is so because the wiring of the brain at this point in our evolutionary history is such that connections from the emotional systems to the cognitive systems are stronger than the connections from the cognitive systems to the emotional systems.” (The Emotional Brain) To end the war we would have to “ conquer these self-protective instincts” (“HUFFPOST”) and as the great peace lover MLK once said in an interview on attaining peace “ We have ancient habits to deal with…” “( HUFFPOST”) The Human species has always had the self-protective instinct and probably always will but until individuals can overcome this instinct we will never attain peace. 

Another factor that is extremely influential in creating war and ultimately preventing peace is the need for the modern human species to belong to a social group such as a tribe, nation, religion, or even a sports team.  In turn, this creates pride in our social identity which can divulge itself in patriotism, ethnism, and religious dogmatism. The founder of ImagineMD wrote, “It encourages us to cling to the identity of our ethnic group, country or religion, and to feel a sense of pride in being British, American, White, Black, Christian, Muslim, Protestant or Catholic.” (“Psychology Today”) Now the problem with group identity is not some much in it of itself creates war but the attitude it creates toward other groups. We tend to exclude other members of other groups from deserving, empathy, moral rights, and even life itself. Before the civil war, the reason such horrible things were able to be done to the black slaves was this strong group identity that excluded the black Americans from attaining rights in the first place. The Human species often tend to perceive other societies and cultures with mistrust and suspicion. Back in the Victorian Era, citizens of western and European countries such as America and Great Britain, but instead viewed the “ savages” as not even being fully Human but instead need to be “Christianized”. In Australia, Lucinda Riley writes a fiction story that sums the situation up pretty well. 

“ She had been horrified the first time she had seen a group of Aboriginal men in chains, shackled together at their necks and overseen by a guard with a rifle as they cleared the debris away from a house that had recently been destroyed by a cyclone. Andrew had pulled her away as she began to weep in horror. : You don’t understand the ways of Broome yet, my dear,” Andrew had comforted her. “ It is for their own good. In this way, they can be productive to society.”... These people would sell their own wives and children at the drop of the hat. They are like wild animals, and sadly, they have to be treated like such” ( RILEY)

In places like Nazi Germany, Turkey, Israel, and Russia the situation and the root cause of this prejudice creates is no different. Most clashes in history such as the crusades or even the civil war have been a result of this strong group identity. As a result of patriotism and pride in your certain social group, hostility and enmity continue to reign supreme today with movements such as “ America First” or isolationism. As Philip Starks, former veteran put it “When groups collide, group identity often trumps individual identity. And when you believe that what you are fighting for—religion or honor, for example—will ultimately bring you or your family happiness, then fighting may feel worth the sacrifice.” ( The War Instinct ) Remarque attempts to show the true colors of patriotism and the results of group identity 

“ While they continued to write and talk, we saw the wounded and dying. While they taught that duty to one's country is the greatest thing, we already knew that death-throes are stronger. But for all that we were no mutineers, no deserters, no cowards--they were very free with all these expressions. We loved our country as much as they; we went courageously into every action; but also we distinguished the false from true, we had suddenly learned to see. And we saw that there was nothing of their world left. We were all at once terribly alone; and alone we must see it through.” 

Like remarques showed in All Quiet on the Western Front the human species has had hostilities toward other social groups for a millennium and until societies and cultures can learn to get over this hostility the world will never have peace. 

From the self-protective instinct to die-heart patriotism our Human species has many reasons why peace can never be achieved however throughout history we see many reasons that peace should never be achieved. Why? The problem with world peace is that sometimes war is necessary. Sometimes there is a reason for a  ‘just war’. As the pacifist, Gandhi himself Put it “Fighting a violent war is better than accepting injustice.”(“HUFFPOST”)  Former President Barack Obama ( a Nobel Peace prize winner) was insistent that it is possible to fight a ‘just war’ “To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” (“HUFFPOST”) Now while Remarque was correct that WW1 could indeed have been “history’s filthiest and most utterly pointless war” (220) Through-out history examples of a just need to go to war. As mentioned earlier the black Americans in the 1860s ( and before) were treated unfairly and inhumanly. As a result of this, the American government ( the north) had a just reason to go to war with the newly formed confederacy ( the south). WW2 was fought in part for the injustice done to Jewish Europeans and other non-Arians.  Thus it could be said that WW2 was also a just war because it was fought ( in part) to end this injustice. In a more recent example, the ‘war’ against North Korea is being fought as a result of the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s mistreatment of his citizens and the overall condition of the people of North Korea as a result of the Supreme Leader. Psychology Today describes the original Buddha’s opinion on killing in war “ the original Buddha, Shakyamuni, once said when asked if killing was ever to be permitted: ‘It is enough to kill the will to kill.’”.  In other words, we should strive to kill the idea that killing others should be anything other than the very last action we ever permit ourselves to take. Shakyamuni was a realist.” As Psychology Today said Shakyamuni was a realist and he realized that there is injustice in the world and there probably always will and we need to be able to fight that injustice if it becomes evident that peaceably it cannot be ended. Ygal Kaplan an Israelian who has lived in a country with constant war and turmoil said this “ As much as I would like to live in a world with no wars, I also understand that at some point, someone, somewhere will have a good reason to fight for a war they believe and I might even support their struggle.” (Kaplan) Like Kaplan said as much as it would be nice to live in a world without wars, sometimes we need wars, sometimes we need to not have peace

For a millennium our forefathers have struggled to obtain pax dei ( world peace).  They struggled against their own self-preservation instinct, against nationalism and dogmatic patriotism, and they have struggled against their own need in times of great injustice to forsake and fight for a just cause and even with a millennium of struggle most likely for another millennium will the human kinds struggle for the fantasy of world peace. But no matter how hard with all things considered they will never achieve true world peace. But what is the point of knowing this? Besides, of course, dispersing the dreams of the influential activist or the donors of various world organizations. Well, what the reader can take away from this essay is that despite in all probability the world will obtain peace, individuals can do something to strive after peace. They can first work on themselves, and try to obtain peace with themselves and others around them. Instead of trying to obtain peace in the world, they can obtain at least a close version of It in their homes, at work, and wherever else they choose to go. As Gandhi put it “ Be the change you want to see in the world” ( Goodreads)