Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Ending War One Person at a Time
How to end war one person at a time
War is the plague that human beings bring upon themselves. It is also a plague we might be able to end. On any given day since you and I were born, some part of the world has been at war. In 2008 there are about 30 open conflicts. In the 20th Century at least 108 million people died in wars. Of the 20 largest military budgets on earth, 14 belong to developing countries. The United States spends more on its military than the next 16 countries combined.
That war is the major problem in the world is undeniable. The need for a new idea is just as undeniable. The new idea is to bring peace one person at a time until the world reaches a critical mass of peacemakers instead of war makers.
There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. --A.J. Muste
Why Ending War Hasn't Worked
Peace movements have tried three ways for bringing war to an end:
1. Activism, the approach of putting political pressure on governments that wage war. Activism involves protests and public demonstrations, lobbying and political commitment. Almost every war creates some kind of peace movement opposed to it.
Why has it failed. Because the protesters are not heard. Because they are worn down by frustration and resistance. Because they are far outnumbered by the war interests in society. Because their idealism turns to anger and violence. Activism has left us with the ironic picture of outraged peacemakers who wind up contributing to the total sum of violence in the world.
2. Humanitarianism, the approach of helping the victims of war. Bringing relief to victims is an act of kindness and compassion. As embodied by the International Red Cross, this effort is ongoing and attracts thousands of volunteers worldwide. Every nation on earth approves of humanitarianism.
Why has it failed? Because humanitarians are wildly outnumbered by soldiers and war makers. Because of finances. The International Red Cross's annual budget of $1.8 billion is a tiny fraction of military budgets around the world. Because the same countries that wage war also conduct humanitarian efforts, keeping the two activities very separate. Because humanitarians show up on the scene after the war has already begun.
3. Personal transformation, the approach of ending war one person at a time. The prevailing idea is that war begins in each human heart and can only end there. The religious tradition of praying for peace is the closest most people will ever come to ending war in their own hearts. Most people have actually never heard of this approach.
Why has it failed?
Because nobody has really tried it.
"Can you be the change that you wish to see in the world?" - Mahatma Gandhi
Why War Ends With You
The approach of personal transformation is the idea of the future for ending war. It depends on the only advantage that people of peace have over war makers: sheer numbers. If enough people in the world transformed themselves into peacemakers, war could end. The leading idea here is critical mass. It took a critical mass of human beings to embrace electricity and fossil fuels, to teach evolution and adopt every major religion. When the time is right and enough people participate, critical mass can change the world.
Can it end war?
There is precedent to believe that it might. The ancient Indian ideal of Ahimsa, or non-violence, gave Gandhi his guiding principle of reverence for life. In every spiritual tradition it is believed that peace must exist in one's heart before it can exist in the outer world.
Personal transformation deserves a chance.
"When a person is established in non-violence, those in his vicinity cease to feel hostility." - Patanjali, ancient Indian sage
The song Ring the Bells of Peace embodies all of these principles of personal transformation. Through the power of music we can use this song as an anchor and a reminder to become the peaceful change we want to see in the world.
By
Deepak Chopra
|
December 17, 2008; 8:20 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Avoiding Next Madoff Meltdown by Balancing Justice and Compassion |
Next: The Episcopal Crisis: Freedom In, With, and From the Bible
Posted by: artistkvip1 | December 20, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
hi, as useual i enjoyed and respect your words they make me think... i wonder in adition to us all doing our parts individually it is important that we connect especcially in the information age to peacefully.. peacefully. i say again alwyays peacefully not take no as the answer from people whos real name is ...representative... public servant and the like.. if they represent us we should be able to observe every meeting with ecvery lobyist and hear every word said since they are doing our business. this is what is done at all places with a cash register or dealing with money. they should be able to have private lives when they are not working something tells me we have it backwards sometimes. if they do not understand what it is they are supposed be doing lets by them an oxford dictionary to preuse at all capital buildins not the often fake miriam webster online dictionary or other slanted purveyors of some one elses propaganda or paid for agenda, note the well know and repected definition for some of the words. i find it interesting they chose webster as the name for mirriam webster since there was a long respected dictionary by noah webster. i have a minor in advertising from fake-it-state university in tallhassee with a minor in advertising.. barry solomon who taught advertising confirmed my well desrved A in his class. what people do in real life when they put propaganda in the guise of actual information they are using principle of advertisng and public relations. in advertising it is called either bait and switch or appropriating the good name of another for product placement not actually desrved. most common people call misinformation lies. this is how they feel when they purchase a product or use a free product and in the public mind where the product reputation doesn't actually exist. this might be why congres member both demacrat and republican have such low approveal ratings and we actually need a third partyif they keep trying to play us for fools while they play another old con game the shell game. bl;aming the other when in fact they are paid off by the same crooks. this was not he way barry soloman taught advertising. he said the first rule of advertising is never ever for any reason tell a lie ....don't in the long run you are finished. he said advertising was practices in the areas that were not lies but didn't give all.. the information since there was no need to actually lead with your weak points if you were paying for the advertising. but if you reached the point where your customer felt lied to or cheated you were not bringing in more sales for the company which is the true role of the ad agency in real life. i wish some of the administrators in all colleges especially fsu and busisess actually had the ethics taught and observed by myself of professor brry solomaon the finest professor i encountered at fsu and i took quite a few classes.