Peace and Harmony the measure of development?

N

Nyr

Registered Senior Member
Do you believe that the hallmark of a developed nation is peace and harmony?

I think that peace and harmony aren't even possible given the present meaning of a 'developed country'; let alone their being a measure of it. But if a truly developed, sustainable state were possible, would it be the prevalence of peace and harmony that would reflect it?
 
Part, but not all

Peace and harmony are only part of it. Progress, for instance, is another.

Defining progress, however, is a bit sticky.
 
Nyr said:
Do you believe that the hallmark of a developed nation is peace and harmony?

I think that peace and harmony aren't even possible given the present meaning of a 'developed country'; let alone their being a measure of it. But if a truly developed, sustainable state were possible, would it be the prevalence of peace and harmony that would reflect it?
Click to expand...

Yup, without a doubt. Because if destruction is used, you can't almost bet on the fact it will repeat itself and implode. the methods or characteristics used are a defining trait, hence why the members that make up the nation used it in the first place. it's similar to the cliche that if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. that's why the whole world has to watch it's back. everyone shoots below the belt.

The question is, can a nation develop utilizing peace and harmony. It's definitely not the easiest route for sure, it takes a lot more character like forethought, patience, reflection, open-mindedness, thinking outside the box, considering consquences, considering varying needs. it's harder. it's much easier to be a bull in a china shop. lol
 
I'd say the ability to have dissent is a better thing to show the development of any society for when you do not allow for dissension you are only suppressing a revolution.
 
cosmictraveler said:
I'd say the ability to have dissent is a better thing to show the development of any society for when you do not allow for dissension you are only suppressing a revolution.
Click to expand...
Precisely.
No society can remain in constant equilibrium. As they say, change (whether for better or worse) is the only constant. It applies to human societies. And to cause that change, there will be upheavals, dissent, etc. If a society still functions after those changes, then it is truly developed. But peace and harmony don't enter any of the equations there.

Another reason I'd say peace and harmony aren't the measure is historically and anthropologically backed. Ever since the formation of human societies on a complex scale millennia ago, struggle and competition between them have been the measure on which power has been balanced between them. If all resources are tilted into the hands of a limited powerful societies, loads of natural rhythms in the nature (human world included) are going to get skewed up. No better example than today. Competition is the necessary to keep the world going. A world in which only peace and harmony prevail, in which all people are happy and keep on increasing and.... soon no one will be happy. But that's the current optimistic 'development' paradigm extant in our civilisation, which just can't work.
 
Nyr said:
Precisely.
No society can remain in constant equilibrium. As they say, change (whether for better or worse) is the only constant. It applies to human societies. And to cause that change, there will be upheavals, dissent, etc. If a society still functions after those changes, then it is truly developed. But peace and harmony don't enter any of the equations there.

Another reason I'd say peace and harmony aren't the measure is historically and anthropologically backed. Ever since the formation of human societies on a complex scale millennia ago, struggle and competition between them have been the measure on which power has been balanced between them. If all resources are tilted into the hands of a limited powerful societies, loads of natural rhythms in the nature (human world included) are going to get skewed up. No better example than today. Competition is the necessary to keep the world going. A world in which only peace and harmony prevail, in which all people are happy and keep on increasing and.... soon no one will be happy. But that's the current optimistic 'development' paradigm extant in our civilisation, which just can't work.
Click to expand...

I concur...nicely stated. :)
 
Nyr said:
Precisely.
No society can remain in constant equilibrium. As they say, change (whether for better or worse) is the only constant. It applies to human societies. And to cause that change, there will be upheavals, dissent, etc. If a society still functions after those changes, then it is truly developed. But peace and harmony don't enter any of the equations there.

Another reason I'd say peace and harmony aren't the measure is historically and anthropologically backed. Ever since the formation of human societies on a complex scale millennia ago, struggle and competition between them have been the measure on which power has been balanced between them. If all resources are tilted into the hands of a limited powerful societies, loads of natural rhythms in the nature (human world included) are going to get skewed up. No better example than today. Competition is the necessary to keep the world going. A world in which only peace and harmony prevail, in which all people are happy and keep on increasing and.... soon no one will be happy. But that's the current optimistic 'development' paradigm extant in our civilisation, which just can't work.
Click to expand...

That about sums it up. Nicely done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top