Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
blogs.harvard.edu
Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#2It's exactly because there is so much violence that we need to reward actors who work to reduce it.
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#3The list forgets to mention Obama, who promised Gitmo would be closed.
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#4It's exactly because there is so much violence that we need to reward actors who work to reduce it.
Exactly. Maybe it's aspirational, but there's something grand about recognizing those who strive for a better world.
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#5The list forgets to mention Obama, who promised Gitmo would be closed.
Certainly Trump is more deserving than Obama. All Obama did was increase death of innocents by drone attack tenfold.
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#6Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#7Yes, and we have a whole clown show along with the bloody circus.
Always the same prophets at the sideline, wrinkling there noses in disgust- but also condeming those who pacify the situation with a constant surplus as greedy and disgusting human beeings. We have parasites that condemn killing mammoths, but know exactly how to cut it up and redistribute it. We have a whole caste of social controll freaks, who know exactly what is good and bad, unless they predict something completely wrong, like a society of violent gamers, and they can walk away from that defeat and not be ridiculed for eternity.
Not only are we not peacefull. But we are also unable to really understandf what facilitates peace, what actors are actually propelling the process of peacefullness-decay and how to sedate these actors.
Nuclear weapons are the only thing, keeping the sociopathic chieftains of olden times from sending us all to mass slaugther to avoid dealing with society internal pressure. How somebody can be so dumb to argue for removal of this society-implant, basically the pacemaker of 60 years of peace- is beyond me.
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#8Is it perhaps not more that all human institutions which keep secrets are emminently corruptible, and that is what has happened here?
The spirit is certainly worthy, the Peace Prize. But perhaps we should have "Peace Makers" supplant "War Makers" in the scheme of things - and recognize more of this strata, first.
Its one thing to have a prize, but the cultures which participate in these sorts of things, have to also be honest and understand their own hubris ..
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#9Yes, and we have a whole clown show along with the bloody circus. Always the same prophets at the sideline, wrinkling there noses in disgust- but also condeming those who pacify the situation with a constant surplus as greedy and disgusting human beeings. We have parasites that condemn killing mammoths, but know exactly how to cut it up and redistribute it. We have a whole caste of social controll freaks, who know ex…
There was an awful lot of war in your "60 years of peace".
Re: Are humans too aggressive to justify having a Nobel Peace Prize?
#10It's basically the Nobel Progressive-Left Prize now.
It's given to the extremely undeserving so long as it signals the correct political opinions.