31–40 of 54 posts
1.) Was engaging and interesting at startup school? Check. 2.) Cool company initiative that I can respect? Check. I think Zuckerberg might finally be growing into his own. :)
As amohr posted, this is actually a Stanford initiative, not something that Facebook started. Regardless, I think it's a great idea, but we should be giving credit where it's due. http://peace.stanford.edu/
Great listen if you have an hour commute: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/19/new-normal/
I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by the reaction to this, but I was. Honestly, I'm disappointed by it.
For example, it looks like China is on a possible collision course with India and Southeast Asian nations over water rights. China's north is heavily populated, rapidly growing, and severely short of water. Tibet on the other hand is very rich in water resources that are upstream of major rivers in India, Laos, Vietnam, etc. As we speak there are gigantic projects diverting water from China's south to the north. It's likely not to be enough, and if China moves on to divert and dam rivers that cross international borders, there will likely be war.
This is just one example, but my guess would be that a resource-driven conflict that incites national pride on both sides will break those friendships rather than the other way around. If the fundamental reasons driving a conflict are not resolved, it's hard to see why friendships will be able to prevent war.
The assumption here is that peace between nations can somehow be resolved by just communication among private citizens and individual friendships; that conflicts are just misunderstandings or that we are too prejudiced or don't have enough sympathy. I can see how that is sometimes the case, but I don't see how that is always or even commonly the case. In many conflicts, there are very real underlying issues that need…
It is also to be noted that among the few Chinese people I have met, most seem to have a liking towards Indians and vice-versa. Also, you would not believe the extent to which Indians and Pakistanis would go to demonstrate their love for each other. A few years ago (2005, I think), when there was a bilateral cricket tournament between Pakistan and India in India (and the next year in Pakistan), Indians would literally drag Pakistanis to their homes as guests. This was repeated by the Pakistanis the next year.
Looking at the news reports and the way the Indian and Pakistani governments accuse each other, you would never guess such stuff could happen.
The assumption here is that peace between nations can somehow be resolved by just communication among private citizens and individual friendships; that conflicts are just misunderstandings or that we are too prejudiced or don't have enough sympathy. I can see how that is sometimes the case, but I don't see how that is always or even commonly the case. In many conflicts, there are very real underlying issues that need…
This only works when private citizens are allowed to influence government: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory That's why 2 democracies have never gone to war.
radiolab (part of nyc's public radio) had a great news piece about this very topic. Back during the cold war like 1 in 3 people thought war was inevitable. It says a lot about our culture that 1 in 10 think that we can achieve PEACE. 66% peace lovers to 10% is pretty sad. Great listen if you have an hour commute: http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/10/19/new-normal/