Resolved: World Peace and Harmony will never be reality.

This is a very interesting topic because it embraces several aspects of logical analysis that we don't ordinarily encounter in debates. Also, as Yogi Berra pointed out, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." We all know that predictions cannot be made with certainty, and it would be ridiculous to expect either side of this debate to argue that their prediction would come true with certainty. I interpret the resolution as meaning "It is more probable that world peace and harmony will never be reality than that it will." We must also define "peace and harmony." Pro's arguments 2 through 5 all refer to war. That leads to my taking "peace and harmony" to mean "free of wars and organized armed conflict." It does not mean that there will be no disputes among peoples or no violent crime or no kids yelling at each other on playgrounds. 1. Let's suppose that peace and harmony are achieved 500 years from now. What will Christians say about the Biblical prophesy that it could not be achieved? They might say: (a) "it might seem that we have peace and harmony, but actually we don't, because war will come again as the Bible says;" (b) "the peace and harmony of which the Bible speaks is an inner peace of the spirit that is not yet achieved;" or (c) "Jesus has in fact returned, but it is as a spirit that permeates the world rather than as a physical manifestation." The prophesy will never be deemed to have failed, only what was prophesied will be variously interpreted to match the circumstances that prevail. There is list of sixteen failed Biblical prophesies posted at http://faithskeptic.50megs.com.... For example, with reference to the list, the Old Testament says that the end of the world was near and that a high priest alive at the time would see it happen. It appears to some of use that the world did not end. However, I have no doubt that Believers have an explanation. If so, Biblical prophesies are useless because one cannot tell before the fact what they really mean. However, if Pro grants that only some prophesies are true, then we are better off relying on the facts at hand rather than on Biblical prophesy. 2. Pro claims, "Every major power has fought each other throughout history, and the past hundred years have been no exception." Pro's claim is false, because only some major powers have fought in the past hundred years, and the reasons why they have not fought are important. If we look back at the past 500 years of European history, for example, nothing seems more reliable than wars, particularly among Great Britain, France, Germany, and Spain in various combinations. Thus if we rely upon the historical pattern, we would predict that a war among these traditional competing powers is now due. But in fact, the possibility is remote. It's not impossible, but there is no sign of any pending conflict. If Pro's "past predicts the future" theory is true, there should be. What has changed is that all of those European powers are now mature stable democracies. In the Far East, traditionally wars have been fought among Japan, Korea, and China. Now there is no realistic threat of war among Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. Those are the democratic countries. The threat of war lies with North Korea and China, the authoritarian regimes. Democratic countries will go to war if attacked, threatened, or confronted by an authoritarian regime, but wars between two democratic countries are at most extremely unlikely. 3. Pro claims that, "Current events, trends and even population theories predict that a Third World War is unavoidable. Economies will crumble without the benefit of wartime." Current events have no bearing on "never." Trends are what count. a. One trend is towards democracy. Very little of the world was under democratic governance a hundred years ago, and it is really only since WWII that the trend to democracy has been strong. Since 1975 the percentage of free countries in the world has risen from 27 to 46 percent, and unfree countries have declined from 41 to 24 percent. The remaining counties are partially free. http://en.wikipedia.org... Progress is greater than the data suggests; China, with its large population, is moving towards being partially free from being unfree. b. Another trend is increasing prosperity. "In the modern age, we take for granted that the US will grow at 3.5% a year, and that the world economy grows at 4% to 4.5% a year. However, these are numbers that were unheard of in the 19th century, during which World GDP grew under 2% a year. Prior to the 19th century, annual World GDP growth was so little that changes from one generation to the next were virtually zero." http://futurist.typepad.com... Yes, there is a recession now, but it is actually not significant in the long term trend. "Global growth is projected to rebound in 2010 to 3.0 percent after falling sharply to just 0.5 percent in 2009 ..." The Great Depression did nothing to the trend. [ibid] The upward trend in prosperity is driven by advances in technology and the growth of free markets. The pace of technology is accelerating due to its proven benefits, and the expansion of free markets to the advance of democracy and to it's economic benefits. China, for example, is expanding its free markets because of the economic benefit. Prosperity means not only that individuals and nations are less likely to fight over resources, it means that people have a lot more to lose in wars. Modern china has much worth preserving and prospects of an improving lifestyle. they are less likely to risk that in a global adventure. c. Another positive trend is increased global communication. The traditional way to war is for an authoritarian ruler to tell his people that the country is only kept safe by the ruler. That is the method of Kim in North Korea. That only works if there are no significant free sources of information. North Korea can keep its isolation, but China has an increasing struggle to suppress information flow. The trend is towards increased technology. d. Population trends do not support Pro's claim. Prosperity is clearly outpacing population, and the rate of population growth is slowing. "United Nations projections (medium fertility scenario) indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2200." http://www.un.org... e. Scientist Steven Pinker reports on the sharply downward trends in violence. "... a picture is taking shape. The decline of violence is a fractal phenomenon, visible at the scale of millennia, centuries, decades, and years. It applies over several orders of magnitude of violence, from genocide to war to rioting to homicide to the treatment of children and animals. And it appears to be a worldwide trend, though not a homogeneous one." We probably don't appreciate the reduction in violence because news reports bring us incidents of violence every day, but there is much less violence now than in any time in the past. We see the violence of the 9/11 attacks in which 3000 died, but we did not witness 30,000 soldiers die in the first hour of the Battle of the Sonne in World War I, and 1.1 million soldiers ultimately died in that single battle. Pinker provides four possible explanation for this trend, all tied to the advance of society. [ibid] For one, all the news reports may be helping us realize life is not cheap. 4. Nations certainly want to benefit their people, but the mechanism for doing that is clearly through trade not war. 5. If Pro is referring to the UN, it is irrelevant. The trends that the UN does not control are bringing peace. The world went through the Dark Ages and emerged to continue the climb towards peace. All the important trends are now positive. It's not certain, but chances are good.