Resolved: World Peace and Harmony will never be reality.

Everyone who follows the news learns of terrorist attacks, wars, famines, and violent crimes. It's easy to suppose that these are worst times ever, or at last that civilization is incurably tainted. It takes some study to understand that the world is far better off than ever before, and that the positive forces are winning. A single battle in World War I cost 1.2 million lives. A great famine in China fifty years ago cost at least 30 million lives. Those horrors are vanishing due to the trends in technology, communications, and democracy. The future of human civilization depends upon identifying and tracking long term trends. On the timescale at issue --"never"-- the Dark Ages were a bump in the road. Malthus predicted ultimate famine by observing that in his day the population was increasing geometrically while food production increased at best linearly and was limited by the amount of land available. Malthus was wrong because he did not see factors that would cause populations to stabilize and technologies that resulted in food production staying ahead of population. Malthusians as recently as fifty years ago predicted that population would outrun technology. It seemed like the end was near. It wasn't. In this debate, I think that we have reached some agreement on certain long term trends affecting civilization: prosperity is increasing; technology and global communications are advancing; democracy and freedom are spreading; and the prevalence of violence is decreasing. Pro points to very recent trends of increased terrorism and increased organized crime. Those are serious problems, but Pro has not provided reasons why they will grow to doom civilization. Someone who lived at the time of Black Plague in Europe, which killed half the population, might have concluded with must greater evidence that the whole of civilization was doomed. Terrorism and organized crime are not remotely comparable to the Plague in severity, and it is a great mistake to think they will ultimately upset all the positive trends of peace, prosperity and democracy. 1. Pro has the burden to prove both that (1) his interpretation of Biblical prophesy is the correct interpretation, and (2) Biblical prophesy is true. If peace and harmony were realized before the return of Jesus Christians would say that the peace and harmony were temporary, that it was spiritual peace the Bible was referring to, or that Jesus had in fact returned only in spirit rather than a way that is manifest. Pro rebutted that the Bible was clear and could not be mistaken, so Christians would acknowledge the error in the Bible, not suppose the Bible had a different meaning. The issue is then whether the Bible is clear and Christians agree on it's meaning. If in general there is no agreement on the meaning, then the prophesy would not prevent peace and harmony being achieved according to the definition adopted for this debate. I claim: a. Christians do not consistently agree on important issues covered by the Bible, like whether whether the Bible permits slavery or whether the ideal Christian should be a martyr or a mainstay of society. Therefore the Bible is characteristically subject to interpretation. Pro did not respond to this category of argument. b. Other predictions in the Bible were falsified. Pro said that whoever pointed out the apparent contradictions was wrong. Thus while the Bible is clear to certain Christians, it is not clear to others, who mistake the interpretation. c. Christians relied upon the Bible for predictions of doom that did not come true. Pro responded that those Christians had wrongly interpreted the Bible, thinking it was clear when it wasn't. Throughout the debate, Pro provided no evidence that Biblical prophesies are generally true. If there was such evidence, the prophesies would be scientific fact, not matters of faith. Pro's contention is unproven. 2. Pro admits the trend towards democracy. Pro asks if we have any semblance of peace. In fact we do. I provided good evidence that violence is trending downwards, and has been doing so on time scales of decades, centuries, and millenia. We have not arrives at peace and harmony but the trend is evident. Pro says that international antagonisms are still going on. What is different from the times of World War I is that thanks to technology people have much more to lose by war, and thanks to the communications and democracy people are aware of what they have to lose. For example, the authoritarian leaders of China have discovered that even a little bit of capitalism brings tremendous prosperity. They are transforming Shanghai and Beijing into great cites. They have a lot to lose, and just about everyone in China knows it. This mitigates strongly against wars. It isn't a guarantee; they might miscalculate and think they could seize Taiwan by force. Nonetheless the positive trends will continue because they cannot turn back the clock on technology or communications. Pro play with the world "democracy." Yes, Russia has elections, and so do Cuba and Iraq. I reference the list of "free" and "unfree" nations, which made it clear I was not equating elections with democracy. The reference lists Russia as "unfree." They are moving in the right direction. My point was not that countries with elections avoid war, it is that mature free democracies avoid wars. Pro's examples in Africa are similarly flawed. He cites Ethiopia's one-party "democracy" http://www.guardian.co.uk... warring against Somalia, which is ruled by undemocratic militant Islam, insofar as it is ruled at all. http://www.strategypage.com... The Cote D'Ivoire is semi-democratic and trouble with a civil war. http://en.wikipedia.org... Canada and Denmark are in a dispute, but no one imagines that either will go to war over it. Peace and harmony does not mean that disputes end, only that they are peacefully resolved. Terrorism and organized crime will ultimately be overcome by communications and technology. Both require a population willing to hide their operations, and people who live in mature stable democracies are not willing to hide terrorists or criminals. If the terrorists or criminals take control of a government, they are then targets for the vastly superior forces of democratic governments. Terrorists depend upon concealing bombs for attacks. Right now, the technology is not fully able to cope with it, but the betting in the long run has to be against the terrorists. Recently, a cancel patient with an embedded radioactive isotope set of an alarm on a tunnel into New York City. The system is being upgraded to distinguish medical uses. http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com... Subways have sensors that detect poison gas. http://www.avirsensors.com... New sensors "smell" explosives. http://www.compukiss.com... Despite having only rather primitive technology in place for defense, terrorist attacks on Western nations have been thwarted since 9/11. To prevail in this debate, Pro must show that the trends established over many centuries towards advancing technology, advancing freedom, and reduced violence will stop or be reversed. Unless the trends are reversed, prosperity and freedom will result in world peace and harmony. Pro is saying that we have not yet arrived are peace and harmony, which is true, but he did not argue against the dominant trends. That terrorism and organized crime are in short upwards trends does not argue that they will continue. Neither approaches the scope or severity of the international conflicts of the past. Something unexpected may arise to stop the advance of prosperity and freedom in the world, but it is more likely to continue than not. Peace and harmony are probably inevitable.