Resolved: World Peace and Harmony will never be reality.

We agree adequately on the definitions. With organized crime, I think it depends on the magnitude of the problem as to whether it is contrary to "world peace and harmony." I'll will address the issue in due course. 1. I claim that Biblical prophesies are useless, because no matter what happens, believers will never admit the prophesies are wrong. We know that the meaning of the Bible is unclear. We know that Christians openly disagree on what the Bible says. Is the ideal for Christians set by Jesus, an ascetic preacher who wandered without family and died a martyr, or is it the family values model now embraced? That was argued for four centuries, and is still not completely settled. Is the Genesis account of Creation to be taken literally? Christians do not agree. Does the Bible advocate slavery? Once Christians agreed it did, now they agree it does not. Pro argues that if peace and harmony came to prevail, Christians would admit the Bible was wrong. There is no history of Christians ever admitting the Bible was wrong, so there is no reason to believe they would start. They only degree on what the Bible means. If we had peace and harmony, there are numerous escapes: it's only temporary; the Bible meant "inner peace;" Christ returned in spirit. Pro sustains my contention by claiming that all the apparent errors found by skeptics are wrong. There have been innumerable religious prophesies of doom. There were fifteen coming due in the year 2006 alone, most from Christians who believed the Bible was clear on the subject. http://www.religioustolerance.org... There were 42 predictions of the end of the world in 2000, the millennium year. The preponderance were Christian. http://www.religioustolerance.org... There is no reason to believe that any other prophesies concerning the end of the world are more clear or more accurate than the ones that have failed. 2. My point was that the trend to democracy really only began in earnest a hundred years ago. Pro argues that because there were two World Wars in the beginning of the 20th century, that is a good reason to believe future world wars are inevitable. It is not a good argument, partly because of the trends away from authoritarian regimes, and the trend toward less violence and greater universal prosperity. However, the fact that the Cold War ended peacefully is a very strong reason to believe that World Wars are not a continuing trend. During the time of the Cold War, many argued that world conflict was the inevitable result. It didn't happen. To understand why it didn't happen, one must turn to the reasons. The Soviets, both the authoritarian leaders and the people, realized that there was more to lose than to be gained by large scale conflict. The Warsaw Pact was formed in opposition to NATO. That did not make another world war inevitable. Now that authoritarian nations are discussing another pact, that also does not make world war inevitable. this time around there are many more nations on the side of peace and democracy. The former Warsaw Pact nations are now on the NATO side. China is arming up to try to increase it's influence in the world, and no doubt if the US signals it is willing to give up protecting Taiwan, the Chinese may be inspired to invade. They are not going to invade the US, their biggest market. Similarly, Kim in North Korea might be crazy enough to think he can get away with trying to take it militarily. Neither scenario is impossible. However, even if such events happened, it would not reverse the long term contrary trends. Pro seems to grant that democratic nations are more stable. I am not claiming that democracy has won or that peace and harmony have now been realized. I am claiming that the trends measured over centuries are in the direction of peace and harmony. Pro points to the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. Russia is still not a free nation, and they did invade a free nation. Pro claims that democratic nations in Africa have been at war, but e provided no evidence of that, and don't know of any. It's not impossible for democratic nations to war against each other, but it is at most rare and contrary to the long term trends. 3a, Malthus and Catton claimed that humans would outgrow the capacity of the earth to support them. (Pro gave a bad link to Catton.) I gave reasons why they were wrong: the population of the earth is now forecast to stabilize and not to grow without bounds as supposed, and technology has amply demonstrated its ability to keep ahead of population growth. Earth-is-doomed theory has said that technology would fall behind, but it has not. We are getting further ahead, with the general welfare rising rather falling. There are two central issues: resources (like minerals and cropland) and energy. We only need about 50% more minerals and food until the population stabilizes and a combination or exploration, recycling, and new technology applied to agriculture and aquaculture make that readily achievable. Fossil fuels are running out, but in the long run there is no practical limit to harnessing solar energy in space, and we now have good alternative energy sources like nuclear and renewables. Pro pointed to the vanishing band of earth-is-doomed types, but made no argument for their case. 3b. Pro argues that it is still true that not everyone is well-off. That is true, but it does not dispute my claim that even the poorest people are as whole much better off than they were fifty or a hundred years ago, and much better off than centuries ago. "Famine: A Short History" is most authoritative study of famine to date. The progressive newspaper "The Guardian" summarized, "This is why Cormac ï¿½ Grï¿½da's latest book is so surprising. He is an optimist. According to him, famines are becoming less common. Even better: they will probably decline in frequency even further. Is it time to declare famine history? ï¿½ Grï¿½da says 'yes'. This is a thesis not to be lightly dismissed. ï¿½ Grï¿½da is a distinguished economic historian." http://www.amazon.com... "... between the spring of 1959 and the end of 1961 some 30 million Chinese starved to death and about the same number of births were lost or postponed." http://www.bmj.com... Epic catastrophic famines occurred in Russia and India, taking tens of millions of people. Pro is comparing famine to "making less than $900 a year." That does not compare. 3c. Pro does not dispute the trend of increased global communication, nor that the trend supports peace an harmony. 3d. Pro does not dispute that the word population is likely to stabilize, and that this supports prospects of peace and harmony. 3e. Pro does not dispute the overall claim that violence is is down on a scale of both centuries and decades. He claims that organized crime is one factor contrary to overall trend. A rise in organized crime is characteristic of the end of authoritarian rule, notably in Russian and in some South American countries such as Colombia. Mexico is fighting organized crime to assert democracy. It is a symptom of transition to democracy. Some radical Muslims may plan a world war. They may succeed in provoking some major conflicts, but it is unlikely that they could succeed in provoking the democracies into a world war, or that even the powerful non-democratic regimes in Russia or China. who have much to lose, would side with the terrorists. Rich Saudi backers of terrorist also have too much to lose. 4., 5. Pro does not dispute my contentions. Pro's case fails because he fails to consider the long term trends of democracy, technology, prosperity, and non-violence. He claims the world has not changed, but it has. Peace and harmony are the likely consequence of the inevitable trends.