Violence and Peace

Questions

During the 1960's and 70’s, the first large public demonstrations calling for peace were organized. Eventually that peace movement would sweep the earth, infecting a sizable minority but never becoming a consensus necessity. Indigenous Nations have been mixed in the their acceptance of, or participation in a dedication to peace. Violence has been an acceptable first or last resort for most of the human race throughout our time here. So I'm asking this question. Is peace possible? Is the avoidance of violent conflict possible, in every instance, every moral outrage, every tyrannical domination?

As a species we have always found reasons to justify our violence. Whether it was one group wanting another groups' resources or territory or another's attempt to defend theirs. And what was it that drove that small percentage of American colonists to decide that it was time to risk their lives and fortunes to defy a King and usurp the lands of other Nations to create their own? And why whenever seemingly justified violence happens does there always seem to accompany it a certain amount of superfluous violence?

I want to postulate a theory. Not one that answers any of the previous questions posed but one that answers the final question. When will the human species accept peace as a unified theory of human survival or are we doomed to suffer this seemingly destructive trait until we all have become a memory in the cosmos? I'm afraid you won't like my analogy for the answer.

The Virus and the Vaccine

Despite the current argument about the effectiveness of vaccines I want to fall back to the idealism of my youth and accept that a virus might be able to be contained, even eradicated, by a vaccine. There is a certain amount of protection that can be achieved through the herd immunity that can be achieved through a moderate vaccination rate. But, as we have observed recently, virus can return when those rates fall below a certain point. The only way to ultimately destroy that virus is to completely vaccinate the populace. I postulate the same with the human virus of violence. Not until the desire to utilize violence to achieve goals is completely eliminated from the human psyche will peace be achievable. That's why we've never come close to managing a permanent ceasefire anywhere. Each generation battles its' own demons, metaphorically or physically. Neither the passage of generations, the concepts of evolution, or the desires of human beings has changed our proclivities to rely on violence to achieve our personal or collective aims. Even the threat of weapons that can destroy the planet has not changed our dependency on considering the threat of violence as our only real deterrent to violence-- what? That statement has to be the greatest evidence of species stupidity there is.

So I have come to this conclusion. As long as there is violence, it must be considered as an option. Until we come up with a “vaccine' to entirely eradicate this trait from our species, there will be no lasting commitment to peace.

“Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching As To War...” Christianity evolved in Rome as a martial religion. Today in the U.S., we seem to be split 50-50 socially and politically. There may only be a quarter of the population dedicated to Evangelical Christian morality and world view, nevertheless they do view the present as a wartime situation. The cannot change, their religious fervor will not allow them to. And those of us who oppose their ideals of morality will never be able to accept their rigid guidelines. So where these two ideals come into opposition lies the crux of our dilemma; that eventually one side or the other will decide that violence is the only solution to protecting the essence of their future.

The problem with violence is that if an enemy's proclivities are to use it as tool of victory, how long should one wait to prepare for such realities without risking the ability to defend one's values and relatives? I'm afraid we are rapidly approaching that crossroads.