Edited By Hülya Yaldir and Güncel Önkal
What is our responsibility as scholars in the Humanities and Social Sciences in the face of global issues threatening humanity today? This book provides a platform for an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural dialogue among philosophers and sociologists on the most pressing global issues facing humanity today. Combining the critical thinking of philosophy with sociological methods and researches, this volume offers fresh and stimulating perspectives with regard to various issues including environmental degradation, democracy, gender and economic inequalities, religion, war and peace.
The Quest for Peace
Peace is natural and true vocation of a successful collective action that builds a community of common interests. Its being there by default, does not demand any justification, whereas other acts which disrupt peace, need a reasonable justification. It is time to probe, why peace is violated by war and why war is needed to restore peace? We need to investigate all those causes that create trouble in our societies so that a stage is set for permanent peace. Since human behaviour is naturally flexible and variable, thinkers and scientists should keep on modifying the socio-political systems, making it conducive to contemporary needs and environments, and nurture love, brotherhood amongst the people to establish a tranquil, orderly, and peaceful society. Instead of wasting our sources and energy on war-preparedness, we need to work on peace-preparedness, largely with intangibles—the setting up of moral, intellectual, economic, and political forces—to promote and hold peace. Peace is the practical matter of how human beings can live together harmoniously, dealing creatively and effectively with the differences, hurts, and fears that arise in their relationships. With the invention of horrible devastating weapons, preserving peace has become so fragile that we have come to a point where either we would all live or we all die. It is time that with a greater resolution we have to conduct the affairs of the world in a smarter way by declaring “war as a dead phenomenon.” Today, an incredibly instantaneous technological development is changing everything in our life. We are in an era of “Cybernet Enlightenment” which can help us achieve social progress to develop an “IT Enlightened Humanity.” We have arrived at the end of the evolutionary period of the homo-sapiens and are on the road to produce “Artificial Super Intelligence” similar or maybe superior to human intelligence. We are ready to step into an era in which we will be known as homo-ingenious. It is now within our own control to identify the scientifically peace-achieving methods, and load “Artificial Super Intelligence” with peace-maintaining data.
2 Pre-civilised societies and peace
Ever since human beings have appeared on this planet, in all ages of their time, they seem to have been living with others of their own kind in families, groups, and societies. Wherever we look into a society, we find people living together ←55 | 56→involving likeness as well as differences. Without the sense of likeness, there could be no mutual recognition of “belonging together.” Without differences, there could be no quest for peace and a struggle for “social cohesion.” This may have occurred through accidental circumstances; either people happened to be in the same place at the same time sharing common interests, or may have been forced to merge into an already existing group. We find groups of people in common as well as fluctuating relationships with each other, some of whom are like and some unlike themselves. This reflects diversity within the society in which people live together with their differences, such as those on which the family rests with differences of belief, aptitude, capacity, and interest, but naturally striving for peace. Observing human nature’s optimistic and positive attributes, we find an inherent potential for development of non-violent and peaceful human society. Though there are many reasons which have made the subject of peace very complex, most of all, it is the aggressive and restless tendency of the human beings which has made this situation very complicated.
Leslie E. Sponsel, in his book The Natural History of Peace—edited by Thomas Gregor—argues, “From available evidence and interpretations it appears that many prehistoric and prestate societies, probably the majority, were relatively nonviolent and peaceful in the sense that only sporadically and temporarily did intragroup and/or intergroup aggression occur” (1996: 95). Such positive considerations reveal that man has survived to evolve because of a natural potential for peace and an intrinsic urge to live together, far more than a Hobbesian view of a state of nature of “a war, as is of every man, against every man,” that they would inevitably kill one another, making life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” Rousseau renounced Hobbes’ view, and defined the natural man as a greedless noble savage, whose pre-civilised life was one of serenity, contentment, and benevolence (Yaldır & Der, 2016: 268–273). There is sufficient evidence that human prehistory is relatively free of organized violence.
3 Darwin’s evolutionary view of violent nature
Immanuel Kant, in his treatise On Perpetual Peace speculates, “Peace would eventually come to the world in one of two ways: by human insight or by conflicts and catastrophes of a magnitude that left humanity no other choice.” Since Charles Darwin, many evolutionary scientists and biologists have perceived human nature through the lens of man’s evolutionary trail of “survival of the fittest” and his aggressive “struggle for existence” as fundamentally competitive and violent. However, Darwin held that the social instinct in humans, being the prime principle of their moral constitution, evolved through “numerous slight, ←56 | 57→yet profitable variations” (Origin of Species: 223). As compared with solitary existence, associating in groups enhanced the chances of man’s survival. Darwin held that one cannot determine whence a specific social instinct originated natural selection, but social instincts are stronger and more enduring than many other instincts of human beings. He added, the disposition to associate may be innate in the animals, more prominent in humans that “man’s dislike of solitude and his wish for society beyond that of his own family” (p.84) are worth noticing.
Darwin, in his work The Descent of Man has given extensive evidence that humans are social animals sharing their moral sense with their primate evolutionary predecessors. This means that we cannot ignore that competition was not always violent, and man’s social instinct was initially an instinct of peace and cooperation. Leslie Sponsel, in his book cited earlier, remarks, “The view of [human] nature held by Darwin and his followers stressed competition to the neglect of cooperation. Only in The Descent of Man did Darwin consider intragroup cooperation as complementary to intergroup competition. Darwin also viewed warfare as an agency of natural selection in human evolution” (1996: 99). But the protagonists of biological evolution have ignored that peaceful cooperation and mutual aid have also played an important role in man’s evolution. Peace, made it possible to civilise the uncivilised society. As we see in our own life today, social life withers in regions of high crime and violence, it is only peace that makes our existence possible.
4 Peace is naturally moral while war needs justification
Peace is and has been as natural as life on this planet. It’s being there and does not demand any justification. But any act, which disrupts peace, needs a reasonable justification. Since peace is naturally moral it does not need any rational, ethical, and moral justification. But once peace is violated it has often been restored by the use of force. So far, we have not been able to present any moral justification for the use of force except the just war tradition, and that also by taking a different stand to consider war as morally justified for the sake of peace. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a French philosopher has put it this way in chapter 3 of his work the Social Contract; “The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transfers strength into right, and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have” (Cole, 2005: 7). Modern democracies believe that the use of force ensures a moral justification when an elaborate popular support of people’s majority is there. But, even with a popular support of the people it is hard to foresee what moral effect the use of force can have, particularly when, according to Rousseau’s belief, “Men are ←57 | 58→not naturally enemies … nature made men happy and good.” Moreover, even in democracies to prove that there is a moral justification for going to war against a certain nation, popular majority support for the use of force is mostly created through a planned political, religious or ideological propaganda. Since there is no ethical and moral standard that can justify the use of force and power, this leaves us with the alternative that war and conflict is a human activity which falls within the scrutiny of reason and morality.
As we sift through the pages of our history, we notice all the expanding societies or nations have proliferated by using force. This is because for centuries the rulers and monarchs have had a monopoly over the legitimacy of use of force in a fashion of their own choice. They have always exploited ideologies, religions, and social orders only to fulfil their own agenda of rule by force and power. Whether it is a dictator like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, or Mao, the peace violator of the twentieth century, or the wars waged by modern democracies in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and North Africa, all such atrocities, including terrorism, are the outcome of geopolitical catastrophes. Though all these wars have been accounted to be in the interest of the people to promote democracies, but whenever there is a war, even to liberate the people, it is the peace-loving people who pay the price. The irony is that throughout our history, the aggressors have proclaimed all such aggressions as crusades for peace. At the end, the victors herald the banner of peace over the dead bodies of millions of innocent human beings. Thus, so far, the only way mankind has been able to seek peace is the use of force, such as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been deemed as an unavoidable operation for the sake of greater peace. This means that peace is achieved at the expense of the lives of millions of innocents, and peace-loving citizens who had nothing to do with the horrible game of war.
Though all religions of the world extol peace, yet in many instances religious beliefs have been the source of humanity’s bloody conflicts. But our history reveals that the followers of godless and non-religious ideologies have been far more warmongers and have caused greater destructions. The death toll in the non-religious wars during the twentieth century, such as the two World Wars, Korean and Vietnam wars, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syrian wars, is estimated to be more than 200 million. It is time humanity understood that man is travelling in the wrong direction. He needs to realize that peace can be maintained by a positive insight of love for all. At the same time, there is a need to probe, why peace is violated by war and then why war becomes necessary to restore peace. We need to investigate all those causes that create trouble in our societies and find out how war can be avoided, so that a stage is set for permanent peace.←58 | 59→
5 Conflict, war, peace and human nature
Human identities, displaying commonalities and differences amongst individuals or groups of people, have made human society a complex web of war, conflict, and peace. Primarily, the social structure is based on love, peace and liking, helping people to make life liveable together. It is an intimate liking and a passion of love of two wedded persons, that a new life is born. Sociobiology’s focus of social evolution on the exchange of altruistic acts between two individuals, families or groups, called “reciprocal altruism,” is a cooperative act benefitting both actor and the recipient. Differences, as a secondary social dilemma, oscillate them from peaceful existence to conflict and war, and finally back to peace. This means, “Peace is the beginning and peace is the ending.” Douglas Fry, in his work War, Peace, and Human Nature: The Convergence of Evolutionary and Cultural Views, is of the view:
[…] from archaeology, nomadic forager studies, primatology, and evolutionary theory, as applied afresh to aggression, is that war is recent, not ancient, and war is a capacity, not an evolved adaptation. In short, war was rare to nonexistence under the conditions in which our species evolved but obviously prevalent in more recent times that are dramatically different ecological and cultural circumstances… [it] is a typical bias among scholars, politicians, and in society generally—to pay more attention to war than to peace. One reason for this is that I think we take peace for granted as the default. War and violence shatter the expected calm and grab the headlines. The main message about peace that I glean from the chapters in this book is that it is the norm, the typical behavioural default. In my view, peace is not just an absence of war, but also people getting along prosocially with each other: the cooperation, sharing, and kindness that we see every day in any society. Peace is positive reciprocity: I show you a kindness and you do me a favour in return, multiplied throughout the social world a million times over (2015: 543–544).
Peace, naturally ingrained in the human beings’ characteristics, has always been a cherished prerogative. But historically, peace violated by differences leading to conflict and war, is still made out of the control achieved through force. Performing his duty of maintaining peace, a Roman commander who had brutally put down a rising of a tribe by almost annihilating the whole population, reported that he had brought “peace” to the region. The Roman historian, Publius Cornelius Tacitus (56–120 CE) described this horrible strategy of maintaining peace as—faciunt solitudinem, et pacem appellant: “They make a wilderness and call it peace.”
Mankind is perennially caught in a routine to maintain peace through war, which needs to be changed by the appeal of love for all, based on “Live and let Live” rather than building peace by the slogan of “Kill to Live.” Human beings ←59 | 60→have inherited from their predecessors, tendencies of good and evil, inclinations of war and peace, invocations of social and moral obligations—except with some geographic and calendared variation—which are with us since the advent of human society. Our experience through ages shows that mostly war and conflict is the result of abuse of power by individuals or groups of people. We have also learned from our past and are still in the same race to be prepared for war and aggression, both in scientific field and political spectrum, rather than to think and invent a system and machinery, which can help us make peace prevail. Herbert Hoover and Hugh Gibson in the introduction to the Problems of Lasting Peace, have argued:
There must be just as much preparedness for peace-making as there is for war. And in many ways the preparations for peace are more difficult task. Preparedness for war deals mostly with tangibles—men, guns, ships, planes, money—and with tactics and strategy. Preparedness for peace deals largely with intangibles—the setting up of moral, intellectual, economic, and political forces over the whole world which will produce and hold peace. And lasting peace cannot be made simple of lofty expressions of aims and ideals. Such ideals are necessary. We must have aims. But that is only the starting point of the job of making lasting peace (1943: 154).
Unfortunately, in the present era we are spending a bulk of our wealth and resources on building war machinery, more than enough to depopulate the planet on which we are living. But with much less money and creative use of the resources, a practical matter of peace can be developed to help human beings live together harmoniously, deal rationally and effectively with their differences, hurts, and fears that arise in their relationships.
6 Role of power in war and peace
All living beings upon this planet have appeared with an inborn survival capability and with an intrinsic urge to live. Whereas no living being wants to die, human beings have an everlasting desire to live as long as possible, and if it were possible, to live forever. Thus, the necessity to maintain peace emerged as naturally as the desire to live and live longer. At the same time, the same species that yearned for peace, most of the time have indulged in conflicts and wars. Whether this behaviour of peace and war is genetically programmed into human nature, or has appeared as a necessity in the course of human evolution, is still a nature versus nurture debate. Our evolution in all phases of our life proves that as humans we are pliant, that we, the same species who invented war, are also capable of maintaining peace. We are both the best and the worst of all the creatures living on this planet. What has made us best is the result of our many ←60 | 61→cultured or intrinsic ingenious and virtuous qualities, which other creatures are devoid of. What has made us worst is our “perverted desires.” We know that out of so many qualities, human beings are born with a craving for many desires. One of the most important desire in human beings is the desire for power. The famous philosopher of twentieth century, Bertrand Russell in his book Power, explaining the philosophy of power has said:
The fundamental concept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics… Out of man’s many desires, one of the most interesting desire in human beings is the desire for power, an ability to affect the outcome one wants by the use of force. This desire for power is so intense that most of us, irrespective of the fact that [one believes or does not believe in God] every man would like to be God, if it were possible; some few find it difficult to admit the impossibility… It is this that makes social co-operation difficult, for each one of us would like to conceive of it after the pattern of the co-operation between God and His worshippers, with ourselves in the place of God. This desire and practice of God-like power creates an impulse to overpower other fellow beings, to down them and finish them, as God Himself would have done to punish the disobedient ones (1938: 8–9).
Human beings, entangled in the cobweb of limitless desires, blinded by power, and transgressing all moral and ethical limits, often fall prey to a ruthless and inhuman struggle. The more intelligent and manipulative ones transgress towards assorted mental aberrations, and their minds become arena of strife and conflicts. Their desires lead them to intense conflicts and frustrations, and consequently they are transformed into infernos. Inner disruptions manifest themselves inwardly and outwardly, giving rise not only to a ruthless and inhuman struggle for existence, but also to vile competition, unfair means in business and trade, greed, caprice, and false ostentation. Thus, the impulse and a craving for unbound power becomes a major factor of war, conflict, oppression, and violation of peace. To harness such unbound and unlimited desires, ethics and morality based on reason need to be an integral part of the social and cultural fabric of our life. But whereas the desire for power is one of the major causes of our wars and conflicts, paradoxically, it is also the cause of our progress. Without the desire for power, we would not have evolved as we are today. The impulse of power is one of the main causes of all the activities which are important for the social affairs. Without this desire for power there would have been no evolution in human society, and there would have been no history, religion, philosophy or social order.
The problem arises when this impulse for power corrupts and leads to an unjustified aggression. Aggression is a natural product of biology, but with the combination of environments, it predisposes a person to violence. However, ←61 | 62→we are aware that from the emergence of society until today, the edifice of a family, clan, tribe or a nation stands on the values of ethic and morality, on our capacity to restrain, respect, and love our fellow human beings. Ibn Khaldun, the famous Arab scholar of Philosophy of History and Sociology in vol. I, The Prolegomena—An Introduction to History—speculates:
Conflict may stop if every person is clearly aware by the light of his reason, that he has no right to oppress his neighbour or a fellow citizen. Oppression and strife might therefore cease, if men undertake to restrain themselves… Societies are not static and social forms and laws change and evolve. These laws are sociological and not a mere reflection of biological impulses, or physical factors… It is, therefore, important to keep shaping politics and social environment according to historically created norms of justice without interfering excessively with natural pattern of behaviour (1950: 345).
Human behaviour is naturally flexible and variable. It is necessary for the socio-political scientists to keep modifying social and political systems conducive to contemporary needs and environments, and nurture love, brotherhood amongst the people in order to establish a tranquil, orderly, and a peaceful society.
Whereas we see destructive role of man’s lust for power, we also see many reminiscences of the “power of peace” in the form of magnificent works of art and architecture, reflecting pride and glory of man’s peace time creativity, or an expression of human desire for power within the context of peace. The glorious edifices of temples, cathedrals, mosques, and tombs are a living example of the spiritual as well as physical tranquillity and peace of the societies who built them. These magnificent wonders of the world could never have been erected during a war or in the middle of a conflict. It proves that human being’s creativity has always been at its best during the periods of peace. Such visions of the power of peace, have left a lasting mark in the socio-cultural history of the world. The power of art and architecture has played a role of an instrument of state policy. The political and religious use of art and architecture depicts the cordial and peaceful relationship between people and their rulers or spiritual followers and their religious mentors and preachers. All art, whether for the sake of religion, morality or aesthetics, is projection of the peace time periods of the societies and cultures it represents.
7 War and peace in history, sociology, and politics
Our history is mostly a record of conflicts, wars, conquests, and empires, embellished with stories of chivalries and braveries of warriors. It is a chronicle of veneration of war heroes, and greatness of generals, romanticized as a matter of interest forever. Little effort has been made to research and analyse the causes and motives of the wars and conflicts behind man’s horrible acts and study the ←62 | 63→consequences of mass bloodshed and loss of life of the innocent citizens who have nothing to do with the war game. The glamorized myth of war and violence is based on the belief that we are aggressive and violent by nature. Peace represents order, harmony, and serenity, which is a very important characteristic of human nature. Human beings are creatures of habits, and are capable of generating a variety of patterns of thoughts and actions. Our habits are learnt and our behaviour is so plastic that we are amazingly capable of self-modification. We can shape our own behaviour according to the prevailing environment. Thus, we need to develop a culture where we can resolve our differences peacefully.
Sociologists, who have studied different societies, have found some societies having cultures of peace. They are capable of conducting their differences peacefully and developing cultures that nurture cooperation. On one hand, we have proof that peace cultures have existed in this world organizing social life on peaceful basis and achieving change through peaceful and non-violent means. On the other hand, these peace culture societies have proved to be less aggressive and less responsive to competition, less creative, and have lagged behind in their race to progress. Societies and civilizations with peace cultures have often been overpowered and destroyed by the invading warrior societies. All biological, societal, scientific, and humanistic evolution is due to our desire to achieve more and more; as far as the passion and the aggressiveness is there, there is no limit to what can be achieved. It is only in action that life can be understood. Our actions are essentially triggered by our intrinsic needs and desires. But in order to maintain peace and congruity in the society we need to harness our wild and limitless desires in such a way that we can live harmoniously with each other without breaching the balance of our social system by trespassing each other’s rights. Through education, we can tame naked power and nurture a sense of value of things other than domination.
In history, whereas we find great works of art and architecture created during peace time, it might, however, seem ironical that the development and production of weaponry for war also goes to the credit of peace times. But its justification is supported by the argument that in order to maintain a state of peace, it is considered important to remain in a state of preparedness against any indigenous disruption and violation of peace or foreign offensive operations. Defensive preparedness against any deliberate exertion of power, whether political, military, or economic, has been a primary requirement of a society. At the same time, such preparedness does instigate aggression from some other nation, fearful of the offensiveness of the power of defensive mode. Such a scenario is a product of lack of communication between societies and nations or exertion of power without any justification. It is very important that societies and nations should keep better ←63 | 64→communication to maintain balance of power amongst diverse nations. For some of us it might seem that the impulse, which leads human beings to war is so strong and full of action that a moral equivalent as a deterrent is not easy to cultivate. In the past, it seemed impossible to direct this passion of war into love and peace.
Political scientists mark the disruption of peace as a systemic breakdown or institutional failure. Once this systemic breakdown occurs, one group or a nation attacks and causes losses to the other creating a psychological relationship of aggressor and victim, which most of the time endures for ages. The psychology of victimhood is in fact a very deep rooted and sensitive psycho-physiological permanent state of alertness on the part of victimized individuals, groups or nations. They are always revengeful of the wounds of the past. It becomes difficult for them to be susceptible to rational acts of peace processes. It is well established that oppression ruins society, while the ruin of society leads to the weakening and destruction of a nation. At this stage, it is more of a social scientist’s job based upon psychological study to look for a remedy. Just as violent individuals can be cured by psychiatric treatments, our remarkable achievement in the field of neuroscience and fast communication systems developed by the internet technologies, it is possible that societies and nations thousands of miles apart can be easily educated to psychologically based strategies of peace processes. Since human nature is capable of alteration by education, it is within our power to create a peaceful society.
8 Quest for permanent peace
There is no doubt that the tribulations of the world today, is in large measure, due to the acceptance of materialism and loss of spiritual standards. In every time of our known or unknown history, people have always been living a spiritual life, striving to preserve peace by loving others and work harmoniously with each other. A passionate quest for permanent peace has always been a prime objective of mankind. In order to achieve this objective many religious explanations, political and social ideologies, and philosophies in different times have been presented. Many methods have been applied, including a justified use of force and power by one nation or an international organization, to maintain peace. In spite of all efforts through ages, the objective of permanent peace is still a dream. Peace, as a matter of fact, is the true vocation of a successful collective action, the kind of action that builds a community of common interests. Albert Einstein, one of the most influential scientist of all time has famously argued: “If we have courage to decide ourselves for peace, we will have peace… We are not engaged in a play but in a condition of utmost danger to existence. If you are not firmly ←64 | 65→decided to resolve things in a peaceful way, you will never come to a peaceful solution.” At another place, he has reflected his aspiration, “I hold that mankind is approaching an era in which peace treaties will not only be recorded on paper, but will also become inscribed in the hearts of men” (Martin & Ott, 2013).
Though the quest for permanent peace may be a Utopian dream, but peace in human nature is by default. It is the everyday practical matter of how humans can live together harmoniously, dealing creatively and effectively. Peace is the socio-political goal of societies and peoples who are trying to live more consciously even during most troubled time. It is like a spirit and soul of a society which is always there, latent and unseen by all those who are in the midst of war or creating violence and terror. Louise Diamond in The Courage to Peace, remarks, “I believe we are born with this inner potential for peace; it lies within our very nature, waiting to be awakened and enlivened by our will. We can choose to free it as a living force that brings joy and harmony to our families, our communities, our nation, and our planet. Or we can choose to ignore it, leaving it as buried treasure, to be uncovered some later day” (2000: 6). In our quest for peace, all we have to do is to “unleash the power of peace.”
9 Artificial intelligence and war and peace
It is time that we should present an analysis of the social dynamics, especially relating to the achievement of a lasting peace. Attempts to maintain peace have been made through religion, politics, but mostly through warfare. In the present millennium, the global society is at a very important juncture of our history. Religions and ideologies of philosophy and social sciences are losing their central importance in the affairs of a state. We are standing at the gateway of a cyber-renaissance, which would drastically change the course of our future history. Our evolution, with an amazing speed, is taking a new shape which is now happening before our own eyes. The possibility of transformation of the humans is well within our reach. Our computer technology is now a function of how smart we are, not how rich or powerful we could be. It is rapidly evolving a society where the highest value would be of the smart brain, not of wealth or physical power. Thus, the culmination of cyber-renaissance would be the spectrum of power passing from the grasp of rich and elite to the hands of common and oppressed, from the hands of physically strong to the intellectually smart brains.
One of the most salient features of the cyber-renaissance is that it is going to be free of any ideological and religious strings, which in the past has done a massive damage to the cause of peace. Science has always been able to nurture rational and humanistic outlook, even if its systematic and regular stance has ←65 | 66→conflicted with the irregularity and diversity of the human emotions. Science has done wonders in mastering the laws of physical world, but our own nature is still less understood. It is important that the understanding of human nature must be the basis of our research in order to establish a peaceful and happy society on this earth. We have been neglecting our basic inclination of our desire for peace, which has always been an essential characteristic of the human beings. It is right time to evolve the concept of peace as a chapter of social sciences, based upon the moral and ethical principles of the humanity and introduce the subject of peace as a part of scientific philosophy. Time has come to develop a “Scientific Philosophy of Peace” on the basis of humanity as one race, one culture, and one social order living in the only one world we have.
Mankind started as one-humanity, which unfortunately lost the sight of its unity during the course of human beings’ evolution and cultural diversities. This might have happened due to many geographical and environmental variances. Because of our modern scientific and technological achievements, the geographical and environmental elements are no more dominating our evolutionary process. The whole world is like a global village where everyone is instantly connected with everyone. We as humans are at the peak of our biological evolution and our physical perfection. The Darwinian theory of evolution is now a chapter of history. Today we are no more concerned about the questions of our own creation, rather we are now ourselves the creators. We are excitedly ready to welcome our creations, the “Robots” and “Artificial Intelligence,” which will mark the beginning of a new era in the history of mankind and play a new and different role in our war and peace phenomena.
Today, an incredibly technological development is changing everything in our life. We are living in an era of “Cybernet-scientific Enlightenment” which can help us achieve social progress to develop a “Scientifically Enlightened Humanity.” We have arrived at the end of evolutionary era of homo-sapiens and are on the road to produce artificial intelligence similar or maybe superior to human intelligence. We are ready to step into an era in which we will be proud to be truly known as homo-ingenious. It is now within our own control to identify the peace-achieving methods of science, and apply them smartly by loading the “Artificial Intelligence” with peace developing data of fraternity and love for all. It is predicted that within the next few decades, we will have the technological means to create “Artificial Super Intelligence,” marking an era of “Singularity,” the union of human and machine, in which the knowledge and skills embedded in our brains will be combined with the vastly greater capacity, speed, and knowledge-sharing ability of our own creations. Given the incredible power of new technologies and development of “Artificial Super Intelligence,” ←66 | 67→we have a golden opportunity to build self-aware, self-improving machines, which should not be loaded with the words of oppression, murder, conflict, and war or what exactly Martin Luther King Jr. had dreamed and pronounced on August 28, 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C. in the United States of America.
It is important not to equip and invent “Artificial Super Intelligence” as a replication of historical or religious man’s intelligence and nature, but with only those features which should embrace the oneness of humanity without any capability of distinguishing race, colour, ideology, religion or culture. In a way, we would be creating a new consciousness of love and peace.
Generally speaking, peace is an environment, a state in which individuals, families, and societies live and move together naturally from birth to death, without any need of conflict or violence. But today, as the horror of modern warfare is warning us that we are standing at the verge of annihilating the planet we are living in, we are dragged to conclude that we must create a peaceful world. This leaves us with no other choice than to nurture passion of love and peace in mankind. In the present age of better awakening and consciousness, starting from a smaller scale of inner peace as personal goal to a larger scale of peace as political goal of the nations, importance of peace can be instilled into every dimension of our life. The very realization that in the past peace had its role as a requirement, in the future it is a must for the survival of mankind. An approach on these lines would be a stepping stone towards permanent peace.
It is far easier to imagine individuals experiencing peace in their lifetime than to identify such orderly continuity in the history of groups, societies, and ←67 | 68→nations. Yet, there is no better measure of peace than the state of an individual and the family, which are the roots of a society or a nation. A man is in himself a miniature universe and as such his consciousness reflects the entire cosmos. Man’s microcosmic universe also influences the macrocosmic physical universe. He affects and brings about changes in the vast expanses of the material cosmos. Peace and tranquillity enjoyed individually, makes its impact on the outer world at large. In a broader sense, peace depends upon the inner characteristics of the individuals of a society. The subjective peace and harmony experienced from within makes harmony possible around the world and for the whole humanity. The relationship of human beings with each other assumes the form of ever-widening circles. Starting from the interactions within the family nucleus they develop to encompass clans, tribes, and states. Because the world is all inhabited by a large multitude of socio-cultural groups and states, therefore, quite logically, peace lies in the amicability and cordiality of the relations between these states.
Cole, G. D. H. (trans.). (2005). The Social Contract: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Diamond, Louise. (2000). The Courage for Peace. Berkley, California: Conari Press.
Fry, Douglas P. (2015). War, Peace, and Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gregor, Thomas (ed.). (1996). A Natural History of Peace. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hoover, Herbert & Gibson, Hugh (1943). The Problems of Lasting Peace: Prefaces to Peace. A Symposium. New York: Doubleday.
Issawi, Charles (trans.). (1950). An Arab Philosophy of History—Selections form the Prolegomena of Ibn Khaldun, First Edition. Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press.
Martin, Walt & Ott, Magda (eds.). (2013). The Philosophy of Albert Einstein. New York: Fall River Press.
Russell, Bertrand. (1938). Power. London: Unwin Books.
Yaldır, H. & Der, K. (2016). Hobbes and Rousseau on Human Nature. In Hülya Yaldır & Recep Efe & Elzbieta Zuzanska-Zysk & Mehmet Arslan (Eds.), Current Topics in Social Sciences (pp. 267–277). Sofia: St. Kliment Ohridski University Press.←68 | 69→