“The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.” Psalm 37:11

unfortunatly i don't think it is possible. but it would be nice.

I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.

I think so. I have a feeling if we ever did get the whole world at peace and everything sorted out, it wouldn't last long

The nature of all living things prevents peace from being a reality, since they are all living in a constant state of fighting for survival, in one form or another. However desirable and attractive peace is for us, we will always return to the laws of the jungle, because we are ruled by those laws and it is where we really are and always will be.

As of right now, the way the world is today, I would have to say no. There are just too many differences between people and cultures. There are too many arguements too many fights. You couldn't simply stop all of this. There are ways to create peace on earth, although it would be very hard, you could get rid of the differences, you could make everything the same. If you've ever read the book "Giver" you would know what I am talking about. You could make communities that get rid of all the differences, communities that get rid of hate, communities that have no color, no music, no love, no freedom, no fun, no true family, and a lot more. Getting rid of these things would get rid of differences and hate. In the book "Giver" it works, people don't have choices, they don't have any diffences, they have no reason to hate each other cause they're all the same. The book got rid of love, love causes jealosy, jealosy cause hatred. So yes you could have peace on earth, but it would come with a high price.

No. Peace is very much in our nature. Biology has shown that there is an evolutionary reason for altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom including humans. The key theory explaining altruistic behavior that has been backed by mathematical models and empirical evidence is Kin Selection. Here is a brief description of this theory: "The gene causes an organism to behave in a way which reduces its own fitness but boosts the fitness of its relatives — who have a greater than average chance of carrying the gene themselves. So the overall effect of the behavior may be to increase the number of copies of the altruistic gene found in the next generation, and thus the incidence of the altruistic behavior itself". However, the theory doesn't restrict altruistic behavior directed towards to those who are not related. "If altruism is to evolve, it must be the case that the recipients of altruistic actions have a greater than average probability of being altruists themselves. Kin-directed altruism is the most obvious way of satisfying this condition, but there are other possibilities too". A key idea in the Kin Selection theory is inclusive fitness. "An organism's inclusive fitness is defined as its personal fitness, plus the sum of its weighted effects on the fitness of every other organism in the population...Instead of thinking in terms of selfish genes trying to maximize their future representation in the gene-pool, we can think in terms of organisms trying to maximize their inclusive fitness". I found the above concept interesting. Perhaps its not the survival of the fittest. Its the survival of the "inclusive fitness". There is a distinction between biological altruism and psychological altruism. Psychological altruism are actions done with the conscious effort to help others. "Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behavior does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense". The "laws of the jungle" include altruism. I would like to argue that peace on earth should not be the inspiration for altruistic action. Simple peace on earth wouldn't be stable and wouldn't last long. We have to set our goals to the progress we can achieve with peace as a 'back drop'. What will peace allow us to accomplish?

There was peace on Earth before civilisation, when civilisation came about so did humanities alienation with the world it lived in, it left the cradle of nature and took things into its own hands and thats how we have unrealistic people in power, destructive domestication that humans think they own everything without any regard for other life forms, and until humanity makes the final leap to reach towards transcendant civilisation it will never be at peace. Only when philosophers become kings & Queens of the world will we truly be at a global peace...

The intention of this reality is not peace, but division and competition.

Unfortunately & sadly, yes. The Human Race has a long history of conflict, and i can't see us overcoming this sad trend.

I'd settle for peace in my house! I don't hold out any hope for peace on Earth I'm afraid, we evolved as tribal animals, defending our patch from other tribes, and we've just continued escalating the size of our inter-tribal rivalries ever since!

Peace on earth is not a mere dream. When Jesus was borned, 'a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to all men on whom his favor rests."' (Luke 2:13-14)

Someday, yes, humanity will no longer exist.

For there to be ANY accomplishment in ANYTHING, there must FIRST be a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DREAM!

Yes its a mere dream. As the world keeps going there are going to be more and more wars. The Bible talks about it.

True peace is available in our hearts, no matter what is going on on Earth, therefore it is not a mere dream.