Davis Perez

ENC1101

T/R

11:15-12:30

If you wish to describe the steps towards world peace a long list of unaccomplished acts begin to enlist

themselves on whatever paper you seem to be writing. You have the idea of completely abolishing

world hunger. Then you have to take into account the economy, our own man-made system, which is

currently struggling to stay afloat of itself (we need a system to decide the level of work and reward

towards each other, but the one we have set at the moment seems to favor the evil of the world.) A

long with that, you need more psychologists then the population of China in order to help everyone

cope with their anger and rage, because regardless of how peaceful a land is, being a sociopath is a

disease and it spreads quickly. This list tends to grow with requirements not worth mentioning because

of how crazy they are. Think about it, can you have true world peace if the person sitting across you isn’t

satisfied with life? He or she will be sad and then spread that emotion on to you. When people get

depressed they either act in an irrational manner (thinking it’ll cure them of their pain) or cope with it

and never truly smile. If peace means the sacrifice of happiness, then is it really worth aiming for at all?

What are the requirements to gain peace? I ask this, because recently I’ve been involved with media

that depicts peace as a goal that is only attainable through the sacrifice of masses. The movie Watchmen

influences this highly. The few superheroes on screen are jokingly the few villains you ever get to watch

through out the entire film. The only true justice, while vile and afraid of human contact in itself, is

murdered by pure logic and reasoning. The only man in the entire film that knows the meaning of

emotion and human life, is killed and destroyed like a monster. This brings me to my next point, if true

justice is viewed as insanity in this world, does that mean that it is never an obtainable goal?