Présentation de l'éditeur
This book explores the relationship that exists between peace and violence. Verny describes the different levels and types of violence that exist in the world today and compares this world to a Perfectly Peaceful Planet (PPP). Having done this Verny explains why the PPP cannot be attained through violence. The question of whether violence can ever lead to a more peaceful world is then addressed; the conclusion is reached that a more peaceful world requires not violence, but individuals acting in a less violent manner.
The underlying thesis of this book is that all violence leads to an increasingly violent world. In contrast to this view, many people seem to believe that violence can be used to bring about an increasingly peaceful world. Verny does not deny that there might be situations in which violence might be necessary, but stresses that this violence, whilst 'necessary' has actually made the world increasingly violent in the future. The acceptance that this is the case means that those seeking a more peaceful world should only use violence in exceptionally extreme circumstances. Here is an excerpt: "More problematically, it seems, are the people who are seeking to use violence to attain the PPP. These people are seeking to stop other people being violent by using violence directed towards these people. They believe that they are doing a good thing - because they are fundamentally peaceful people seeking a PPP. However, are they actually acting as hindrance to the attainment of a PPP? For now, the point I am trying to make is simply that if there are humans who are acting violently in the hope of attaining a PPP then it is hard to imagine that a PPP can be obtained. For violence is embedded in these humans - it is part of their way of life, part of their essence. It is hard to imagine that even if they were successful in 'knocking the violence out' of all of the other humans, that they could then do the same to themselves. So, I suggest that a PPP cannot be achieved through violence. I would now like to return to the question of why the PPP is such an elusive state. When we considered the current state of our planet we saw that violence is embedded at many levels - inter-nation, intra-nation (state-directed), between groups, and between individuals. Why is this? Does the violence emerge at one level and spread to the other levels? Or, contrarily, does the violence emerge at all levels independently?"
The underlying thesis of this book is that all violence leads to an increasingly violent world. In contrast to this view, many people seem to believe that violence can be used to bring about an increasingly peaceful world. Verny does not deny that there might be situations in which violence might be necessary, but stresses that this violence, whilst 'necessary' has actually made the world increasingly violent in the future. The acceptance that this is the case means that those seeking a more peaceful world should only use violence in exceptionally extreme circumstances. Here is an excerpt: "More problematically, it seems, are the people who are seeking to use violence to attain the PPP. These people are seeking to stop other people being violent by using violence directed towards these people. They believe that they are doing a good thing - because they are fundamentally peaceful people seeking a PPP. However, are they actually acting as hindrance to the attainment of a PPP? For now, the point I am trying to make is simply that if there are humans who are acting violently in the hope of attaining a PPP then it is hard to imagine that a PPP can be obtained. For violence is embedded in these humans - it is part of their way of life, part of their essence. It is hard to imagine that even if they were successful in 'knocking the violence out' of all of the other humans, that they could then do the same to themselves. So, I suggest that a PPP cannot be achieved through violence. I would now like to return to the question of why the PPP is such an elusive state. When we considered the current state of our planet we saw that violence is embedded at many levels - inter-nation, intra-nation (state-directed), between groups, and between individuals. Why is this? Does the violence emerge at one level and spread to the other levels? Or, contrarily, does the violence emerge at all levels independently?"
