Penn & Teller on World Peace

[Shi Huangdi]

After putting myself through 30 minutes of lousy commentary on the Bible from these guys (see Ethos, Mores, et Monastica) I decided to do more research. And I found the following trilogy on world peace, which is actually very good. I don't agree with everything they said, but they came to some good conclusions.

[JP226]

I always liked Penn and Teller. It's smart ass common sense. But common sense beyond what is comfortable, actually using your brain and thinking things through. Maybe that's what you call pragmatic.

[sephodwyrm]

Penn and Teller is most awesome on the Bible, though.
Although I figured that part out on my own when I read through the works in the Pentecost Methodist Church.

[Denny Crane!]

Yeah they are usually pretty good, funny with it.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Well, they have a point yeah mutual profit makes for better relationships between countries, but many wars have been initiated with very specific economical reasons too.

So they're selling you a half truth, yeah those wackos in pink outfits aren't going to make any good but I wouldn't trust my future and that of different societies on huge multinationals companies either.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Ofcourse free trade helps world peace but don't be fooled by organizations like NAFTA which isn't really free trade.

[Shi Huangdi]

They have a great series on "being green", as well.

[Wilder]

I love Penn and teller, but they do much better with things that are blatantly ridiculous, like UFOs, cryptozology, alternative medicene, apocolyptic predictions, conspiracy theories, creationism and the like. But they run into problems when they try and grapple with substantially more complex real world problems like animal abuse, gun control, poll numbers, recycling, the environment, smoking, immigration, and kids. This isn't to say that I disagree with them, or that they don't produce a quality show, but simply that attempting to explain, or simply dismiss any given real issue within a 26 minute minus commercials time frame, is not a great way to get a quality understanding of said issue. Plus they sometimes make lazy shortcuts that undermine their argument if they are talking about something that you have some prior knowledge of.

Anyway, this is a good example of the difficulties that they run into when dealing with a major world problem. They are absolutely right, of course that TRADE, is not only an effective method for promoting peace, but perhaps the most powerful. Still though it is simplistic and, perhaps, naive to think that it is the only one, and certainly not correct to think that it is the only one that is ever needed. What is also needed is a reasonable disincentive to start a war (significant, but not bloated militaries), a standing legacy of political legitimacy, the capability to meet the basic needs of citizenry, And perhaps most importantly mutual respect for human life and each other. Things get complicated, because these things are not universally available. Things are further complicated because it is not simply trade that dims aggression, but a certain form of trade. Countries with monolithic economies based on one easily extracted and valuable natural resource, are often oppressive, unstable and unpredictable. So it is not bull, it is a highly complex, difficult real world problem, that has plagued humanity before we were even human.