WORLD PEACE BY 2048

World peace has eluded humankind for millennia, despite
the fact that many of the greatest thinkers of our age
have proposed plans for achieving it. One proposal now
on the table aims to bring about sustainable world
peace by 2048. Will it be more successful than its
predecessors?
Norman Cousins, a notable author, journalist and world
peace advocate, is one of many who have worked
tirelessly toward the goal of a sustained world peace. In
his book The Pathology of Power he wrote that “it may
not be within the reach of the present generation of
Americans to create global sanity. But it is certainly
within our reach to bring rational considerations to bear
in the operations of our own government. Beyond that
must be the hope that rational leadership might
encourage sanity elsewhere.”
Cousins concluded that part of the problem concerns
the continual tug-of-war between superpowers and
called on Americans to establish rationality in their own
government in order to encourage it elsewhere. But
perhaps achieving peace requires much more than mere
rationality, or even advocacy.
To that end, in July 2011 the Institute for International
Sport held its first annual World Youth Peace Summit.
General Colin Powell was a keynote speaker and Bishop
Desmond Tutu was the Grand Marshall of the Peace
Walk 2011. The Summit explains that its ongoing
mission is to develop young peace advocates. “By
providing the opportunity to study peace policies
through an intensive series of lectures and workshops,”
says its Web site, “the Summit furnishes participants
with practical knowledge of how to develop and
implement their own peace initiatives successfully in
their home communities.”
A longing for lasting world peace is on the minds of
many people and one doesn’t have to look far to see
why. The world’s track record in the arena of
interpersonal relationships speaks to the need for better
ways of thinking, acting and solving challenges. Much
human suffering has arisen from our tendency to allow
our needs and wants to be met at the expense of
weaker people and nations.
Perhaps the most famous reminder of man’s quest for
peace stands in front of the United Nations building in
New York City. It’s a sculpture that depicts a man
beating a sword into a ploughshare. The caption is
taken from the book of Isaiah and depicts a time of
peace unprecedented in human history. The scripture it
is based on ( Isaiah 2:4 ) reads, “He shall judge between
the nations, and rebuke many people; they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, and their spears into
pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
But what is the underlying idea in this sculpture? Going
deeper into the book of Isaiah, it becomes evident that
the scripture is meant as a statement that human
beings will be unable to achieve lasting peace without a
complete change in our nature. Unfortunately, our
actions over the centuries indicate that we believe we
can do it through sheer force of will and human
rationality. President John F. Kennedy put this belief
into words in a 1963 commencement address at
American University. “Our problems are man-made,” he
insisted. “Therefore they can be solved by man.”
Sadly, a long history of bloody power struggles touching
all nations and time periods fails to validate that claim.
Is there any reason to believe that our future efforts—
whatever form they may take—will produce different
results from those of the past?
J. Kirk Boyd is a lawyer, a professor, and the executive
director of the 2048 Project, which he describes as a
plan to “prevent future wars, eliminate poverty, and
create the conditions necessary for a sustainable
existence on our planet.” In his book titled 2048:
Humanity’s Agreement to Live Together, he proposes
that our long-held belief that world peace and
prosperity are unattainable is a myth. In fact, he says,
the foundation for world peace through the 2048 Project
has already been laid, beginning with the creation of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the
United Nations in 1948.
Boyd insists that the plan for 2048 excludes no one,
adding that people around the globe have been working
tirelessly for years to implement it. He believes we have
the capacity to learn to live together peacefully, much
the same way a family does. You may not agree with all
the decisions your family makes, he points out, but you
work out your problems because you have a tacit
agreement to live together in harmony. As the essence
of humanity’s agreement to live together, he proposes
five freedoms as a fundamental entitlement for
everyone: freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
freedom from want, freedom from fear and freedom from
degradation of the environment.
Participation in the 2048 project, claims Boyd, will
change our lives and the lives of our progeny forever.
“This is not an overstatement,” he insists. “The
enforceable International Bill of Rights that is achieved
through the 2048 process affects every major decision
and every moment of our lives—including what we can
say about a corrupt politician to root out dishonesty,
whether we can have a medical operation we need, how
we can practice religion, and whether there is a place
for us and our children at the university—as well as
many other things.”
But who will ensure that all five freedoms are
experienced equally by everyone? Boyd places his faith
in his fellow human beings to come up with solutions
and enforce them through strong, impartial courts and
institutions that will emerge from “deep and broad”
thinking. The plan for 2048, says Boyd, “is grounded in a
strong international tradition of entrusting decision
making to neutral, respected persons, whether they are
tribal mediators or Supreme Court justices.”
He does admit that power corrupts, and that could be a
problem that would need to be corrected when it
happens. His solution is to have these arbiters swear an
oath to uphold the laws contained in this bill of rights.
“Some may be skeptical that such neutrality can be
maintained,” he acknowledges, “but we have seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures, how the evolution of society has been
inextricably intertwined with the selection of neutral
decision makers among us. . . . One of our great
character traits as human beings is the ability to
resolve disputes among ourselves fairly and impartially,
based on presentation of disputes to neutral parties.”
Boyd’s hope—though admirable—seems overly
optimistic. While it’s true that we expect courts to be
neutral decision makers, what we have also “seen for
thousands of years, throughout history and across
cultures” is the failure of these decision makers. The
judicial system has not always worked: people have
been wrongly convicted; disputes have escalated rather
than being resolved; oaths have been made and broken.
What happened to the promises that the United States
government made to the Native Americans, for
instance? What happened to the promise of “peace
within our time” made between Germany and England
before World War II? Humanity’s record is one of failed
contracts and broken promises.
Certainly it would be nice if we could trust a world
government to solve our problems, and in fact this is
not a new idea. Men such as Napoleon, Hitler, Lenin
and Stalin also believed they could bring peace and
prosperity to the world. Of course, these would-be
messiahs failed to deliver. Could any world government
succeed where so many throughout history have failed?
The prophet who gave us the words that appear on the
UN statue also hinted at the answer to this question. In
Isaiah 9:6 –7 he speaks of a Messiah who will
accomplish what humanity never could: “For unto us a
Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the
government will be upon His shoulder. And His name
will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of
His government and peace there will be no end, upon
the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it
and establish it with judgment and justice from that
time forward, even forever.”