World peace is a desirable and yet elusive goal. If you leave God out of the equation,
either by ignoring Him or declaring independence from Him, that goal looks very difficult,
if not impossible to achieve. Even during times of relative peace, when there is
no actual conflict, countries build up defensive weaponry in order to maintain, so-called
peace. Wars use up resources like nothing else. Whether it be civil or international
war or even terrorism, the resultant loss of life and liberty, widespread devastation,
the cost of armaments, troops and the weapons of war is astronomic and usually ends
up with both sides having huge debt. Yet the outcome of war is something like a stalemate.
It is hard to find something good coming out of a war, and 10 or 20 years afterwards
it might be difficult for an outsider to know who was the victor. In fact any kind
of fighting results only in losers. If a dispute could be resolved without conflict,
the result would be far better for everyone. Yet whilst any two people cannot agree
on something, there is the potential for conflict. Wars are fought primarily over
territories and possession of natural resources. As well as resources found above
and underground, such as minerals and oil, there are disputes over what is contained
in the sea and territorial limits, including marine life and drilling rights.
Given the world as it is today, how could we achieve world peace?
Countries that are mutually dependent tend not to go to war, although a country lacking
in something may go to war in order to take what it needs from another country. A
good solution to reduce this risk is to ensure that countries cooperate for the common
good. So for example, if one country produces coal, another fruit, another clothing
and so on, everyone wins. The problem is that to achieve such a state requires high-level
cooperation of governments. It also requires that everyone involved must subscribe
to the common good.
The ultimate solution is therefore a single world government that dictates what every
member country must contribute, controls the trade and currency and ensures that
there is no dissension. Every individual would be required to subscribe to the world
laws and common good. There must be no crime, no quarrelling and no fighting. Is
this achievable? I think it is.
The requirement is that every individual must adhere to the laws and rules or suffer
extreme sanction. A simple way of achieving this in our modern world could be to
issue everyone with an electronic identity card on which is biometric information,
such as fingerprints, retina patterns, DNA and so on which can be read by a scanner.
This card would then be used for all transactions: financial, electronic communication,
log-on to systems, membership of institutions and clubs, entry to buildings, houses,
cars, etc. The card would also have built-in GPS positioning to be able to locate
the card at any time. There would be no paper or coin currency as all transactions
would be carried out using the card. In this way, if a person got out of line, committed
a crime or refused to comply with regulations, the privileges could be reduced or
simply withdrawn. The ultimate sanction would be to totally block all privileges
so that the individual would be unable to buy or sell or go through any locked door
or transact with any system.
The problem is that cards can be lost or stolen. All that matters on the card is
the chip, which can now be reduced to smaller than a grain of rice. Such a small
device could easily be implanted under the skin, invisible and undetectable physically.
Given GPS sensing and computerised tracking, the authorities would know everywhere
a person has been, who they were with at any point in time. Every transaction would
be tracked and every communication recorded. With such a system, crime would immediately
drop dramatically. There would be no such thing as a missing person. You would never
need to worry where your child is or with whom, as simply going on line would enable
them to be pin-pointed in seconds to the nearest square metre.
With such technology it is possible to control the individual, companies and businesses
and countries. There would be no need for international boundaries, passports or
This is obviously possible even with today’s technology, which is continually advancing.
Physically, there are few objections. Tattoos are culturally accepted, especially
amongst the young. Injections for all kinds of inoculations are standard for anyone
travelling abroad. Subcutaneous transplants could be much less painful or intrusive
than these. The main issues are acceptability. It would be an infringement of human
rights to impose such a system and would take some time to become ethically viable.
Following a number of kidnappings and disappearance of small children, most parents
would welcome a simple system that would enable their child to be located. In the
aftermath of rapes or murders, the introduction of such chips for known criminals
would be easy to implement. A number of terrorist incidents involving aeroplanes
would soften up many people to the idea of biometric identification of every person
boarding the plane on which you are about to travel. So we can see that insidiously,
the prevention of crime is leading us towards being prepared to accept whatever it
takes. Over a period of time, the major proportion of the population would be willing
to accept the chip. Once that has happened, the remainder would be forced to follow
as increasing pressure is brought to bear. Discounts for shopping using the chip,
increased privileges, increased convenience would all encourage compliance. Finally,
the remainder would become treated as outcasts of society for refusing to accept
the majority rule.
Under such pressure it would take very strong and highly motivated people to resist.
Any why would they?
So what is wrong with this scenario? It meets all of the criteria to enable society
to function virtually without crime or sin, easily, efficiently and pleasantly.
The main objection would be the loss of freedom. People often level the criticism
‘If God exists, why does he not put an end to suffering in the world?’ Putting an
end to suffering is relatively easy, but doing it without curtailing all freedom
is something else. In the above scenario, the world would have to be populated by
people who behaved like automatons.
There is also a more sinister problem. The government required to run a world-wide
system would have incredible powers, which ultimately would lie with the president,
premier or whatever you would call him. He would be like God. What man could hold
such a position and it not go to his head? That is what happened to Adam in the Garden
of Eden, when he became supreme earthly ruler of the world and tried to become independent
of God. That is also what happened to Satan or Lucifer, when he tried to become equal
with God. Only God can hold that position as He created all things and hence is far
above all things.
Many rulers have tried to ascribe to that position and many have partly succeeded
for a short time: Nebuchadnezzar, the Caesars, Hannibal, Napoleon, Hitler and so
on. But they are only human and if they don’t get killed, they die anyway. Even if
a man is strong enough to attain such a strong position, history shows that his successors
usually do not have the power and authority to continue in his steps. For example,
when Alexander the Great died at age 33, his six generals took control and carved
up the empire, which gradually deteriorated. Every empire has risen for a time, and
However, the Bible is clear that as we approach the end of this age, such a ruler
will emerge. He will rule the entire world as the head of a one-world government
and everyone on earth will have to become subject to him or face dire consequences.