A bad peace is better than a good war. Everyone who starts a war thinks they have good reasons: they have taken over part of our territory, they are a danger to us, we must bend them… When all this happens in the 21st century, it should be easy to argue- it, discuss it and reach agreements. All before using force. There is no piece of land worth more than a human life. In addition, the land does not go away and maybe it can be recovered one day, but a lost human life is not recovered and creates in that whole family a spiral of revenge that does nothing but prolong the wars.
We are in the era of telecommunications, talking and seeing each other at a distance is within everyone’s reach. Shouldn’t the politicians of the conflicting countries talk a lot more? A bad deal is better than no deal. This is like in trials. A prior agreement is better than starting a lawsuit.
If we asked artificial intelligence to make an assumption about how the wars currently taking place in the world will end, we would surely be horrified by the number of deaths that would occur and that could be avoided if peace were signed. Even if it was a bad peace, it would surely be better than a good war. It is clear that for this reason it is necessary for the politicians of all those countries to have broad views and exclusively seek the common good. I include dictators. Let them put themselves in the shoes of the victims’ families, let them think they could be their own family.
How would Europe have changed if instead of the Hundred Years’ War we had had the Hundred Years’ Peace? War brings destruction, despair and grief to thousands of people. Peace, on the other hand, allows us to continue to advance and progress so that we can deal with issues that affect us all, such as climate change, the lack of water, the desertification of certain areas, problems that could be reversed if all countries let’s dedicate ourselves to it as a priority.
