Suppose a magic genie appeared and offered you a one shot offer: for world peace.
On the face of it, this seems like a “good” thing. Beauty pageant contestants might extol the virtues of world peace, but I have a feeling this is not a good deal.
Let’s discount the scenario of alien invaders. If aliens come, they are also affected by the peace field.
In my opinion, the downside is that humanity loses a bit of free will.
Kinda depends on how intense “World Peace” gets. Peace on Earth and goodwill towards men means a lot of lawyers out of work…
Then again, I have a thing for hippie chicks that can sing. Maybe I’ll buy some cokes and stake out some mountaintops…
No, it just means we all switch to contract law. I don’t care how lovey-dovey the world gets, people still need to engage in commerce to get the basic necessities - and where there’s commerce, you need contracts. Contracts, after all, are some of the key tools we use to resolve trade disputes without violence. 
/I am not a lawyer, but I’m a 1L.
You young pups can adapt. Us older trial guys, not so much. I’m just not a corporate kinda guy. Been a gunslinger too long.
Would world peace include no crime? I think that’s a stretch. I can think of plenty of crimes that don’t involve violence.
Depends on how intense it gets. If it is just no more wars, but otherwise normal, then it’s a pretty groovy thing. But if it gets too utopian, people get all reasonable and fair minded and such, who needs a lawyer? We’re little different than mercenaries, just less lethal.
I guess if there was enforced peace, it would kind of suck to be a North Korean, or an Iranian, or someone living in Darfur or any number of other crapholes in the world where the people are oppressed, terrorized, murdered, or subjugated.
World peace isn’t an option. World peace is the option.
You can pat the silly hippy peaceniks on the head if you so choose, but howzabout not until you give us a rough estimate on how long we’ll survive in a world where Gabon might launch a thermonuclear attack on Sierra Leone?
Does world peace mean no competition? Seems like competition and conflict are drivers of advancement. Eventually it crosses the line into violence. So does world peace merely mean no physical violence but we still have all other forms of leverage we use to try to win?
It would be great as long as you were a European or American. Not so good if you are a Palestinian or Tamil.
Oddly I reckon that peace and prosperity are pretty easy options for both the Palestinians and the Tamils.
Both are scrapping with people who don’t want to face international opprobium, yet could wipe them out with very little effort.
In the 1960’s there was a book called “Report From Iron Mountain”, supposedly an expose of a secret think-tank that posited that true world peace would be a disaster on several fronts, economically, socially, etc. I have a copy, and when I read it, I could tell it was complete BS right away. A quick internet search showed my suspicions were correct. But it’s a good read for informational purposes, I think it’s out of print though.
Interesting. A false dichotomoy in my book though.
I think the world will never be without some form of conflict, but there are good kinds and bad kinds. Competing for a spot on a football team at a Big 10 college or a graduate program at an Ivy League school, good. Competing to produce the best product for the best price, good. Fighting over water and oil rights, not so good. Gang wars to deliver the most drugs to the ghetto or the 'burbs, doubleplus ungood.
But I can imagine a world where armed conflict between nations no longer exists, and humanity devotes the majority of its resources to healthcare, education and advancement of the arts and sciences rather than building better guns, missiles, bombs, etc.
I can honestly see it happening within the next century also if enough people are exposed to and then able to experience the liberalism and industrialism of modern society.
I honestly cannot think of our planet would be worse if “World Peace” finally occured.
I’m still trying to figure out where this conclusion comes from. The closest I can come would be trying to argue that law enforcement is a bad thing because the cops prevent people from exercising their free will to loot and pillage as they please…?
Well you will always need lawyers and other mediators. There will always be disagreements and conflicts, the only difference they can’t be solved with violence.
You could always fart in their general direction.
Conflict drives narrative. It also drives up my reasonably large amount of shares in arms manufacturers
Define peace in this context
…and no religion too…