From the inner-peace promoted by world religions to the Nobel Peace Prize, we typically see peace and serenity as essential virtues, both for ourselves and for the nation. But peace is not a universal panacea for all life's ills and some critics argue it's unknown whether in all respects peace is even desirable. Perhaps it is drama and adversity that gives life meaning. According to the Global Peace Index, Iceland is the most peaceful country on Earth. Yet it has the highest antidepressant use anywhere. War results in mutilation and death, yet suicide rates across Europe, America and Asia decline up to 30% during war. Enemies, adversity and conflict, can be used to instill social cohesion, provide purpose and increase output, a fact many leaders have exploited to maintain their power.
Should we conclude that we need enemies, be they nations, corporations, individuals or beliefs, to provide motivation, passion and change? Should we recognise that peace is not universally beneficial and insufficient for solving many of our ills? Or would this be to risk, and bring closer cataclysm and personal misery?