Introduction

Despite the serious problems faced globally with the COVID-19 pandemic in the last two years, according to a survey published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2021, military spending exceeded two trillion dollars, that is, that year, 2 .2% of global GDP was allocated to the military sector. On the other hand, the collection target established by the World Health Organization (WHO) to combat the global health emergency is practically ten times lower than this amount.

Given the glaring contradiction between current human needs across the planet and the financial resources invested in technological instruments that promote violence and mass human destruction, analyzing the challenges and possibilities of the contribution of new information and communication technologies to the promotion of education for peace may seem somewhat paradoxical at first glance. However, beyond reflecting on the neutrality or otherwise of technologies in themselves, it is necessary to recognize that current information and communication technologies have an undeniable connective potential as mediators in the educational and informational processes that require the circulation of information.

Among these processes, despite their unique character, it is necessary to consider the relevance of education as a social, historical and cultural process of humanization. In this sense, peace is, at the same time, a condition and an objective in the realization of humanizing processes. Based on this understanding, this study reflects on education for peace and new technologies, considering the challenges and possibilities in the contemporary Brazilian educational scenario.

The following guidelines reinforce the need to provide access and technical preparation for using digital technologies in the schooling process. In this process, investment in human development is considered fundamental, that is, in education from a comprehensive and integrative perspective, which goes beyond mere technicalities, as an essential condition, although not the only one, for the consolidation of peace in practice. Humanizing in the context of new digital information and communication technologies is a great challenge for schools today. Therefore, the reflections presented here are intended as a theoretical subsidy to contribute to this perspective.

Defenses for Peace: Decolonizing Conflictual Thinking

New information and communication technologies are an advent of the 20th century. Eric Hobsbawm called this century brief and described it as contradictory. Now, in an unprecedented process of multi-secular accumulation of knowledge, human ingenuity disciplined knowledge, identified and controlled pathologies that sickened and wiped out populations, reached the death throes of the Earth's atmosphere, orbit and, later, the lunar surface, and there, contradiction, by its own will, led the species to death on an industrial scale:

[...] in the Short Twentieth Century more men had been killed or left to die by human decision than ever before in history. A recent estimate of the century's 'mega-deaths' puts it at 187 million [...], equivalent to more than one in ten of the world population in 1900. In the 1990s, most people were taller and heavier than their parents, better fed, and much longer lived [...]. The world was incomparably more prosperous than ever in its capacity to produce goods and services and in the endless variety of these (^{Hobsbawm, 2012}, p. 21, emphasis in the original).

But why, according to Hobsbawm, was the 20th century short? The answer is paradoxically simple and complex: because time began to speed up. As a cause and consequence of this 'endless variety of goods and services', new communication technologies, as they were consolidated in the second half of the 20th century, shortened distances and amplified, in an unprecedented way, the capacity for exchanging information. This scenario has spilled over into our 21st century and is deepening at a dizzying rate. This fact contributes to a crisis characteristic of what many researchers have called the Anthropocene (^{Latour, 2020}).

The tremendous technological developments that save us are also becoming threats. Contemporary humanity is faced with economic insecurity, with connected and fluctuating markets; with the obsolescence of old professions and the surprise of others that emerge unexpectedly; and the psychological uneasiness generated by the exposure of domesticity, inadvertently or voluntarily, in a mind-boggling profusion of posts on social networks (both temporary and lasting at the same time) and the resulting consequences; it is seriously affected by pandemics that spread even more rapidly in a connected world; it is placed in danger by environmental threats and the perception, mediated by catastrophes, of the finiteness of natural resources. Faced with a suspended future or, worse, a tangible threat of non-existence, a climate of insecurity, fear and presentism is accentuated (^{Turin, 2022}).

How does this affect us? Aside from the inevitable issue of the multiple idiosyncrasies - of temperament - of human personalities put into play on the infinitely complex board of history, contemporary thinkers such as ^{Freud Baumer (1970}) "[...] tend to relate fear and insecurity as constant variables in the equation that has as its product violence in its collective expression" (^{Delumeau, 1999}, p. 38).

Indeed, in the 20th century, the most murderous on record (^{Hobsbawm, 2012}), it is impossible to understand the violence of השואה HaShoá ( Holost), for example, without relating it to the fear of the Jew/other systematically instilled in the school curriculum, including that which educated a generation of Germans who were complicit in this crime against humanity. And even after the experiences of global conflagrations, of HaShoá itself, the violence would continue and continues to insistently follow the trail of gunpowder lit by the processes of opposition/fear of self versus other - "[...] exploding a little everywhere in xenophobia; feminicide; racial violence; school bullying; racism; ethnic genocides. A civilization of fear produces a civilization of anger" (^{Gauer, 2013}, p. 93).

Yuval Nohal Harari, in his bestselling book Sapiens, in a proposal for a long-term historical synthesis, goes back to our phylogeny to highlight the violent characteristics of the human species:

[...] tolerance is not a hallmark of sapiens [...] in modern times, a slight difference in skin color, dialect, or religion is enough for one sapiens group to try to exterminate another sapiens group. Would ancient sapiens have been more tolerant of an entirely different human species? It is quite possible that when sapiens encountered Neanderthals, the result was the first and most significant campaign of ethnic cleansing in history (^{Harari, 2020}, p. 28).

It is true that, recently, the author has pointed out that, in a process called civilizing, by Norbert Elias, the sophistication of state structures would have curbed human violence to an increasing extent, to the point that today "[...] in many societies there are more people at risk of dying from obesity than from starvation" (^{Harari, 2020}, p. 285). Harari has been heavily criticized for his positions; some are considered hasty, and others are too definite. For our part, the criticism is that, intentionally or not, this type of elaboration is another among many that contribute to a model of thought that, borrowing from Hobbes, essentializes war and violence as natural states of our species. Thus, a culture of war and violence is propagated; after all, if this is our natural state, there is no way and, worst of all, no reason to avoid it. We resign ourselves to the idea that Lupus est homo homini lupus.

This resignation produces consequences. In Brazilian classrooms, for example, high school students celebrate when they learn that the world wars will be addressed in the annual curriculum. From films, from conversations with their parents, from pressure from the media guided by the prevailing logic of the so-called hypermodernity - the technological transformation of everyday life, globalization, market individualism, and the exacerbation of the self - they acquire an understanding of the unrealistic value of war violence, turning it into a fetish (^{Brephol, 2013}). In addition to being inevitable, war is also, in the view of many students, an adventure, excitement, and overcoming; it is, finally, fun to learn. The worst genocidal perpetrators in history, in turn, appear as perfidious figures in the discourses that students bring from outside. Still, they are exonerated by the fact that they possess so-called 'fascinating' intelligence.

Add to this the school methods that, although there are numerous discussions and innovative curricular implementations, in practice, are still limping when it comes to overcoming the old roots of the Prussian model based on uniformizing, classificatory, segregating, and competitive militarism (^{Coen & Karnal, 2018}). Thus, the borders of peace, often invaded by physical and symbolic violence, become delicate and porous.

Despite this, from another perspective, the territory of peace, even though protected by very porous borders, tends to be larger than that of violence. Let us consider, in a quick, almost banal observation, a fact related to urban violence... "[...] for every terrible and frequent robbery that occurs in a big city like São Paulo, there are thousands of people who went to work and returned home without having been robbed. But what is printed in the newspaper is the robbery" (^{Coen & Karnal, 2018}, p. 33).

The same could be said about murders or other types of violence. However, corroborating the authors' suggestion above, the repercussions for moments of outbursts of anger and conflict, to the detriment of those of agreed solutions and non-violent conflict resolution, tend to be more significant. Perhaps because, in fact, violence, in a certain way - after the long process of internalization and symbolization of the impulses of violence observed by the author mentioned above, Norbert Elias - is something extraordinary, unusual, in favor of a certain habituality of peace. Perhaps it is because instilling fear in people is strategic to the most diverse instances of the constituted powers.

[...] fear is significant because it is the best way to control people... fear is the first of the four giants of the soul [...] one of the enormous things that influence our ability to act as others want us to act. We give up our freedom if we feel that our life is at risk (^{Coen & Karnal, 2018}, p. 40).

Faced with this kind of 'colonization' of thought to essentialize violence, the call made in 1945 by the nascent ^{Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2022}) that 'bulwarks of peace be erected in human minds' remains, regrettably, current.

Building bastions of peace meant, at the time, in the heat of the flames still burning in Berlin, a multinational attempt to avoid a new conflagration, in the face of a new world order that was already emerging with the mark of atomic rivalry between the liberal capitalist pole (USA and NATO) and the socialist pole (USSR and Warsaw Pact).

Shortly before the birth of UNESCO, Western historiography had undergone a renewal project that began in France. Authors such as Lucién Febvre and March Bloch (the latter a victim of Nazism) put forward disruptive proposals concerning the analysis of historical phenomena as it had been done in the 19th century. It was no longer a question of studying the 'past'; instead, it was a question of understanding human complexity over time. Understanding this complexity presupposed the historians' election of new objects of attention. Political history, of male heroes and their wars, gave way to broader approaches that recognized and privileged the participation of anonymous populations, of women, of the enslaved, of silenced 'losers', of children.

The opportunity opened by these historians to new interpretative approaches to historical phenomena and new possibilities for choosing historical subjects and problems can and should be instrumentalized by the discipline of Peace Studies. This discipline, which began its academic journey in 1950, defining itself from the outset as a transdisciplinary field that incorporates a clear and explicit commitment to nonviolence, has a strategic role in building the bastions of peace in human thought. This is because, rather than privileging the history of conflict, wars and conflicts as great historical moments separated by - contingent - moments of peace, it can, precisely propose the opposite from a historical perspective (^{Oliveira, 2017}).

In other words, without ignoring the problem of conflict, it is possible to disruptively emphasize an agenda of studies and teaching of the various historical moments in which the agreed resolution of disputes was chosen, along with strategies of peaceful resistance (the case of the mothers and grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, the principles of Satyagraha, imperatives of conscience), demobilization, reconciliation and post-war reconstruction, instead of escalating violence, remembering - based on historical findings - that peace was not and, therefore, does not need to be a romantic ideal, but a concrete phenomenon that is present in time. This involves decolonizing the thinking that essentializes violence as a human and, therefore, a historical phenomenon.

New communication technologies and their enormous connective potential, in turn, play a more than strategic role in this context. While it is true that this potential is often poorly utilized, we believe, as we recall below, that they can and should be occupied and colonized by ideas of peace.

The digital world and education for peace: dialogue, communication and exchange

Despite the new possibilities for connectivity and circulation of information provided by the advent and improvement of digital technologies, the need to establish genuinely humanizing dialogues has become increasingly evident. The digital world with its multiple resources, among which social networks stand out, which among other possibilities allow the sharing of texts and images and even the carrying out of live broadcasts, has been the scene of endless conflicts due to the most diverse reasons.

In this context, ideas considered questionable at best, which until recently circulated restricted to certain social groups, now reach different audiences and find supporters who identify with them and share them, disregarding the consequences of their actions. The problem becomes even more serious when we realize that some content, primarily for political reasons, is deliberately produced to misinform and spread hatred between groups.

Dialogue is often confused with something very different: a feverish exchange of opinions on social media, usually driven by media information that is not always reliable. They are just monologues that run parallel, perhaps imposing themselves on others with their loud and aggressive tone. However, monologues do not engage anyone, so their content often appears opportunistic and contradictory (^{Francisco, 2020}, n. 200).

In addition to having become one of the main spaces for work and entertainment, social networks have currently become a stage for political disputes, among others, marked by the presence of memes, fake news , cancel culture and all types of information that may or may not be relevant to those who access them.

The debate is often manipulated by specific interests with more significant power that dishonestly seek to sway public opinion in their favor. And I am not referring only to the government in power, because such manipulative power can be economic, political, media-related, religious or of any other kind. Sometimes, it is justified or excused when its dynamics correspond to their own economic or ideological interests, but sooner or later it turns against those same interests (^{Francisco, 2020}, n. 201).

It is a fact that millions of people in Brazil and billions around the world spend a considerable amount of time browsing social media, and the advent of the pandemic has led to an increase in the time spent on these networks, including for reasons related to remote work itself, for which computer-based social networks are used as a communication channel. Whether for selling products, providing services, sharing information, job vacancies, classes, disseminating news, holding shows, among others, social networks have become part of people's lives, including those who had and probably still have a more reserved attitude towards these networks and what they enable.

This increasing engagement in computer social networks has caused changes in human relations and considerably impacted the educational field. As explained by ^{Santos (2002}, p. 2):

The contemporary world is permeated by distractions, intrusions, alienation and other elements that make it increasingly difficult for our students to concentrate. It also seems increasingly complex to discover whether or not the information is valid on the World Wide Web, in addition to the difficulty caused by radicalizing points of view in society. Many of these pressing problems around us are caused in part or whole by the spread of social networks, which change human relationships through their algorithms and engagement strategies.

Despite their benefits, social networks have been used as a channel for spreading hate as a strategy for control and manipulation. A game of anything is proposed to make one's interests or groups prevail. Otherness and the common good are disregarded, as is respect for human dignity and the legal provisions.

In this context, it is necessary to consider the issue of commercial objectives and, consequently, the search for user engagement, using algorithms, which are the basis for sustaining this model of disseminating information on social networks. The power of the companies that control these computational social networks has reached such high levels that they are beginning to threaten the pillars of democracy worldwide. In this regard, the results of research by ^{O'Neil (2016}), ^{Castells (2018}), ^{Sumpter (2019}), ^{Lanier (2018}), among others, can be consulted.

To achieve, above all, economic and political objectives imposed by large corporations and their investors, in this space that is increasingly becoming part of our daily lives, appeals are made, among other elements, to the emotional aspect: the defense of the right to freedom of expression is exalted, situations are fabricated, science is discredited, religion is distorted, values are disregarded, and factoids are created to induce hatred that often leads to drastic consequences. Individuals and groups are thrown into the 'virtual bonfires' and suffer the consequences of algorithmic traps, created to offend, insult, silence and destroy those who speak out in favor of human dignity and against all types of prejudice.

The lack of dialogue means that no one in the various sectors is concerned with the common good, but rather with obtaining the advantages that power provides or, at best, imposing their way of thinking. This way, conversation will be reduced to mere negotiations so that each party can seize all the power and the most significant possible advantages, without a joint search that generates the common good. The heroes of the future will be those who know how to break this morbid logic and, going beyond personal convenience, decide to respectfully uphold a word full of truth (Francis, 2020, n. 201).

This context of intolerance, expanded and enhanced by computational social networks, brings to mind Voltaire (1694-1778) who, in the Treatise on Tolerance, stated: "The right of intolerance is therefore absurd and barbaric; it is the right of tigers, and is also much more horrible, because tigers tear their prey to pieces to eat, while we exterminate ourselves because of a few paragraphs" (^{Voltaire, 2015}, p. 36).

Given this reality, education for peace is an urgent need. However, as ^{Guimarães (2011}) explains, it is not a matter of discussing a pedagogical fad, but instead emphasizing the relevance of an essential instrument for the realization of a culture of peace, which is directly related to the question of the meaning of humanity and the purpose of education.

It is not, therefore, a question of seeking an unattainable goal, but of a process already underway, even though it is largely hidden by the persistence of a culture of violence that fills much of our news and cultural productions, especially cinematographic ones. In this context, educating for peace becomes an even more complex challenge.

Education for peace has emerged as an important instrument for the realization of a culture of peace, emerging in the dialogue of the international community, not only as a new area of research or a relevant field, but also as an expression of the idea of good, where the very question of the meaning of humanity and the purpose of education is at stake (^{Guimarães, 2011}, p. 254).

Thus, in the next topic, our efforts will be directed towards analyzing the challenges and possibilities of promoting education for peace in the Brazilian context, considering the integration of new information and communication technologies and their potential as supports for facilitating dialogue, communication and exchange, activities necessary for the realization of a culture of peace to be possible.

Education for peace and new technologies: challenges and possibilities in the current Brazilian reality

In the Brazilian context, addressing the challenges and possibilities related to promoting education for peace, considering the increasingly intense presence of new technologies, especially digital ones, in our daily lives, requires attention to some elements of our reality that generally do not receive the necessary care.

In this sense, according to data from the Brazilian Public Security Forum (^{FBSP, 2022}), although there has been a slight reduction in the numbers, Brazil has the highest absolute number of homicides worldwide. The violent death rate in our country is 22.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2021, we had 47,503 victims, of which 76% were caused by firearms. Of these victims, more than 91% were men and, in 78% of cases, the people were black, 50% were adolescents and young people between 12 and 29 years old (^{FBSP, 2022}).

Figure 1 shows intentional violent deaths in our country in 2021, considering the type of instrument used.

Furthermore, according to the ^{FBSP (2022}, p. 5), it is mainly in the international comparison that it becomes more explicit "[...] how far we are from any civilizing reference of humanity and that, behind the idea of a peaceful nation, we live a deep and cowardly crisis of indifference and brutalization of everyday social relations".

Source: ^{FBSP (2022}, p. 17)

Figure 1 Intentional violent deaths by type of instrument used - Brazil, 2021 

In this sense, despite the fragile reduction in intentional violent deaths in Brazil and the lack or insufficiency of information related to some specific groups, it is necessary to recognize the seriousness of the situation in our country concerning the promotion of a peaceful and inclusive society for sustainable development, as proposed by one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)16⁴, outlined as follows: "Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels" (^{Naciones Unidas , 2015} , p. 36).

As explained by the Institute of Applied Economic Research (^{IPEA, 2019}, p. 7), the implementation of this objective in Brazil requires facing four challenges: 1) The first is violence; 2) The second is access to citizenship ; 3) The third is the situation of the Brazilian State; 4) The fourth is that governments and their institutions prioritize the 2030 Agenda.

Regarding the first challenge, precisely, still according to ^{IPEA (2019}), it is recorded that if the violence mentioned is:

[...] violence, fatal or not, physical, psychological and sexual, including abuse, exploitation, human trafficking, torture, police violence, mainly against black people, women, children, adolescents, young people, LGBTs, Indigenous people and human rights defenders (trade unionists, social movement activists, journalists, police officers). Brazil has a criminal justice system, with the participation and involvement of the three entities of the Federation and the three powers, to address these problems. However, data indicate that many rights violations and violence are committed by the police, judicial and prison institutions themselves (^{IPEA, 2019}, p. 7).

According to the United Nations (2015), as explained in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the factors addressed in this document that give rise to violence are related to insecurity and injustice, inequality, corruption, governance, and illegal financial and arms flows. These problems are an integral part of the Brazilian context.

For example, concerning inequality, according to data presented by the Global Walth Report - 2021, prepared by Credit Suisse Bank (^{Credit Suisse Research Institute, 2022}), in 2020, almost half of Brazil's wealth (49.6%) went to the wealthiest 1% of the population. It is also worth noting that this number increased considerably in just one year, since in 2019, this most affluent group held 46.9% of the country's total wealth. With a rate of 58% of wealth concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest 1%, only Russia surpasses Brazil, which, among large economies, is ahead in this regard of countries such as the USA, with a rate of 35%, and India, where the number reaches 40%. This trend of increasing inequality in Brazil is even more pronounced when considering the Gini index ⁵, since our country appears as the leader in inequality in 2020, as shown in Table 1.

As can be seen, one of the main problems in our society, which has resulted in countless ills that plague our country, is social inequality. In this sense, the 2030 Agenda highlights the interdependent nature of the decisions taken, as well as the need to propose integrated solutions, since:

Sustainable development recognizes that the eradication of poverty in all its forms and dimensions, the fight against inequalities within and between countries, the preservation of the planet, the creation of sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth and the promotion of social inclusion are linked to each other and are interdependent (^{Naciones Unidas, 2015}, p. 5).

Among these necessary and interdependent conditions for the achievement of sustainable development are peace and security, since "[...] sustainable development cannot be achieved without peace and security; and peace and security will be at risk without sustainable development" ( ^{Naciones Unidas, 2015}, p. 9).

A second challenge for achieving peace, justice and effective institutions in the Brazilian context concerns access to citizenship, because:

Brazil still faces problems in guaranteeing access to civil identity, fundamental freedoms, justice, public information, and social names for transvestites and transsexuals, as well as access for black and Indigenous people to public education policies, the job market, and political representation (^{IPEA, 2019}, p. 7).

Regarding this second challenge for promoting peace, justice and effective institutions in our country, it is worth highlighting that it is directly related to the need for access to education and new technologies. At this point, although priority should be given to promoting access to quality education, as a right guaranteed by the Constitution, the elements are mutually complementary.

The third and fourth challenges concern, respectively: 1) the situation of the Brazilian State; 2) the need for governments and their institutions at all levels to prioritize the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development. However, some practices present in our society and, more specifically, in our institutions, amplify these challenges, because:

On the one hand, the State is weakened by tax evasion, corruption of public agents (politicians and civil servants) and its involvement with organized crime [...]. On the other hand, it relies on a decision-making process that is not very inclusive, participatory, representative and responsive and on institutions that are still not very transparent, effective and accountable (^{IPEA, 2019}, p. 7).

Added to these problems is that, as of 2019, Brazilian federal participatory institutions have undergone a shrinkage process. Thus, if this representative participation of councils and collegiate bodies, among other institutions, was already finding it difficult to materialize effectively, it would become even more challenging.

Given these challenges, which are also part of the reality of other countries, in a similar way to what occurs in Brazil, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development considers that:

The dissemination of information and communication technologies and global interconnectivity have great potential to accelerate human progress, eliminate the digital divide and develop knowledge societies, as well as scientific and technological innovation in areas as diverse as medicine and energy (^{Naciones Unidas, 2015}, p. 6) ⁶.

From this perspective, specifically about the contribution of new technologies to the process of education for peace, ^{Guimarães (2011}), based on the reflection of methodological elements, presents five criteria that can be considered as guiding subsidies: 1) capacity to contribute to a consensus for peace; 2) capacity to form communicative competence; 3) capacity to create communities; 4) capacity to provide opportunities for expression of the word; and 5) capacity to enable action.

Regarding methodological elements, they specifically concern:

1. Establish the fundamental issue of education and culture of peace, discerning its objective and scope. 2. Outline the fundamental skill to be developed in the process of education for peace, the formation of communicative competence. 3. Describe the fundamental characteristics of the methodology of education for peace: the formation of community, the space for debate and action for peace. 4. Finally, relate these aspects of education for peace to new technologies (^{Guimarães, 2011}, p. 255).

In his approach, ^{Guimarães (2011}) warns about the need to avoid simplistic approaches between education for peace and new technologies. In this sense, when dealing with the criteria to support the approach to education for peace, he considers contributions from critical thinkers, such as Immanuel ^{Kant (1989}), Jürgen ^{Habermas (2002}), Hannah ^{Arendt (1999}), Emmanuel ^{Levinas (1990}), Rollo ^{May (1974}), Boaventura de Souza ^{Santos (2002}), Patricia ^{White (1993}), Walter ^{Wink (1984}), among others. In general, what is evident in these contributions, despite their differences and the unique character of each one of them, is the fundamental issue of reaching an agreement. To this end, developing communicative competence and using words are essential.

In this sense, "[...] an education that does not implement discourse and action, where subjects are protagonists, that is, holders of the word and autonomous, is an education that perpetuates and reiterates violence within and outside of it" (^{Guimarães, 2011}, p. 262). Faced with so many possibilities of communication brought about by the advent and development of new digital technologies, we paradoxically experience a loss of communicative capacity, that is, the capacity to communicate and communicate, which constitutes an obstacle in the education process for peace. "If there is no peace without an argumentative process, there will be no communicative process without the formation of communicative competence" (Guimarães, 2011, p. 262). It is therefore not a process that will occur naturally, but demands ethical commitment and collective participation.

Regarding technical preparation for using digital technologies in the Brazilian context, it is essential to mention the approval of ^{Law No. 14,533 of January 11, 2023}, establishing the National Digital Education Policy (PNED). One of the structuring axes of this legislation is Digital School Education. Among other elements, as highlighted in Art. 3, this axis encompasses:

[...] III - digital culture, which involves learning aimed at conscious and democratic participation through digital technologies, which presupposes understanding the impacts of the digital revolution and its advances in society, the construction of a critical, ethical and responsible attitude about the multiplicity of media and digital offerings and the different uses of technologies and content made available (^{Law No. 14,533, 2023}).

Given the need to develop communicative competence, it is necessary to appropriate new information and communication technologies as a mediation support aimed at peaceful coexistence. In fact, in addition to the need to provide access and offer technical preparation for the use of these technologies, investment in human development, that is, in humanistic education, is essential, because "[...] if education is not the only condition for peace, it is an essential condition, as stated by the members of the Global Campaign for Education for Peace: there is no peace without education for peace" (^{Guimarães, 2011}, p. 262).

Conclusion

At the end of these reflections on education for peace and new technologies, considering the challenges and possibilities in the contemporary Brazilian context, it is possible to assume that, despite our society's complex problems, we face an urgent need. In this context, educating for peace also means collaborating with the possibility of continuing educational activity as a social, historical and cultural process of humanization.

The history of peace education reveals paradoxes and ambiguities that constitute what contemporary thinkers, such as Hanna ^{Arendt (1999}), identify as the human condition. In this sense, as explained throughout this study, peace education and, more specifically, peace education based on and with the integration of new technologies is an unnatural process, characterized by ambiguities and potentialities, whose implementation demands ethical commitment and collective participation. Thus, one of the most apparent results of this bibliographic study was to highlight the need to establish consensus so that the process of peace education can be implemented. In this endeavor, despite its ambiguous and paradoxical nature, new information and communication technologies can contribute very effectively as mediation supports.

Although algorithms can be programmed to promote engagement and provoke the most diverse reactions in different audiences, as discussed in the case of computational social networks, it is necessary to highlight the need to develop communicative competence, as proposed by ^{Habermas (2002}) and explained by ^{Guimarães (2011}), as an essential condition for the implementation of the process of education for peace.