Would you rather bring for complete world peace, or be able to eliminate all hunger and disease in the world?

Question

???????????

Answer 1

Wars can serve good purposes.  They can settle problems in a final way.  If one wanted to, it wouldn't be hard to cast our struggle with disease as a war.  And if we humans win it will mean genocide many times over as all those species which by consuming us and no other are wiped out of existance.

Hunger and disease do not serve good purposes... even if you cite population control, it would be far more merciful to just put a bullet in someone's brain than to force him to starve to death.  Or best of all:  just prevent someone from being born in the first place.  Most of the most advanced countries in the world are showing a NEGATIVE population growth.  When we are settled, happy, and busy, we naturally settle down to smaller numbers.  There is no need for hunger and disease to cull our population when we can do the same by spreading progress, knowledge, and productivity.

Given all that, I would think the choice was obvious.

Answer 2

wars are most commonly fought not for ideology's but as a means to correct injustices do to lack of resources,  meaning no hunger and no sickness and you would find a  very unmotivated base from which to conscript.

and we don't have enough resources to meet basic need because most of them are ether spent in the preparations for war or are stolen/destroyed in wars.

so to have one would give a hefty helping of the other,  but if i would have to pick i would say the elimination of disease and hunger, we as people are pretty creative when it comes to sneaking wars some way or another

Answer 3

All of those are achievable with population control.

Answer 4

You are describing the end of life.

Life is an energy machine that replicates itself.

Nature is the competition between these machines.

To replicate the machine needs energy - The desire for energy is hunger.  So to end hunger you must end life or feed the machine.  If you feed the machine it replicates until there is insufficient energy, then the fittest dominate & you have evoloution.  

So you can't really end hunger it is the primal question of

"What's for lunch?"  

And you can't have world peace,  because Peace just means what's for lunch isn't YOU.   Which means it's someone else, and THEY aren't going to think it's peaceful.

If fact,  your lunch considers YOU a disease.

And when YOU have a disease, it's usually something having you for lunch.

You can't make everyone happy.   That just isn't how life works.

But you can atain reletive peace, satisfaction & health by choosing your friends wisely & making sure your group are the preadators & not the prey.

Answer 5

War is between the have and have not, namely between the rich and the poor. So, peace means equality and enjoyment in life which means elimination of HUNGER AND DISEASES, which means a healthy life!

If peace is restored between all warring people we all have only one road to travel, that is THE PROGRESS FOR ALL TO LIVE EQUALLY WELL WITH BEST OF LIFE FOR ALL"

Answer 6

bro thats what world peace is nobody in pain in anyway... just everyone in peace

man i want world peace so much...

Answer 7

I would say that complete world peace would cover the entire disease and hunger part  wouldn't you? I believe that  peace would elimate all of our problems because there would be no deviance or unlaying motives. It would be an incredible occurence.

Answer 8

i would say world peace. peace for me is not having to worry about everithing. including world hunger and diseases.

Answer 9

Neither, both are necessary population control methods. People are so concerned with resource consumption while wishing for world peace - you can't have both ways. Either burn everything up and keep everyone happy, or realize that some people are always going to get the short straw.