First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
If you could create world peace, cure cancer or end world hunger, what would you choose and why?
21860 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / The Bahamas
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
What constitutes a peaceful world? Some people think killing all the people in the world would be the ultimate form of world peace. I need a quantifier.

Which form of cancer? There are many different types, if we only had to cure one of them we'd be done by now.

World hunger? It would be nice if no one ever went hungry ever again. It would lessen some of the fighting as there would be no need to fight over land and resources to supply food. I would need to know how this would be accomplished though. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not eating Soylent Green
46359 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / End of Nowhere
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
I would choose World Peace.

Curing Cancer and Ending Hunger are worthy goals in and of themselves. However, they both do one thing. Allow people to live longer.

The longer people live, the more people there will be on the planet. The more people (we already have more than 6 billion) the greater strain on world resources there will be. Thus the chances of conflict become greater. And the larger the conflict the larger the chance for some major war that could decimate life on the planet for hundreds or thousands of years.

So in the end, curing cancer or solving world hunger do nothing more than increase the likelihood of everyone dying in some cataclysmic war. At the very least it will likely cause greater conflict amongst 3rd world nations as countries go to war over scarce resources. So solving these two things only end up causing more deaths in the end.

Not that I believe we can really achieve world peace until space travel becomes so commonplace that we can simply leave and find new homes in the stars. Granted, all that will do is spread conflict into space, but individual worlds and systems will likely be peaceful.
22097 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / On the Court
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
World Peace is meaningless
Posted 1/12/14
World peace would be best. It would allow more time and resources to be spent on the ending poverty and curing disease
1303 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F / Hinamizawa
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
End world hunger. Yeah, cancer sucks, but eventually there will be a cure. You can't find a "cure" for world hunger.
27490 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Kaguya's Panties
Offline
Posted 1/12/14 , edited 1/12/14
World domination, by my hand.
12290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
All the options suck but if I had to pick one - End world hunger, it'd probably save more lives
Sogno- 
45684 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/14

YoshidaHaruu wrote:

well me I would choose hmmm Cure Cancer cuz well if I create world peace what if there were an Alien invasion and OUR military Technology is crappy like 2000 years later n'd we still have same crappy weapons n'd the Aliens have like a freekin Laser Guns we're all DOOMED .


i've always hoped the aliens would be nice but then again you never know... we could meet Klingons before Vulcans...
23631 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
World peace. Cancer is the result of genetic degredation. Curing that = curing old age. World hunger, we could solve that if we all worked together.

Ergo, world peace=science golden age=cure all the things!
4961 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Earth
Offline
Posted 1/12/14 , edited 1/12/14

Sogno- wrote:


YoshidaHaruu wrote:

well me I would choose hmmm Cure Cancer cuz well if I create world peace what if there were an Alien invasion and OUR military Technology is crappy like 2000 years later n'd we still have same crappy weapons n'd the Aliens have like a freekin Laser Guns we're all DOOMED .


i've always hoped the aliens would be nice but then again you never know... we could meet Klingons before Vulcans...


Klingons? Then I'm ready. " Tor pIn'a', toy'wI''a'! "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CayMeza487M I can't believe I actually watched that.

Have they already taken over?!?!?!? http://abcnews.go.com/Weird/wireStory/nc-politician-writes-resignation-letter-klingon-21409580
12061 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
Non of these answers would solve any problems.

If we wanted to solve the problems of the world, we would need an ideal that was passed on from leadership.

The current leadership only cares about money and power, that created all the problems today.


This ideal that would end the world problems is simply to protect life. We would advance as a society in all aspects of a human civilization and already be exploring outer space. The biggest slowdown in todays technology is that anything that gets approved is designed for war or greed in mind. Take those out and you have an ultimate form of technology. Free unlimited energy being one noticable technology trait that already exists but is hidden away.

You would have the technology advance to cure any disease, not create drugs for profit.

You would have every human fed because it wouldnt be about money or power just to eat.

This ideal is what is missing, not a simple small fix to something that isnt the REAL problem. To fix the problems, they must all have a source. This would be a new source of the human salvation. To end the worlds pointless suffering starts with its leaders. They obviously dont care about life.
1651 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Mor Dhona
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
Not sure any of the above are great choices, but I'd go for world peace.

As far as I'm concerned, curing cancer is scientifically unfeasible. Genetic mutations are a part of nature and what's needed for that whole "evolution" business, but they're also the root cause of cancer. So uhh... well, to be fair, a lot of cancer is supposedly caused by the myriad artificial chemicals and such present in the world.

Like a lot of people have said, ending world hunger would also be great, but there are already 6 billion people in the world. We're barely sustaining the people we have, and it's only through massive losses in relative energy we're able to do so (approx. 10 calories of mechanical energy go into every calorie consumed in the Western world). Even if a magical food machine could provide for an infinite number of people at zero energy cost, it would just add to overpopulation until the Earth became Coruscant (which I, for one, don't want) and other natural supplies (lumber, metal, etc.) ran out.

World peace is probably the best because, while war does spur invention, said invention is limited mostly to tools of war. Enlightened times of peace produce the best advancements in regards to tech for the common folk - just look at everything that's been invented since the end of WWII that's not a tool of war. Granted the Cold War was there, but even since the end of that, there have been huge leaps and bounds in tech. Yes, overpopulation will remain, but like I said, I feel like it's the lesser of three evils.
4815 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
W~o~W
4698 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / all around the wo...
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
world peace, everything else could be salved with the help of the rest of the world
64447 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / US
Offline
Posted 1/12/14
Cure Cancer

Humans are a predatory pack animal like wolves. Conflict is in our nature. It simply cannot be removed. World peace sounds nice, but much of human advancement has occurred because of the need to resolve conflicts. Providing world peace would also provide world stagnation, and doom humanity to extinction at the first unexpected catastrophic event.

World hunger is a logistics problem. There is already enough food produced in the world to feed everyone. There is enough to get just about everyone fat on top of simply fed. The problem is getting food to the places that need it before it spoils, is discarded, or stolen. Plus, areas in the world that are truly suffering from famine often do so due to a lack of infrastructure. Feed a man a fish or teach a man to fish becomes an appropriate lesson to apply in many (not all) of these cases. Rather than magically "solving" world hunger, it would be better to improve education, engineering skills, and infrastructure (such as shipping lines, railways, aqueducts, etc.) in areas affected by famine so that those involved can feed themselves.

Cancer runs in my family and is the greatest health fear in most of the industrialized world. I would benefit greatly from curing cancer, both personally and financially by selling the cure. Of the three options, it is the most profitable and the least likely to cause severely negative secondary effects.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.