English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Daily thought:

If all the crime stopped, the war(s) ended, world hunger ceased, dieseases stopped spreading and the National Guard was no longer needed, where would all these people work? We'd run out of jobs (worse than we already are) and food, and then we'd all be reduced to canibalism, ruining any and all chance of the world surviving more than a year of World Peace. So with all of this in mind- why are we so keen on world peace?

2006-07-05 09:25:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

Thank you people! For all you peace loving people- it's not gonna happen!!!! And no- I'm not smoking anything- it's just how I think.

2006-07-05 09:35:00 · update #1

P.S.- I'm 14 years old. So I do realize the effect not having 'world peace' is having on the children on this planet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2006-07-05 09:57:01 · update #2

12 answers

You've really made me think ,you know that.
Good.This is really good thinking.

2006-07-05 09:28:44 · answer #1 · answered by Eternity 6 · 0 0

Think about this - people do not need jobs. They need food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, and transportation, but they do not need jobs. Imagine, if you will, that there are only six people in this economy two that build houses and two that grow food and two that engage in war. So the war guys are constantly blowing up houses and burning crops. Then, tragically, peace breaks out. Oh dear. What are the war guys gonna do? And what about the house guys. If houses are not continually being blown up, then logically, there is not as much demand for people to build them. And the crop guys. Without the warriors burning crops and killing livestock won't we have too much food and then the farm guys will have nothing to do.

Only if the economy is very poorly designed (which admittedly ours is, although it does some things well). First of all, everyone would be richer without the war. If you still have 6 houses and food for everyone and they are getting it with less work because two are no longer doing the non-productive work of destroying houses in each other's countries. Second, the resources that formerly went into war, including the labor of the warriors and all of the metal and gasoline and munitions and the labor and energy required to make them. All of that could be put to more productive uses. For example instead of sending 100,000 troops and $200 billion to blow up Iraq those people could be employed and that money spent in a research project to solve our energy problem or to solve global warming or to improve our roads, our schools and, dare I say it, our flood control projects.

If you are interested in economics I would recommend Bellamy's "Looking Backward" or Gilman's "Herland" although the first is pinko socialism and the 2nd is feminazi. Once upon a time Americans found them inspiring. Imagine what might be instead of despairing about what can never be. Humanity does not need war to survive any more than we need earthquakes, hurricanes or tsunamis. That's why we want world peace, because "you can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake".

2006-07-06 05:22:51 · answer #2 · answered by amokemit 1 · 0 0

You've been smokn the peace plant havn't you? That's the only safe thing that'll make you think from different perspectives and have fun at the same time.

But your thinking isn't right. Those people would find a job, be unemployed or become criminals. Germany has 12% unemployment, very high. Iran has more. They are still functioning though. Just because there is a loss of jobs, doesn't mean the entire system crumbles. If the system crumbles, usually job loss is a consequence, and not the cause.

You're also speaking on theoretical terms. There will always be war, disease, crime, etc., so your hypothesis will never be tested outside your wondering head.

2006-07-05 16:30:24 · answer #3 · answered by trancevanbuuren 3 · 0 0

When I think of world peace I think of being able to settle our differences in a humane, non-violent way. Hunger and disease will always exist, so if you're worried about what the National Guard would do for work how about humanitarian causes? I would rather face that problem than the ones we have now.

2006-07-05 16:36:15 · answer #4 · answered by carpediem 5 · 0 0

Most of discussed issues are social issues even though they may eventually lead to world peace or vice versa.Peace should orginate from inside or from you. You cannot expect to get peace from outside. Once you are at peace people around you will be at peace and so on. World peace will bring progress not cannibalism sine we get much more human resources will be available.

2006-07-05 23:18:26 · answer #5 · answered by konstantineknife 2 · 0 0

Just because there is world peace doesn't mean you won't need you national guard exactly the same way if everyone was fine there will still be need for doctors.

Just because no one has a job it won't lead to cannibalism that's just stupid (forgive my bluntness).

2006-07-05 16:31:07 · answer #6 · answered by Ajescent 5 · 0 0

haha, you're kidding right?! i thought your reasoning skills were bad in your other post, but this is just as bad. so if all that stopped, we wouldnt last a year?! within a year we will result into cannibalism?! i dont think so. if i said i wanted world peace, id mean id want idiots to stop using their religion to blow up innocent people or crazy idiots shooting off rockets in all directions. no war isnt a bad thing and wont lead to cannibalism.

2006-07-05 16:33:49 · answer #7 · answered by aaronne07 3 · 0 0

People say that they want world peace but in reality, if they were to think about it they do not want world peace. everyone is greedy and always wants more no matter what they say, its human nature. No one wants world peace because everyone wants to be superior and with world peace superiority would go down.

2006-07-05 16:32:38 · answer #8 · answered by Willster31 2 · 0 0

Because war scares people, the though of a nuclear war terrifies people. But you are right as well, we would all fall apart with no war. So I guess we are in a lose lose situation.

2006-07-05 16:31:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

THIS IS A CRAZY WAR LOVING PERSON MAKING THIS COMMENT. IS THERE NOTHING ELSE SOMEONE CAN DO EXCEPT FIGHT? WHY NOT DO SOMETHING WHEN YOU LOOK BACK HAS HELPED SOMEONE INSTEAD OF HURTING AND KILLING SOMEONE.
YOU COMMENT FOOD, IF WE RAN OUR FARMS ORGANICALLY, WE COULD HAVE PEOPLE HAND PLANTING AND PICKING FOOD, BUILDINGS COULD BE BUILT BUY HAND INSTEAD OF QUICKLY BUILDING SOMETHING NOT MEANT TO LAST MORE THAN 10 YEARS.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH HELPING OTHERS, HAVING SMALLER CLASS ROOMS AND MORE TEACHERS. DO YOU NOT THINK HAVING LARGE CLASSROOMS IS DESTROYING OUR CHILDREN? WHY ARE FACTORIES LAYING OFF SO MANY PEOPLE WHEN INSTEAD OF RELYING ON A COMPUTER TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER HAVE IT PUT ON BY HAND. WHY DO WE HAVE TO KILL PEOPLE TO MAKE EMPLOYMENT. INSTEAD OF HIRING TO MAKE WEAPONS, PLANT FOOD, TEACH CHILDREN, WORK AND BE PROUD OF WHAT YOUR DOING.

2006-07-05 16:45:16 · answer #10 · answered by Mary W 1 · 0 0

Well, you are right..... but it's just a nice thought. The reality is that there wil never be world peace.... at least not in our lifetimes.

2006-07-05 16:31:28 · answer #11 · answered by BrownTown 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers