Should Mankind Focus Less on Terrorism and More On Saving Planet Earth?

Question

Think about the money spent on the war in Iraq and if we spent that money instead on trying to prevent Global Warming. Would mankind be better off?

Answer 1

Someone needs to sit down and have a serious talk with the human race. Especially the bleached ones(If you consider that our DNA came from the tribes of Africa, then the rest are all just bad mimeographs of the original results of evolution and environmental cooperation).
The questions to be answered start with
--"What do you intend to contribute to the universe?"

The rest are just management questions, but nonetheless just as important in their departments.
--"How much is it going to cost (the planet, the solar system, etc.)?"
--"What resources are necessary to pay for it?"
--"Can we do it at the scale/volume that we currently consume things?"
--"If not, who is going to decide what the support level will be?"
--"What are you doing to create a sustainable system for this goal?"
--"Who are the stakeholders?"
--"What is the estimated rate of return on the environment's investment(Are we going to save X number of species from extinction by asteroids?)?"

So far, all these answers are in negative connotations.

To put our species into the 'black', we need leadership like we have never seen before.
I suspect that we won't ever see it now.

Answer 2

Excellent question, I think it is intertwined and we need to focus on saving the earth but the terrorist are an immediate threat. So they are a distraction from what is important as they become important also. People do not fly planes into the side of a building for a joke. They are serious as hell and have got to be dealt with, what we didn't need was Iraq. It was a huge mistake, and now that we are bogged down it is the worse thing that could happen. Are you old enough to remember John Kennedy saying we are going to put a man on the moon in a decade. We did it in 8 years. If we concentrated all of our efforts on getting away and I mean completely away from fossil fuels we would go a long way toward fixing the world. Instead of George Bush going into Iraq he should have said we are going to be middle east free in less then 10 years and then funding it and it would happen, I think. Same thing with stem cells, or embryonic stem cells. It is just too bad he is president at this time, we needed a great man to take over from Clinton who had things going in the right direction.

Answer 3

The only possible link between the two would be that vegetarians are more likely to be repulsed by killing animals (human or otherwise) - but that is assuming they became vegetarians for animal rights/ welfare reasons instead of health or social reasons (or to help the planet!) etc. The link is unfortuntately not there, although studies have shown that those who do not have a problem with abusing animals are far more likely not to to have a problem with abusuing humans (particularly abusing women and small children). As a vegan I do share your (however far-fetched) ideal of a vegetarian / vegan world, but if the sole purpose of that is to reduce violence or environmental destruction, your time may be better spent focusing on those aims - i.e. educating people about the environmental impact of factory farming, or trying to reason a philosophy of non-harm with those who disagree. As to the point about religion - I'm afraid it's all about interpretation. Choosing the right passages could argue either way!

Answer 4

The development of conventional ground warfare weapons, such as tanks and laser guided missiles is not going to save the world from terrorism.
There will always be the opposing pulls of those who feel safer with an arsenal capable of destroying the planet five times over and those that would rather have a planet worth living on. Mankind definitely needs to find 'the middle path' between these two groups.

Answer 5

No, it should be both lives can be lost from each conflict the terrorism could lead to a bigger problem but we still are cleaning the o'zone layer for global warming also global warming has apart to do with pullution everytime you use electricity it is causing global warming which is also the cost of flooding in areas and the melting of the north pole. From my perspective it should be equal

Answer 6

Do you mean money spent on terrorism, or fighting terrorism?

obviously we'd be better off if less funding went into terrorism...I don't think global warming is a problem you can just throw money at.

The people who fund terrorism see direct results, they might not like spending money on research into global warming for results that might not come.



(this is to the alien....Did you mean: genius? too funny)

Answer 7

Well it is a gallant thought, but the problem being; getting the all of the people of the world on the same page, working toward the same goal. Somehow I don't think the extremists of the world will buy it.

Answer 8

Hey, if the terrorists get their way none of us will be around, so Mother Earth can revert back to the cockroaches. I guess you'll be happy then.

Answer 9

Absolutely...but there's no money in it....there's lots of money to be made on war....

Answer 10

TERRORISTS ARE LOOKING TO OBTAIN NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO USE. BY STOPPING THEM WE ARE SLOWING DOWN THE TOTAL DISINTIGRATION OF OUR PLANET. I AGREE WITH YOUR PREMISE, THAT WE SHOULD DO MORE TO MAKE THINGS BETTER.


GOD BLESS