if you could do one thing for the benefit of man/woman kind would you ??
2006-12-04 09:31:45 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
I choose Peace , because if everyone is at peace, then even in there poverty they would not suffer.
And in answer to your second question : The only thing I can do to benefit man/woman kind, is to live a life of respect . By showing respect, one shows kindness, and for a moment, peace may be brought to another. Over time, day after day, you may bring Peace to more souls then you could possibly count, and effect the world faster then you Know.
Believe it or not, every day, people are recieving the opportunity to change the world, to either benefit the people or not.
Yet wether they choose to do so or not, shows everyday. There is more suffering now, then there is peace.
What if more folks showed unconditional kindness to others Every day. No money needed. Just Kindness. Even a smile. To brighten someone else 's day.
If the majority of people did so, you would see a world of peace.
But the world reflects what most people are choosing , instead of benefiting man/woman/kind , they continue to cause more suffering , even with inaction.
-Aaron
2006-12-04 09:50:52 · answer #1 · answered by stuart_slider 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Pilgrim - excellent question!
I would choose to end poverty because I have a feeling, world peace would find some ugly way to come back.
Poverty - this can be fixed and does not necessarily have to come back. Once you help a nation on its feet and teach them to maintain, you can be assured of a happy ending (a little maintenance along the way). Also, ending poverty reaches a LOT more people than trying to create world peace.
2006-12-04 09:58:30 · answer #2 · answered by terryoulboub 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The solution to both is the same. A stable food source provides a solid base for an economy. An economy grows. People then develop "quality of life". They, thus, have something to lose. Ergo, with something to lose they do not go to war. All wars begin for economic reasons. If the West did the right thing by the second and third worlds no-one would go to war - there would be no economic motive and world peace would ensue. e.g United Kingdom and France fought each other for a thousand years, now we are too rich to bother each other.
2006-12-08 06:04:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
World peace would bring about the end of poverty. So I would start with world peace and the rest would take care of itself.
2006-12-04 09:56:17 · answer #4 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you created world peace, then there shouldn't be any poverty as we would all love each other and make it all better! Merry Christmas.xx
2006-12-09 07:03:58 · answer #5 · answered by maria bartoninfrance 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would choose to end poverty because no poverty means no hunger, no hunger means no need to steal, no need to steal means not upsetting people which in turn will mean no fighting, no war & eventually, hopefully world peace.
2006-12-04 09:37:28 · answer #6 · answered by Because I Said So 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
world peace,
with that you have the end of poverty ..right ?
2006-12-10 07:44:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ending poverty because if you could end that you would end a lot of poverty anyway
2006-12-04 09:39:35 · answer #8 · answered by CJ 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
id end poverty bcause every1 would be even in the next fight until of course religion politics money and world domination between good and bad took over
2006-12-04 09:39:59 · answer #9 · answered by lancashiretasty 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ending poverty because it'll eventually lead onto resolving and addressing other dilemmas and thus, hopefully result in world peace
2006-12-04 09:55:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋