If you were given a choice between the end of world poverty or the end of war in the world?

Question

what would you choose.

Answer 1

End poverty first. Why?

If you just *ended warfare* to free up the money, all you've really done is thrown money at the problem. Yes, the outer, obvious signs of poverty are going to be erased--hunger, homelessness, illiteracy. But what about the inner signs? What about the broken families with one parent? What about Unemployment, the lack of *good paying jobs* that let ordinary people become self-sufficient? What about the lack of *meaningful work* that lets people know that they are a *part of society*, and not considered a menace to it? What about social isolation, alienation from the larger society? What about those who are addicted to substances, or who have emotional or psychiatric health issues?

Ok, so maybe some of you are scratching your heads and going, "But wouldn't *more money* in general solve these problems too in time?" Well, for a lot of *sensible* people it would. That's the kicker. You can erase poverty entirely for some 85-90 percent of the world's population...and still be in deep trouble if the remaining 10-15 percent have been *so* desperate and *so* scarred for *so long* that they've gone crazy. Some people have problems that *mere money* can't possibly solve.

But....if you *eliminate poverty* entirely, get it *done* already, here's what happens:

--War ends as the most *sensible* 85-90 percent of the world's population realizes that *life is good* and that there's no real *pressure* or real need to attack other people. When everyone has what they need in life, there's no need for most folks to steal, or to fight (beyond recreational purposes mind you). Comfortable people are *conservative* people, they're not going to throw away what wealth and comforts they have.

And for the rest...we have enough *surplus* left over to extend our hands out to them, *firmly but repeatedly* until people get the point that crime and violence are no longer even *necessary*. Some folks will get this. Others might end up dying in prison or in a psychiatric ward because they can't mend.

Either way....if *Nobody's* children grow up in poverty or despair, or in isolation, or in a crime-rancid neighborhood, this ends in *ONE* generation. And in the meantime, much of the reason to make war *on ourselves* goes bye-bye.

Of course, much of the reason to be *competitive* and cutthroat to one another goes bye-bye too, which is why the CEOs and One Percenters won't ever let this happen. They'll disarm the world and use drugs in the water supply and ID chips implanted under the skin *to enforce* a suffocating vision of "world peace", or of the "end of warfare" first.

And when that happens, then the widespread social isolation and alienation is just going to have people *dropping like flies*. Count on it.

Just my beat-up plug nickel....take it as you will.

Answer 2

The end of the world

Answer 3

End of conflict in the world for I do believe it would help to alleviate poverty.

Answer 4

the end of war because that would lead to an end in poverty

Answer 5

Get rid of war. All the money saved could wipe out poverty.

Answer 6

I will disagree. Most wars are fought over resources, oil, minerals, arable farmland, water, etc. If no poverty there would be way less war. Nations which have McDonalds hamburgers (affluent democracies) tend not to attack each other.

Answer 7

The end of war , then there would be enough resources to fight poverty

Answer 8

If I could sacrifice my current life and all my lives to come, I'd have both.

But I can't.

So the end of war.

Because if we took what we spend, worldwide, on defence, it would clothe the naked, feed the hungry and house the homeless, more than once over. Then humanity could explore space - both inner and outer - together, forever.

I am a Bill-Hicksian. Goodnight.