You have a gun with one bullet...

TopHatsaur

New member
Dec 15, 2010
39
0
0
You have a gun with one bullet. Infront of you are two people, World Hunger and World War. Shooting World Hunger will stop world hunger, shooting World War will stop all war, and shooting YOURSELF with stop them both for 100 years.

However, shooting World Hunger will make World War more powerful and vice versa, shooting yourself does not.

Which one do you shoot?
 

Radeonx

New member
Apr 26, 2009
7,013
0
0
World hunger, personally.
Unless of course, shooting world hunger aggravates world war and makes more wars break out.
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
World Hunger. With that out of the way, one of the biggest reasons for war goes out the window. The rest can be dealt with by humanity growing up.
 

Blue Hero

New member
Aug 6, 2011
361
0
0
Can I shoot something else instead? I don't wanna shoot either of those things, and I certainly don't wanna shoot myself. Can I shoot Ben Affleck instead?
 

Mischa87

New member
Jun 28, 2011
197
0
0
I'd shoot myself in the shoulder, so I don't die, and can enjoy the effects of my pain.
 

Fbuh

New member
Feb 3, 2009
1,233
0
0
I would shoot World Hunger, and here's why:

War is an essential part of humanity. It has been raging for our entire existence, but it does slack at some points. Hunger never does. There is always hunger somewhere. Hell, I'm hungry right now, but that can't even compare to the terrible, starving, complete lack of food some people have to deal with on a daily basis.

I would not shoot myself becasue 100 years is a pitiful amount of time for there to be no war or hunger. It implies that no matter what happens during that time, war and hunger will be back afterwards, so that there is really very little use of 100 years of peace.

I would not shoot war because of my earlier statements, though I have other reasons as well. First of all, I may be slightly sociopathic, as the chaos of war excites me. It gets me-for lack of a better term-high, though I have never done drugs. I feel elated and happy, like I'm flying and full of wonder. But anyway, I digress.

The World Wars of the past have never lasted very long, even though they had catastrophic impacts on the world's population. I can assume that while there would be more war, it would only last in bursts, with probable areas of peace in between.

Now, this question begs another: is it assumed that the option that was not shot (of hunger and war) will be solved in the future, or is it simply doomed to perpetuate for the rest of human existence?
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
How does stoping world war? Death equal less mouth to feed?

OT- I would stop world war, maybe but unlikely people will focus at ending worldhunger itself instead of focusing at killing each other.
 

wooty

Vi Britannia
Aug 1, 2009
4,252
0
0
World hunger I guess.

I would prefer to be able to head to Lord St in town and see how many morons I could get in a line.
 

Not-here-anymore

In brightest day...
Nov 18, 2009
3,028
0
0
World hunger. It'll be a cause for war in the future.

Also, war, horrific though it is, tends to result in major scientific advances. It also tends to have interesting effects on public morale (see: The Falklands war)
 

Luke5515

New member
Aug 25, 2008
1,197
0
0
Take the gun, use it to hold up an ammunition store, get more bullets, Kill both, try to go on a war against the public, can't do it because war is dead, go home and mope a little.

OT: probably war. Yeah, I'd go with war.
 

satanslawer123

New member
Aug 6, 2009
207
0
0
well i would line them up in a nice line and i stand in front of them both i shot all three of us and hey presto i stop them both for good and stop them for 100 years as a safety measure
 

LordOmnit

New member
Oct 8, 2007
572
0
0
War because even if it gets worse first, with no war there will no longer be any reason to ignore the hunger problem which will then get better regardless.