You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
I'd pop a cap into my foot. Problem solved.
If that's not allowed I'd slot war one. Because most everyone else is choosing hunger.
Neither. Overpopulation is already too much of an issue. Even though that sounds horrible, imagine the overpopulation crisis we would face without war or hunger. Third world countries would blossom, birth rates go up, and all of a sudden we are standing shoulder to shoulder in grocery stores. No thank you.
Funny thing is that war and hunger are things that always tend to come and go together. War causes hunger, hunger causes war, etc.
By that reasoning, solving World War SHOULD increase food production. Also, if you aggrevate World War by shooting World Hunger, you can unleash a nuclear holocaust that will make the majority of the lands unable to produce healthy food.
There is one thing connecting this thing; population size.
If you shoot World War, population figures will increase so much that food production can't possibly keep up. If you shoot World Hunger, food production should normally go down, but it also causes the population to shrink in size.
Now which one is better;
Birth control is the key. If you shoot World Hunger and unleash devestating wars, there will be less space for humans to live, leaving no means to increase the population until humanity finally dwindles into extinction. Over-populating by shooting World War will only cause both birth and death figures to climb, but there will be no final extinction and the world can eventually try to overcome the obstacle of hunger with the use of technology.
I'm definately shooting World War.
By that reasoning, solving World War SHOULD increase food production. Also, if you aggrevate World War by shooting World Hunger, you can unleash a nuclear holocaust that will make the majority of the lands unable to produce healthy food.
There is one thing connecting this thing; population size.
If you shoot World War, population figures will increase so much that food production can't possibly keep up. If you shoot World Hunger, food production should normally go down, but it also causes the population to shrink in size.
Now which one is better;
Birth control is the key. If you shoot World Hunger and unleash devestating wars, there will be less space for humans to live, leaving no means to increase the population until humanity finally dwindles into extinction. Over-populating by shooting World War will only cause both birth and death figures to climb, but there will be no final extinction and the world can eventually try to overcome the obstacle of hunger with the use of technology.
I'm definately shooting World War.
Leave both alone, and sell the gun. Merchants pay normal dollar for guns, man. That, or use the gun to repair my other guns. Can never have enough guns to keep your guns in repair.
shooting world war would eventually stop world hunger.
but people never change making this action useless.
shooting myself is only a temporary solution.
so I would shoot world hunger.
it,s not going to stop everything but it,s the best outcome.
but people never change making this action useless.
shooting myself is only a temporary solution.
so I would shoot world hunger.
it,s not going to stop everything but it,s the best outcome.
I'd miss... without both, the world will become over-populated and thus, shit. Sure, shooting world hunger would mean that the now excessive population won't starve... but they won't have any room to stand, either
Ah, what a fine moral dilemma this is. I could shoot myself, but that would only resolve the issue temporarily...I curve the bullet making it hit both of them! The world is saved, time for PARTY BUS!
Hmm. I'd shoot World war, and then beat Hunger to death with the gun. It'd probably be quite weak.
And thus problem is solved thanks to violence!
And thus problem is solved thanks to violence!
I'd shoot the bullet into the ground. I wont take away hunger or war and for the same reason.
People need to choose. That's what life is about, choosing. Even if your only choice is to hate or love your captor, the choice is yours to make. I will not take from people their right to choose if they will or will not feed the hungry. I will not take from people their right to choose to murder in mass numbers.
In my opinion, it is more heartless and evil to take away Stalin's right to starve the Ukrainians in the Holodomor than it is for him to commit such reckless hate.
People need to choose. That's what life is about, choosing. Even if your only choice is to hate or love your captor, the choice is yours to make. I will not take from people their right to choose if they will or will not feed the hungry. I will not take from people their right to choose to murder in mass numbers.
In my opinion, it is more heartless and evil to take away Stalin's right to starve the Ukrainians in the Holodomor than it is for him to commit such reckless hate.
I would ironically shoot war. Despite several earlier assertions that resource scarcity is the main cause of war, I must disagree. Nationalism (religious fundamentalism is a form of nationalism) has been the primary cause of war. Certainly this was the case in the twentieth century. War is more dehumanizing than hunger, and ending it would free up more resources to fight hunger. Economic and social development tends to deal with the population problem far better and, need I really mention, more humanely than war.