You have a gun with one bullet...
- Thread starter TopHatsaur
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would shoot world hunger. war provides a very important function for both human psychology and for reducing population. If you get rid of war, billions will die of hunger which is much slower and uncomfortable than a bullet.
And, if you look very closely, science has increase the most when their is a clear and present threat. Humans only got to the moon because they thought their would be a way to gain the higher ground, and it created competition. We can attribute nearly everything we use today to devices originally developed for the use in war.
And, if you look very closely, science has increase the most when their is a clear and present threat. Humans only got to the moon because they thought their would be a way to gain the higher ground, and it created competition. We can attribute nearly everything we use today to devices originally developed for the use in war.
World Hunger easily. What's worse, being shot to death or slowly and painfully starving? And despite what some people may think, there are reasons that a lot of wars are fought, not wars like Vietnam or Iraq but think about revolutionary wars. They are fought often because of poor or tyrannical leadership. Without war it means that people would just get stomped on by the dictators without resistance.
Also you would never kill yourself in this scenario because then how would you know that Steve the magic gun actually went through with his promise for world peace and no starvation?
Also you would never kill yourself in this scenario because then how would you know that Steve the magic gun actually went through with his promise for world peace and no starvation?
.TopHatsaur said:
Simple but effective. Take out the bullet and jam it into their heads, one at a time. Two birds for one stone!
War if I had to, cause food is the main stoping block for most populations.
Curing world hunger would most likely cause a population boom, resulting in a sigificant decrease in the sustainability of our continued life on this planet in the long term regardless of war.
Curing world hunger would most likely cause a population boom, resulting in a sigificant decrease in the sustainability of our continued life on this planet in the long term regardless of war.
easy easy
shoot world war, and while hunger is staring at the mess, put a knife in it
(no one said nothing about NOT having a knife)
shoot world war, and while hunger is staring at the mess, put a knife in it
(no one said nothing about NOT having a knife)
I'm torn between firing at the ground or myself.
If I fire at myself, the problems will be fixed and the world will be happy, but if I fire at the ground and kill no one, then we'll likely be stuck at a constant, no world war and the current amount of World Hunger, or at least by OP's logic.
Who am I kidding, I'm a bad shot, I'll miss.
If I fire at myself, the problems will be fixed and the world will be happy, but if I fire at the ground and kill no one, then we'll likely be stuck at a constant, no world war and the current amount of World Hunger, or at least by OP's logic.
Who am I kidding, I'm a bad shot, I'll miss.
World Hunger. Because a war now and then is good for people. But hunger sucks. I'd kill myself if it meant PERMANENT end to both hunger and war, but 100 years is nothing, really.
