| If you could eliminate one, which would you choose? |
|
If you could eliminate one, which would you choose?
Click to vote
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Asked 3 years ago
by Danlev  Canada |
|
About
Decent human being with a good sense of humor.
|
15 Points
|
If we eliminated war, we could afford all the others--and much, much more.
Eliminate most human population and all the others will be substantially reduced.
let me guess, you work for the post office?
Did you not read "The Time Machine"? If we didn't have those hardships we'd all turn into stupid hippy blobs.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyAmen, bro.
You need not answer, you know.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyMaslow's Hierarcy of Needs says that the physiological needs (food, shelter, clothing, physical safety) must be met for a person to advance to higher levels of stability. Feeding people is a great way to start to reduce all the rest.
That works in the game Civilisation too :)
Umm...that game is excellent.
One of my favourites, well 2 actually, I like the board game and the computer games
None are physically possible.
To eliminate war, everyone must agree to live in peace. If even one person chooses other wise, that one person can force violence on the rest.
To eliminate disease would mean the discovery of immortality. Except for accidents and intentional actions, you would live forever.
If you could eliminate famine the population would grow accordingly. Eventually you wouldn't be able to feed everyone, and famine would return.
To eliminate depression would be to eliminate all bad things from happening in life. Depression is normal, except for when it take over your life.
Depression does not need to result from bad things happening to one, it can simply be an imbalance of brain chemicals that leads a person to respond with extreme sadness to normal situations.
I agree that immortality and elimination of famine would cause a new range of problems...
Disease as we know it is an artifact of CIVILIZATION, not a state preventing immortality. Most of our epidemic diseases come from two sources: The domestication of animals, exposing us to foreign pathogens (measles is a good example--it is essentially human distemper) and living in groups large enough to support the spread of disease. Measles requires a population of a half million to remain circulating, otherwise it burns out. Parasitic disease like schistosomiasis come from living in a fixed place and fouling the water. Hunter-gatherer populations were much healthier. we only in the 20th century attained the average height of Cro-Magnon man, for instance. There is no evidence of epidemic or life-style disease in the remains we have found, although there is some indication of accident (healed broken bones) and signs of aging like osteoarthritis. Reducing the population to the density of the Early Stone Age would only improve health, not causse immortality.
Disease is not an artifact of civilization. It can be observed in animals of all types and certainly in the bones of distant ancestors. The factors you cite do encourage disease.
Disease AS WE KNOW IT most certainly is. It is a far more limited proposition without agriculture, domestication, and high population density.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[0 points] 3 years ago by deleted user Replyinteresting question
Possible or not, I chose disease simply because I think disease takes more lives then anything else.
As for depression, I have a philosophy that if our bodies could get rid of things like depression, we would have evolved that way. In a lot of cases, we need to get depressed.
Take for example, being single. It's common to be depressed when your lonely and that pushes you to find a mate, which is just our bodies way of continuing the human race.
I suspect the "depression" in the question refers to economic depression, not mental depression.