Social Question

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

If you could have world peace or be independantly wealthy which would you choose?

Asked by Self_Consuming_Cannibal (4269points) November 7th, 2010

And why? Also please don’t answer I would be independantly wealthy and use my wealth to cause world peace.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

Mikewlf337's avatar

Independantly wealthy. I wouldn’t even try at world peace.

ragingloli's avatar

World peace of course.
How could I choose any different?
This is the prime example of “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Independently wealthy. Only because that seems realistic, world peace does not. Well, not ONLY.. I wouldn’t mind being independently wealthy.

Blondesjon's avatar

I would opt for world peace and then amass an independent fortune by renewing old feuds and dealing weapons to both sides.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@TheOnlyNeffie Good answer and honest. I like that! :-)

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@Blondesjon Applause, applause, applause You have done it again! Best answer. You are a sick, offensive little man and I love it! When you die can I keep your brain in a jar on my bookcase? +lurve

Sarcasm's avatar

I don’t want to be rich. I’d go with world peace.
As far as the “use wealth to create peace” argument goes, I don’t think that throwing money at problems can necessarily make them go away.
I can give food to the starving nations, thinking “If they don’t have to fight to survive, maybe they won’t fight at all” but they may end up fighting over land, religion, drugs, what color shirt to wear, etc. (edit: and you can’t guarantee that it will be appropriately distributed. Warlords may still take more than their fair share.)
I can pay for some military operation to hop into Africa and shoot anyone with an AK47 thinking “If the oppressors are dead, everyone is free.” But that doesn’t mean no new oppressors will arise out of opportunity.
I can build schools in uneducated areas thinking “If they understand the universe in which we live better, they’ll be able to see past their petty squabbles.” But you can’t force someone to learn.

Self_Consuming_Cannibal's avatar

@Sarcasm That is all quite true. I just didn’t want anyone to answer that way because it’s so cliche’ and predictable.

AmWiser's avatar

Somehow I think I would take the independently wealthy route. I’m not seeing however billions of people in this world at peace. Some nut/nuts is going upset the apple cart.

tedibear's avatar

As long as I have enough to meet my needs and wants, I’m going with world peace. Since we’re at that point now financially <knock on wood> I say, bring on world peace!

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

I opt for world peace as well. Once we get the major disputes out of the way, all of that time and money can be put towards greater use in a team effort.

perspicacious's avatar

Wealthy. I don’t think there will ever be a time when there is absolutely no fighting on the planet. So go ahead and send me the money.

YARNLADY's avatar

I would be independently rich and hire a lot of bodyguards.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Maybe I am just assuming that this is a hypothetical situation where if someone chooses to be independently wealthy, it means that there is an unlimited pot of gold. If the choice is world peace, it means that it comes about and is never ending, just like the bottomless pot of gold.

I suspect that with being independently wealthy, I’d be willing to spend some of it on tangible items that weren’t necessary. Even if the bulk of it were devoted to attempting to create world peace, it would do no good in the long run.

If world peace won out, there would be no need to devote my short-term life to trying to fix it. It would just exist. Sure, there will still be squabbles, and I hope that would be the case. Humans require discussion about different needs and perspectives in order to effectively come to the best solutions.

Seaofclouds's avatar

World peace. I’d much rather have my husband home than in some war zone on the other side of the world.

incendiary_dan's avatar

Considering that the only likely way to world peace is to somehow set up situations in which everyone had what they need and then some, and without degrading the earth, I’m pretty sure I’d still benefit from it financially in some way. So I’ll go with that.

mattbrowne's avatar

World peace because it would make us all modestly wealthy.

ftp901's avatar

I would choose to be independently wealthy because I do not believe world peace is possible or necessary. You can’t stick 6 billion creatures on one planet and expect them all to co-exist peacefully. As animals it is within our nature to fight for resources in order to survive. So, I would be wealthy and at least help some people.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther