Bethany is @home! on 22 May 2020.
Jean O'Dwyer answered on 22 May 2020:
In one sense, if you ended world hunger, then you would end a lot of inequality, which is what leads to conflict to begin with- so, I would end hunger first, I think, and then see what has to happen next.
Louise Mc Grath answered on 22 May 2020:
I would end world hunger. That would stop a lot of the inequality in the world, which means there will be less to fight about. Preventing wars could be done by negotiation and effective communication, while ending world hunger is much harder to solve!
Mark Kennedy answered on 22 May 2020:
That’s a very tough question to answer. I think I would probably agree with Jean and Louise, and choose to end world hunger. But I’m pretty sure the more I think about this, the more I’ll swap back and forth.
Sarah Mallen answered on 22 May 2020:
That’s a tough one! Can I choose both? I think I would choose to end wars because one of the causes of famine is war and if we were all working together then maybe we could find solutions to the other causes of world hunger. That might be an optimistic view though.
Aisling Ryan answered on 22 May 2020:
I think both war and hunger are very significant problems, and both have an impact on the other.
In order to remove war you would need to make the human population kind, understanding, compassionate and not greedy. Of course, with all of these qualities I’m sure we would be able to come together to end world hunger.
On the other hand, if I could end world hunger by simply clicking my fingers I think that is more urgent than ending war. Hunger is a complicated worldwide problem that is more prevalent in the developing world, but still occurs in the developed world as well.
I would choose to end world hunger, but I think if instead of ending one or the other we could adjust the minds and actions of the world to make everyone more selfless, kind and compassionate, both would end as a result 🙂
Dimitar Shterionov answered on 22 May 2020:
I would choose world hunger. But that can be done only if people’s mindset changes. Because, image there is unlimited amount of food in the world that would be sufficient for everyone. If there are people that just over eat, and take more than what they can consume, then any solution will be pointless. People should change their eating habits and how we treat each other. And try to be more eco friendly, not go to fast food restaurants too. In that respect, think about corona. You know that most of the people that died are actually obese?
Aruna Chandrasekar answered on 22 May 2020:
I would end wars because they propagate a negative illusion of power over one another. If we can promote peace and positive attitude among our society, it will enable us as individuals to be happy in our environment and feed ourselves.
To me, this seems as a more sustainable long term solution to solve both problems.
Roisin Jones answered on 29 May 2020:
I would probably choose to end wars: I think that if there was no war, it would go a hell of long way to solving the world hunger problem as well.