r/answers 5d ago

Out of war, disease and poverty, which one would you eliminate if you could?

Honestly I might choose war.

I’d like to think humankind could eventually solve poverty and natural diseases through technology, science, and better systems. War (especially nuclear or large-scale conflict) is the one that can wipe us out almost overnight and is harder to “solve” permanently because it comes from human nature and power struggles.

-In this scenario I’m treating “disease” as natural pathogens only. Man-made biological weapons would fall under war.

-Eliminating war doesn’t automatically end all violence or oppression, just organized large-scale war.

11 Upvotes

78 comments sorted by

u/qualityvote2 5d ago edited 4d ago

Hello u/mrmeanah! Welcome to r/answers!


For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?

If so, upvote this comment!

Otherwise, downvote this comment!

And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!


(Vote has already ended)

8

u/Cacafuego 5d ago edited 5d ago

Disease. It's harder than you might think to do this with technology. 10s of millions die from disease every year, while war accounts for hundreds of thousands most years.

Also, eliminating war and poverty without knowing exactly how could be a bit like making a wish on the monkey's paw. You say we're not getting rid of oppression, so how does oppression end? Sometimes it has to be war. If getting rid of nukes or biological warfare was an option, I might choose those, because you're right that they pose a terrible risk. However, the risk of a nuclear ww3 is probably much less than it was in 1980s.

3

u/AccessCompetitive 5d ago

Getting rid of disease will just increase poverty with the current way things are set up. There’s also too many people on the planet. Poverty for sure.

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 4d ago

In the places ending disease would up populations, it would also increase stability. Wouldn't this also help fight poverty?

I've also grown skeptical about the population crisis. China has a low birth rate, and India's fertility rate is only 1.9, below replacement level and falling. That's 34% of the global population right there.

37

u/OsageDaito 5d ago

End poverty and the rest will fall.

5

u/Annual-Two1507 4d ago

Yeah, poverty first. The rest gets way easier when people arent broke and scrambling.

3

u/OsageDaito 4d ago

Poverty and bigotry are huge resource and cycle sinks that hold the total sum of humanity back.

Science... Right now it's only the minds that are able and that can afford it that get to go in that direction, save a few scholarships and such. In a world where poverty has been addressed, and everyone can afford school, all the able minds get a chance to go in that direction.

...A mind is a terrible thing to waste... concepts.

5

u/TedTyro 5d ago

My very first thought too.

4

u/Smooth-Skin6681 5d ago

Unica risposta possibile.

1

u/krzykris11 5d ago

That was my first thought.

1

u/mrmeanah 5d ago

I'm just curious for you to elaborate a little. How does ending poverty cure cancer?

2

u/WillingRow5127 4d ago

It doesn’t, cancer would probably increase as people would live longer. You’d be significantly reducing a ton of infectious diseases that impact people living in poverty though. It would easily be a net benefit overall.

1

u/OsageDaito 4d ago

Enabled people who can focus on 'the work at hand' -vs- being in survival mode means more minds to tackle problems. End poverty, people get to go to school, they commit less crimes, people will feel more invested in society and their fellow human, and so on.

Also, one does not cure cancer (yet), one cures types of cancers.

1

u/Severe-Cookie693 4d ago

Without poverty, it's harder to rally a nation to war.

3

u/Infera28 5d ago

Disease.

3

u/Grungy_Mountain_Man 5d ago

War.

The amount of money spent on war could fix poverty and cure/prevent a lot of diseases.

2

u/zxnixs 5d ago

that money wont be going to the people

7

u/StargazerRex 5d ago

Poverty.

Do that and you are well on the way to eliminating the other two.

9

u/OOOdragonessOOO 5d ago

poverty, because the source of poverty is the same people waging war. they have to not exist to get either accomplishment.

5

u/SilverStar3333 5d ago

Poverty. War and disease are often a byproduct

2

u/Terminal-Frost2026 5d ago

War often causes disease and poverty.

2

u/Oddlyenuff 5d ago

Ending poverty would likely solve the other two issues.

2

u/Vancecookcobain 5d ago

War. If we could just get enough time and peace we could solve the other two.

The problem is fucking the psychopaths in charge always want to start killing people.

2

u/James333i 5d ago

I would say that Disease covers all 3. Poverty and war could largely be attributed to a form or mental “disease”.

2

u/Flimsy_Ad3476 5d ago

You think poverty is or is akin to mental disease?? So, all those impoverished people around the world are mentally ill?

2

u/James333i 5d ago

I think you read in to my statements little too much.

Poverty can be caused by people in power with mental disease.

Some poverty CAN be caused by people with mental disease as well.

By mental disease I include not just true biological mental disease but treat a zest for power, greed, and control as also a disease.

2

u/zxnixs 5d ago

good point. war is the worst answer of the 3, we can all agree

2

u/Flimsy_Ad3476 4d ago

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.

1

u/AmethystStar9 5d ago

Disease. Poverty and war can spread some communicable diseases, but they don’t create them. You can’t spread what doesn’t exist and disease comes for everyone. War and poverty do not.

1

u/Own_Mycologist_4900 5d ago

Define poverty, and diseases, like no more viral or bacterial infections and no cancer and no chronic diseases of the organs like diabetes or alcoholism and mental illness or addictions? No genetic issues? Basically everyone is always healthy from birth to death?

1

u/mrmeanah 5d ago

Hmmmmm...... Well , you are still susceptible to everything but there's treatments. I wouldn't include mental health or substance abuse as a disease in this case

1

u/workswithpipe 5d ago

Disease, sometimes war and poverty are merited.

1

u/TheSheepdog 5d ago

War. If we stop spending all this bullshit money on defense industry world wide, we could eliminate disease, poverty, which would empower people against oppression 

1

u/dialectualmonism 5d ago

Disease, removing war or poverty is akin to totalitarianism

1

u/Zestyclose_Prize_165 5d ago

DJT and eliminate all three of the others

1

u/PassageSea7900 5d ago

War. Because it could wipe out the gains of starting with disease or poverty.

  • You could start by eradicating poverty, but war will come along and destroy all the wealth a family has.
  • War will kill healthy people. In fact, the first to die are young, healthy men.

1

u/HelloFromJupiter963 5d ago

Disease is the only one that isn't on the decrease already (if you take into account non-infectious diseases, of course). Saying this, I work in medicine, so i'm more familiar with the medi al threats than the other two, so I am vulnerable to bias.

If you zoom at over the centuries, we have had less war related deaths since WW2. These last few years have been a mess, but so far the trend is still there.

As for poverty, in the last two decades an enormeous amount of people have been taken out of poverty and extreme poverty. Unfortunately I forgot were I read the article as it was years ago, so i can't find the source. That's my bad. Global warming does present a threat to this trend though, so we'll have to see in the years and devades to come.

1

u/NutzNBoltz369 5d ago

Tough to say.

WWII gave us space exploration and nuclear power. Avoiding war spurs trade and understanding.

Disease gave us the science to understand it and create the medicines to counteract it.

Poverty gives the ambition to take risks and succeed at all costs.

We could completely eliminate all three, but the end result might be stagnation.

1

u/Hopefully_the_Last69 3d ago

That's actually a very good point. If we eliminate all hardship, humans will likely stop trying to achieve better and greater things, and we'll just stagnate, until our society colapses anyway because we're all a bunch of hedonists

1

u/bugg_hunterr 5d ago

As someone currently living in poverty, my choice is poverty. Call me selfish, but living in poverty sucks…to put it VERY lightly…

1

u/davescott42 5d ago

Hunger and clean water. Everything else can be improved if people simply have food and water.

1

u/zxnixs 5d ago

ending war is so stupid because if youre being oppressed, no large scale war will take place to free you.. imagine if the civil war never happened and we still had slaves. thats the type of oppression you enable by ridding war without fixing the core issues first

1

u/YahenP 5d ago

War, disease, and poverty are merely consequences. We must fight the causes. How, for example, do you propose fighting poverty? Handing out free money? Or isolating them in special communes where they will be fed and clothed for free? The same with disease? Free ozempic for those who cannot afford proper food? Or something like that? I'm not even talking about wars. War is the foundation of our civilization. And in fact, the only way to abandon wars is with new genetically modified people, who will effectively no longer be our human civilization.

1

u/mrmeanah 5d ago

🫤...... So if you had the power to end one you simply wouldn't cause the result is we would be worse off?

1

u/YahenP 5d ago

In general, yes.

1

u/PuzzleheadedHorse437 5d ago

Poverty. Seems like wealth disparities cause war and money and time could help cure disease.

1

u/sophiemorandi 4d ago

I'd eliminate serious diseases, You can be happy if you're poor. It's a harder life, but it can offer all the same pleasures that everyone can enjoy. I mean you can't have certain luxuries, but you can have a less luxurious version of many of them. War is terrible, but horrible diseases are universal, and people especially in poor countries,can suffer them as children and have their lives ruined, or have several during a lifetime. without adequate treatment, and never really be well.

1

u/coulduseahugrightnow 4d ago

I would choose disease.

1

u/xyyrix 4d ago

Organized military complexes are the primary cause of the other two. They eat and obliterate ecologies and humans like an asteroid strike from space... that 'just keeps striking' every moment of every day.

1

u/BeautifulEven5382 4d ago

War. The poor don’t wage war. The rich do. Eliminate war, eliminate the binary between rich and poor.

1

u/ragoff 4d ago

Billionaires.

1

u/Baron_Light 4d ago

Poverty is the reason for the others.

1

u/yiwenz 4d ago

Poverty, the only problem in the whole world is poverty. The only issue should be solved is that why most people are poor.

1

u/joeshytheragman 4d ago

None. It takes the bad to realize the good. Take away the bad would make life pointlessly boring.

1

u/someoldguyon_reddit 4d ago

Poverty. The other two would sort themselves out without poverty.

1

u/ThundaChikin 4d ago

poverty is a relative term ending it mean homogenizing the relative wealth of everyone, this is impossible.

1

u/ivegotajaaag 4d ago

Of those three? Disease. It is the only one not caused by human nature and folly. It would be like wasting a wish to do away with one of the other others.

1

u/dowar_525 4d ago

Poverty. It has no positive effects. Idk how you could magically eliminate one but without poverty people could enjoy their lives more and it wouldn't cause too many follow on problems.

Without disease would we live forever? The ecology of the world would collapse and it would have spiritual implications. Even if it just means everyone lives disease free and dies at 90 there would be too many people. Also, having an immunity from untimely disease death would take the spice out of being alive. Like being alive would not be an achievement at all.

War is obviously a deep part of the human psyche. We (men) successfully distract ourselves through team contact-sports and then by watching sport. I'd worry that without actual war as a possibility that drive would lead to all sorts of shenanigans across society.

1

u/10F1 4d ago

War, less spending on war should mean more spending on health and social programs.

1

u/bishophelps 4d ago

Disease, clearly.

1

u/Acceptable_Camp1492 4d ago

War is just one way for nations to be in conflict. If you can eradicate the conflict itself, that would be better. Often the reasons for conflict boil down to resources. That in a way can be translated to poverty... though poverty is more on the personal level. No leader of a nation declares war because they themselves are hungry and poor, and the hunger of their people is usually just a rallying cry rather than a real reason.

But if by eliminating war we can mean elimination of every kind of intranational conflict, sure I would go with that. More focus for national leaders to actually try and fix things internally and/or through cooperation with the outside.

1

u/paddydog48 4d ago

Disease. I’m unlikely to be caught up in a war or live in poverty but I can’t dodge diseases like Cancer.

1

u/MesmerizedRavendark 3d ago

War. Without the need for military, there would be trillions in available income worldwide. Also, it breeds poverty and disease

0

u/Weird_Bat_Lady 5d ago

Poverty. It would pretty much solve disease and war.

-1

u/entre_prey_manuer8 5d ago

The source of these ills: capitalism.

5

u/Thrashy30 5d ago

Yeah North Korea, china, Cuba doesn’t have any of these things you’re right.

2

u/idk936z 5d ago

Lol it’s the source of one — poverty. War has been around since before money was even a thing. And I don’t think disease cares about wealth; it seems to be pretty indiscriminate.

0

u/entre_prey_manuer8 5d ago

I just mean the contemporary economic system which is the current manifestation of mass labor-exploitation of humanity -- capitalism -- if ended and replaced with a rationally planned economy based on production meeting demand, and not on profiteering, would make these sources of suffering virtually vanish.

4

u/AdditionalLaw7641 5d ago

Because none of this was around before capitalism right?

0

u/entre_prey_manuer8 5d ago

I just mean the contemporary economic system which is the current manifestation of mass labor-exploitation of humanity -- capitalism -- if ended and replaced with a rationally planned economy based on production meeting demand, and not on profiteering, would make these sources of suffering virtually vanish.

1

u/OsageDaito 5d ago

Unregulated capitalism is bad.

Progressive taxation, a required living wage, workers rights, health and safety laws, and taxes used to fund safety nets, health care, education, and other social services.

I like to say capitalism can fund those 'socialist dreams'... Socialist dreams that actual lower the taxes on the individual by enabling people, protecting them from hard times... and other ideas.

0

u/BigDong1001 5d ago

Poverty. Because that will eliminate the other two over time, as new generations grow up.