Reply to Greg’s Post

In reply to Greg’s response about the fact that there are many world issues and that they need to be solved as soon as possible, I couldn’t have agreed more with his statement. However I feel differently about them all being equally important for a few reasons. The main reason I disagree with the statement is that one issue has to be more important than the other. For example there are many parts of the world that have a wide spread case of hunger. Now hunger is an important issue but it’s not as important as say a nuclear threat to that same part of the world. This is simply because if the nuclear threat became reality and actually happened then there wouldn’t be much point in solving the hunger issue anymore. So what I am saying is as important of an issue that hunger is a nuclear threat would be more important to solve, so world issues need to be put in an order of importance so we can live to see the other issues be resolved.

Now the choice Greg chose, as the most important was a good choice since biological warfare is an important issue that needs to be resolved once and for all. The reason I would have to agree is that it is in most cases very deadly. Also it is a good choice in the fact that it can also spread very quickly and kill in mass numbers. I also agree with the fact that if these issues were to be resolved that the numbers of deaths and diseases would be greatly decreased. Another thing that I would have to agree with is that one chemical weapon could very easily wipeout a large population and even change the state of the world as we know it now and if some countries secretly have biological weapons it could be bad since they do spread quite quickly and are quite severe. Those are some of my opinions about Greg’s topic.