Amazon.com Widgets

Can we get world peace by eradicating humans?

Asked by: Ali.B
  • The best way to prevent violence is to kill all humans

    If we killed all humans there would be no more humans to cause war and violent crime. In order to prevent this continued cycle of violence we need to kill all humans. After 99% of humans are the dead the last person alive will have to commit suicide so the world and its creatures can finally live in peace!

  • Humans are the main reason we don't have peace!

    The best example to use are wars. Humans are involved in all wars and we do it for competition. Because of our higher intelligence than other animals, we have developed things like weapons to allow heavy bloodshed. Humans are the source of all global issues like poverty, violence, slavery etc. Without humans, none of this would be possible and a peaceful Earth would be achieved.

  • This would be getting rid of the problem.

    Some people are completely over thinking this problem. This is about world peace, by whatever means necessary. It isn't about what is better for us. Even if we came up with a solution for peace everywhere, someone somewhere would come up with a petty excuse to start a war. It is just human nature. And a lot of people are saying "What about peace for animals?" To quote Lion King, "It's the circle of life!!!" animals eating other animals, reproducing, doing their thing. At least they aren't dumping waste from little animal factories into rivers, and raping and killing innocent people. At least they aren't as messed up as we are. Just take a look at the news every once in a while, you'll see.

  • The Georgia Guidestones

    No the entire human race should not be eradicated, look up The Georgia Guidestones, it says we need to lower the human population to 500,000,000 to maintain perpetual balance with the earth. Besides would you like to have to see a mass slaughter, knowing that you, too, are going there in the very near future? How would we decide to do this? Would all the worlds leaders get together? People will revolt against this if they decide yes.

  • Marvel Comics says so!

    Although Ultron first appears in Avengers #54 (1968), the character is disguised for the majority of the issue as the Crimson Cowl, with his face only revealed on the last page of the issue and no name given to the character. The character leads the Masters of Evil against the Avengers, having hypnotized Edwin Jarvis into working for him. In the following issue, #55 (Aug. 1968), the character is identified as Ultron-5, the living automaton, although his origin is still unknown.[3] In Avengers 57 - 58 (Oct-Nov. 1968) in a flashback sequence it is revealed that Ultron is the creator of the "synthezoid" Vision whom it tries to use as a weapon to destroy the Avengers. The Vision—similar to Wonder Man, whose brain patterns he was given—however, destroys Ultron with the aid of the Avengers.[4]

    Further flashbacks reveal that Ultron is the creation of Hank Pym, and based on Pym's brain patterns. The robot gradually developed its own intelligence and rebelled, and almost immediately develops an Oedipus Complex, whereby it feels irrational hatred for his "father" Hank, and demonstrates an interest in Hank's lover Janet van Dyne, the Wasp. Rebuilding itself, learning how to turn itself on, and upgrading five times, Ultron then hypnotizes Pym and brainwashes him into forgetting that the robot had ever existed.[5]

    The character's next appearance is in Avengers #66 – 68 (July – Sept. 1969), where the character, now referring to itself as Ultron-6, uses the fictional alloy adamantium to upgrade its body to an almost indestructible state and takes the new name Ultimate Ultron. Its plans to destroy humanity are again thwarted by the Avengers.[6]

  • A Means to an End

    Not exactly an ideal choice, but if this were somehow able to happen, it would be effective in restoring peace. Peace is not necessarily a lack of harm and death, but rather lack of unnecessary violence. Yes, animals would still kill other animals, but that's just life. Besides, animals don't commit genocide, both of their own race and that of others. Animals don't destroy their homes, and animals certainly don't treat other animals with disrespect and ignorance.

    Posted by: mxsl
  • I Think Yes

    Humans are the reasons for a lot of the earth's problems. If we were all dead, then those problems would eventually be solved. We are eradicating at least 137 species of animals and plants every day. If all humans on the earth were dead, this would be definately fixed. :)

  • Materialism is the concern

    Eradicating Human is the most insane thing to be taken as option. Every human is not destroying our planet. It is the bunch of few brutes who either exploits or destroys the mother earth in the form of terrorism and trade purpose. Earth without social animals such as us is just not the option. In our prehistoric times we use to live only for food. People those days were not that materialistic. It is just the evolutionary phrase that has gone wrong with the development of human attitude towards earth. Humans have developed themselves more rapidly and intellectually as compared to other animals but somewhere down the line the materialism has sucked the humans due to which everything is going against the nature for whatever progress we humans make towards our way of life. So the matter of concern is the attitude towards the so called "blue planet". If we prioritize our concept of hedging the earth from our materialistic hunger then the things can come up with positive outlook. Nations should come together first to shoot out the terror and then to shoot out the desires of exploiting people.

  • What is peace for?

    Apart the fact that the pro should define world peace, what will it be for if all humans are dead? Why do we need world peace? To have humans live happily together, no killing each other, no wars. That's why we need peace. What good is an empty, peaceful planet?

  • What’s left will still fight.

    If we kill all humans then obviously humans won’t be doing any more fighting. However, animals will continue to hunt each other, fight for territory, and compete for resources. If “peace” is defined only on human terms, then of course no humans means no humans fighting. If we “peace” is defined as a lack of conflict then even without people conflict will remain.

  • What's the point?

    What is the point of world peace if no one is around to enjoy it? Isn't the point of world peace that we all live in harmony and aren't violent toward one another. It also depends on your definition of world peace, weather or not there are human wars or all conflict ending between all animals? This would also require a great act of violence or destruction that would be anything but peaceful. If your definition is the end of all conflict between animals, carnivorous animals would die and the animals dependent on them would die too leaving no creatures around and causing mass death and devastation.

  • The Georgia Guidestones

    No the entire human race should not be eradicated, look up The Georgia Guidestones, it says we need to lower the human population to 500,000,000 to maintain perpetual balance with the earth. Besides would you like to have to see a mass slaughter, knowing that you, too, are going there in the very near future? How would we decide to do this? Would all the worlds leaders get together? People will revolt against this if they decide yes.

  • Phase IV again.

    If humanity up and died, then the world would fall to the ants. No longer constrained by human poison warfare, the ants could rush the rest of the world. The end result would be entire continents swarming with ants. With few to no natural predators save other, bigger ants, and the odd spider, the Tyranids would eventually scour the rest of the world of biomass.

  • The people who said yes are the next generation of Hitler

    Are the people saying yes trolling or just suicidal? Everyone who is saying yes is basically saying they want peace through mass murder/suicides. Yes there are people who are evil, manipulative, exploit others and take advantage of their environment but what about all the nice people who do everything to progress society? Should we just throw them in a incinerator too? Even if humans happen to get eradicated, it still isn't going to be world peace. Do you really think that after all the humans die that all the predators are going to just stop eating and all the animals are going to just be cool with each other?

  • Nope under no circumstances.

    Annihilating the human race does not fix for nature's imperfections. Animal predators will essentially display the same territorial, dominant behavior as to humans but only with less extremity. If one truly wants an ideal "world peace", you have to address all aspects but it, not just the primary contributer (humans).

  • This argument is non logical.

    What is world peace? For animals, there is no such thing, there is just the way.
    They kill each other for meat and to continue living, but can be loving animals.
    (stupid) Humans kill each other for money, greed, power, but we can also be loving.

    We are fully capable of becoming peaceful, but it starts from your heart. No amount of world peace campaigns will truly change the evil hearts in this world, that is the truth. The evil hearts must become good, and that is when we will have world peace.

  • The question is self-defeating

    "We" cannot get world peace by eliminating the "we." That's basically all I need to answer the question, but I'll explain using more specific terms. Humans cannot receive world peace if all humans are dead. Was that a little more clear?

    Even still, will the world have peace when humans are gone? The answer is no, because there are a lot of animals we call carnivores. Other animals will continue to kill each other if humans are gone. It's actually healthy. Can you imagine what would happen to the world of no one was around to eat bunnies? Dear god, I don't even want to think about that.

    To conclude the question is self-defeating, and also "no."


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
BillyBobbyIII says2015-03-08T19:37:45.163
I mean if you got rid of all but one sure there would be plenty of peace on the world but hey thats a little besides the point.