Honie Briggs

Statistics show people live longer, 100% longer in fact, when they aren’t killed in battle. Statistics also show that doing battle over the last acre of land is way less productive than doing battle over the last chocolate chip cookie. Typically a battle for the last chocolate cookie results in one party enjoying a chewy, chocolaty delight and the other party just crying like a baby, whereas a battle for land results in both parties eating dirt.

How is this a rational act?

Eating chocolate is better than eating dirt for many reasons. One really good reason is that eating dirt is disgusting. Eating chocolate, even when it does melt in your hands, is something like ten thousand times better than eating dirt. I don’t have the exact figures from an actual study, but I think it is somewhere around ten thousand.

Now, let’s say for the sake of argument, because the sake of argument seems to be pretty damned important to people these days, let’s say that someone thinks that eating dirt is a price worth paying for control over a piece of land and all of the resources on, above, or beneath said land. I submit to you the counter argument that even if said land can be cultivated to provide an abundance of chocolate for the entire population within its geographic boundaries, meaning adjacent lakes, rivers, streams, mountains, deserts, frozen tundra, forests and other naturally occurring lines of demarcation traditionally considered to be boundaries NOT some contrived boundary based on a mythology or tyrannical seizure, eating dirt is still not in any way whatsoever a price worth paying for said land.

Furthermore, dirt has been known to harbor toxins. What properties does chocolate harbor, you ask? Well, I’m glad you asked because I am an expert on the properties of chocolate. Chocolate harbors life-giving, soul satisfying, harmonious and orgasmic properties. I’m not making this up. Have you ever seen anyone making an angry face while eating chocolate? No, I bet you haven’t. Have you ever been injured for offering to share a chocolate bar with a stranger? I don’t think so. See, that’s proof positive twice in a row right there that chocolate is good for humanity.

Maybe instead of battle tested war horses distributing weapons through back channels until every side is sick to death of mass casualties, it would be better to step in before a conflict arises and distribute a hundred million or so chocolate chip cookies. It is a known fact that chocolate calms the savage beast. Yes, it is so a fact!

You know what is better than a battle royale? Royal fudge ice cream. You know what is better than a sneak attack on dusty road? Rocky road ice cream. What’s better than spraying toxic chemicals? Chocolate sprinkles. Just think how much worldwide outrage could be prevented if people were free to dedicate their lives to chocolatarian pursuits! Think of the strategies that might be developed to maintain a high quality of silky smooth deliciousness or the joy of never ceasing such an endeavor until your last chocolate laden breath was drawn.

There are alternatives to war. All we have to do is make a concerted effort to give them a chance. Of course it will take more than chocolate to keep people from killing each other over territory and resources, but what if someone, anyone, took the first step, made the first move, offered a single option? Why, besides severe brain damage, would human beings, who possess enough intellect to achieve greatness worthy of praise, choose to eat dirt instead of chocolate?  What is better than chocolate? Peace perhaps.