{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/7/2014 9:54:28 PM
64
Cure cancer OR end world hunger?
I was once asked a very controversial, yet interesting question.
[b]If you had the power, and could only choose one, would you either cure cancer, or end world hunger? [/b]
Leave your answer and reasoning.
-
Cure cancer easily.
-
Edited by Im Panther Land: 8/8/2014 2:09:37 AMCancer Hunger is already curable gg wp
-
[quote][url=http://www.globalissues.org/article/8/solving-world-hunger-means-solving-world-poverty]The current Summit (World Food Summit: Fives Years Later) was called by the United Nations to examine why hunger persists despite the 1996 Plan of Action. Progress has lagged by at least 60% behind the goals for the first five years, and today conditions are worsening in much of the world. Without a drastic reorientation of policies, it will be impossible to meet the 2015 goal, and hunger may actually increase. While official documents prepared for the meeting decry a “lack of will” and call for “more resources” to be directed at reducing hunger, the fact is that more fundamental changes are needed.[/url][/quote] the problem that you would have to get rid of poverty as well, and there are those who either won't work or can't spend their money wisely in order to make a living.
-
End world hunger, use influx of thankful people that want to help medicine as test subjects for medications for cancer, cure cancer in a few years. Obviously, they'd have to be willing to go through the dangers of untested medication, or have cancer before they could be tested on. Volunteer only, as well.
-
This was asked in the beginning of Saints Row IV and I said Cancer I think
-
Hunger is a bigger issue, and we have treatments for cancer.
-
We already have treatments for cancer. Food is a problem that is going to get worse as time goes on with rising sea levels and increasing population meaning less land to farm on.
-
Cure world hunger because there are a crap load more starving people in the world than there are cancer patients and most cancer can be cut out of you anyway. Also, people say that world hunger can be solved. Yeah, CAN be solved. The problem is that it'll never be solved cause people are to selfish. One day cancer will have a cure.
-
Cancer, because it killed 5 members of my family including my little sister
-
I know lets let all the hungry people starve to death instead of barley keeping them alive and cure cancer. YAY I'm a terrible human! cx
-
Lol its exactly 50/50
-
Damn, OP, that is one tough choice. Both could eventually be ended, and both are major causes for worldwide suffering. I'm at a loss to choose.
-
3 RepliesWorld hunger that's major cancer is to but cancer doesn't kill instantly it takes a time. I think its about the children.
-
2 RepliesCure cancer and then nuke all countries with really bad hunger problems so we won't have to deal with them, screw human rights
-
The cure to cancer will come eventually. Rich people giving up tremendous chunks of their money to feed those scrawny black kids in Ethiopia or Chicago won't. So, given the choice, solve world hunger.
-
Edited by pogokitten: 8/8/2014 2:36:01 PMThere are a crap load more starving people in the world than there are cancer patients and most cancer can be cut out of you anyway. Also, people say that world hunger can be solved. Yeah, CAN be solved. The problem is that it'll never be solved cause people are to selfish. One day cancer will have a cure.
-
Save yourself or help others basically
-
Let natural selection run its course.
-
4 RepliesWorld Hunger, think of all the people who would be free to pursue academic routes and possibly discover cures for all kinds of diseases, invent new technologies and have their countries boom into first world nations. Solving world hunger would rapidly speed up the time between potential cures for cancer arising <.< Or any other horrible disease for that matter.
-
Cancer, world hunger can be solved.
-
>End world hunger >Formerly hungry countries have one less problem to deal with >More countries become first-world >More people to cure cancer >Cancer is kill Or something like that.
-
3 RepliesEdited by qy: 8/7/2014 11:36:55 PMHunger kills FAR more people. Idk why people are answering cancer. Plus, solve world hunger and you get more doctors to help cure cancer
-
3 RepliesCancer; world hunger will just resurface as soon as people get poor again.
-
1 ReplyMore people die from hunger. The needs of the many outneed the needs of the few
-
Cancer. Because when/if I get it (which feels likely considering everyone knows someone who's had it) I'd like to be able to have it cured. Curing hunger won't prevent people in poor countries from getting aids or contracting diseases from doing retarded things. Like eating bushmeat and spreading the Ebola virus around or drinking from water sources where you bring your live stock to go potty. -_- these people usually have a combination of stuff going on.
-
Hunger. People are already living much longer than the Earth can sustain. Curing cancer would mean that more people would live to be older which would help accelerate population growth and further our trip across the line of Earths carrying capacity for humans. Curing hunger on the other hand doesn't explicitly keep more people alive longer. At minimum, it provides them with a better quality of life. Ending world hunger also wouldn't result in as many people living longer such as curing cancer would.
