Solve world hunger or cure cancer?

[ElissaDido]

Fuck Cancer

Let them Eat Cake

[popsickle]

These questions make me so uncomfortable because by picking you save lives and let go others' lives. All of it sucks. If we were to objectify this, you would probably save more people in the world currently by solving world hunger though in the future, it may be by curing cancer. Regardless, most of us in the 1st world probably will have a loved one with cancer if not already so it's more personal to most of us to cure cancer.

[vishna]

World hunger is the most pressing issue in my mind...*30 years in the future-fuck*

[lumos]

Realistically you save more people by solving world hunger, so I'd go with that.

[SinghSong]

World hunger has already been 'solved'. Problem is that, on account of our capitalist society, we still have hundreds of millions of poor people starving, while we have well over a billion well-off people who are obese or morbidly obese, on account of stuffing their faces with more than their fair share. As such, I'd go with curing cancer- at least it'd make a difference.

[Tanuron]

I remember that part from the game :). Think I choose feed the hungry, so they can live long enough to get cancer at least, lol. Sounds bad, but is a good point anyway.

[ElissaDido]

HAHAHAAH I like the way you think lmao xD

[mistixs]

Same.

Cancer happens at a much later age than hunger/starvation.

[Tanuron]

Thank you xD

[Tanuron]

@mistixs Usally does yes, so ya true.

[mistixs]

If substantial food can be given to starving people, then they can use the rest of their lifespan to work to help the cause to end cancer.

With people who have cancer, they usually wouldn't have many years ahead of them anyway, even if their cancer was cured. So vice versa (them being much more likely to help out the hungry) wouldn't be quite as true.

[Tanuron]

@mistixs Yup, my thoughts exactly :). Awesome you truly get it :) *thumbs up if could* :)

[Phoenix98]

I'd rather cure cancer as solving world hunger is a much more easier task scientifically.

Plus a lot of farmers actually suffer from cancer from pesticides that seep into the soil and contaminate the water. So if a lot of the farmers die or are to sick to farm, then how are you going fix world hunger hmm?

[BubbleBoy69]

But curing cancer is easy too.

[Phoenix98]

@BubbleBoy69 To a degree yeah but the problem is companies don't want to, so I would still choose to cure it anyway so that somebody does it, then cure the farmers and you can focus on saving the world from hunger, even though it really wouldn't be that hard, the main issue isn't the lack of food it's the corrupt governments like in the horn of africa who instead choose to feed their citizens drugs instead of food. My father was deployed there and that's what he saw, food carts on every corner selling drugs like they were Popsicle or ice cream.

They could choose to feed their people but that wouldn't be profitable to them plus a drugged nation is a easy to control nation.

[AleDeEurope]

World hunger. There's more people dying from starvation, or falling ill because of not eating enough.

[JohnDoe3000]

Cancer is mostly a problem for old and unhealthy people in rich countries (who would just get some other illness if they were cured of cancer, because they are old and unhealthy). Hunger affects mostly children in poor countries.

I think getting rid of hunger would save more years of life for people between today and the day hunger would have gotten solved in some other way than getting rid of cancer would between today and the day cancer gets cured in some other way.

[Yumix]

it's a difficult one

world hunger is definitely a bigger problem - but we could solve that one already if we wanted. But I'll still choose it because children are much more affected by it and politics will never solve it. Science will take care of cancer, and they are much more reliable than politicians

[GingerGuy]

Cancer for sure. There is plenty of food in the world (just look at what restaurants throw out daily in the trash) so world hunger shouldn't be an issue. Not sure why it is. Like everything else, all comes down to money.

[samhradh_leannan]

Hunger affects far more people, so I'd have to go with that one.

[JudgmentDay]

Even you were allowed to choose both, both of them aren't not enough.

Why not just toss a coin and decide between heads or tails?

Heads - Cure Cancer
Tails - feed Hunger

Or vice versa, you get what I mean.

[posted]

Cancer, overpopulation is kept in check by hunger honestly, it's shitty but giving everyone food and saying fuck like rabbits just causes more hunger.

[bilove]

why do either? the world is already over populated so it would just accelerate the end of the world! besides i think if you cure cancer that surely something worse will eventually take its place

[Spiorad_Aisce]

Wow that is so tough - I am going pure numbers - I am assuming a lot more are hungry or will be hungry than have or will have cancer.

[BrieLove]

I know hunger is a real problem but cancer can't be stopped. Plus cancer kills way more and faster so get rid of cancer

[Dingsbums]

Hunger is a bigger issue I think because scientist are already working on this cancer problem and I'm sure that we are able to find a good cure in the future

[TheOneLol]

I think solve Cancer first. World Hunger is actually easy to solve. Just convince the stupid US to spend less on war and trying to control other middle eastern countries and they will have enough money to solve it all.

[AzureGirl]

Ugh I hated this choice in Saint's Row.

I chose cancer. Because screw cancer.

[ThisDudeHere]

Since curing cancer seems the more plausible one, I'll go with that.

[Ephemera1]

Cure cancer... I'm not sure if I selected the right one in the poll though

[genericname85]

cure cancer. cause that´s not possible already, while feeding the hungry is just a political problem while being easily possible.

[4465loveyou5577]

I'm not sure but I do my part for both

I'm vegan (requires less resources)
And I'm going to school to be a mammotech <3

[soccerchick4eva]

you save more with the hunger, so i'd go with that :(

[Whizzy83]

Let them fuck starve for having too many fucking baby's.