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

[soccerchick4eva]

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

[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

[Whizzy83]

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

[Tomsta]

Curing cancer will have a greater beneficial impact

[TylerKuykendall]

Hunger's a much worse way to die than cancer, so solve world hunger.

[DamnCurtis]

Fuck cancer.

Just pops outta nowhere and fucks with people.

[Ydude]

Solve world hunger, because there are already cures for cancer buy they are just being repressed

[Anonymous]

Neither. The world is already overpopulated. We don't need to make it worse.

[Waffles731]

Cancer but its a REALLY hard choice

[Mesonfielde]

Curing cancer is far more important.

[lumos]

How is it more important?

[Mesonfielde]

@lumos I have a friend, he's quite the genius really, yet he has leukemia

A more efficient and less intrusive "cure" than chemotherapy would be quite useful for the Western world

... and world hunger wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue if the places where people can barely afford to sustain themselves wouldn't be having so many kids that they're unable to provide for, so it's pretty much a problem they cause for themselves.

[lumos]

It's not a problem they cause for themselves, that's how poverty works. They're uneducated, usually don't have access to birth control. It's also very common for people in such cultures where poverty is a huge thing to feel like kids make their lives complete - family is very much a focal point in their lives. Even if it does put a strain on them due to lack of resources. Not to mention that sexual assault is more common in these places, many women are forced to give birth due to the fact that they might not have access to safe abortions, and it goes against their beliefs. It's not as simple as "oh they're just fucking around and causing this problem themselves", it's about poverty, social constructs, lack of education, lack of access to birth control and safe abortions etc.

[mistixs]

A very large percentage of women who give birth in those countries, were impregnated due to rape.

And it's not the children's fault that they were born into hunger.

Regardless, even in the case of consensual sex, the reason that they have kids in those countries is precisely because they can barely sustain themselves, so they want kids, so that the kids can help them out.

[Mesonfielde]

@lumos @mistixs thanks for verifying that THEIR problems are nowhere nearly as much a priority as essentially finding the next "antibiotics"-level medical technology breakthrough for the slightly more civilized part of the world, where most kids aren't born from rape into a family that cannot sustain its own children.

The cure for cancer is much more important.

[mistixs]

Most people who die from cancer are old, so even if their cancer was cured, they don't have much more life to live.
By contrast, if you cure hunger, then you're saving the lives of many children who have their whole lives ahead of them, who can use their rescued lives to help develop a cure for cancer.

[Mesonfielde]

@mistixs My friend with leukemia is 20.

I'd say that's not exactly "old".

[mistixs]

I'm talking in generalities

[Mesonfielde]

@mistixs In terms of generalities, the Western world is far more important than the Africans, because the people here suffering from cancer are educated individuals.

[mistixs]

1) The people in Africa can *become* educated if they had enough nourishment and opportunities.

2) There are plenty of people hungry/starving in the Western world too.

[lumos]

"thanks for verifying that THEIR problems are nowhere nearly as much a priority"
Not once did I say or imply that. I asked you out of curiosity, but then you went on to basically say that "it's their own fault" which it isn't, so I wanted to let you know how and why it's out of their control, essentially. If world hunger was ended and they got access to food and clean water, resources and time could me focused on getting them an education, cleaning up their countries and making sure that people have access to birth control and abortions. Then the birth rates would slowly decrease. I'm not trying to argue about the actual question asker posted, and I'm not saying you shouldn't choose to prioritize a cure for cancer. I'm merely trying to educate you on what poverty means and how much it affects different aspects of people's lives, not just "oh they don't have money, that's all".

[lumos]

could be focused*

[Mesonfielde]

@mistixs People in the Western world have enough nourishment and opportunities, yet people still end up being homeless on the street with NO ONE who's willing to help them.

The Republic of South Africa is doing just fine, and they're also in Africa.

[Mesonfielde]

@lumos It's true, the lack of clean water IS a problem :/

I'd say I'd be willing to choose that over the cure for cancer; the ability to create pure water globally.

But world hunger is not as concerning to me as cancer.

[YourFutureEx]

Don't believe 'em. I belong to a place where poverty, hunger and overpopulation is a major problem. They are certainly not raped. They reproduce so fucking much.

While I may agree with them that they don't opt for abortion but government supplies free condoms in civil hospitals. They're just lazy.

[Mustachekitteh]

Curing cancer

[PinkT15]

Definitely cure cancer.

[Dred1614]

I'd choose to cure cancer.

[colourz]

Getting virgins laid >

[donjovi10]

Which game is it?

I think I've seen it?

[ElissaDido]

Saints Row 4

[Anonymous]

Did you finish playing this game?

[hotstuffSRD]

Ok I'll think and then :P
I'll get back to you 😶

[Anonymous]

Cancer because there is a cure for hunger. Food

[JamesDylan1990]

Cancer.

Can't eat when you are dead

[GogetaThaGod]

Damn not sure which is more beneficial

[Relentless_Hippie]

I'd cure cancer

[Anonymous]

What game is this from?

[Beautifiedgirl123]

Solve world hunger

[Tarnygosh]

World hunger

[anonman32]

cure cancer

[COCOCHANEL]

i'd cure cancer

[Decentguy]

solve world hunger

[Yanoa_Yanza]

cake cke cake :3

[babeeeone]

Cure cancer

[SatyricLord]

Right Trigger.