Would you rather have a cure for cancer or have everyone in the world be rich?

[Simslover92]

I would say cure for cancer for sure but having everyone in the world be rich could help people afford to get the best treatments for cancer. But it would never be a guarantee that the person would beat it so definitely cure for cancer.


The only thing I would worry about is the cure being affordable for everyone at first. It probably would not.

Cure for cancer

Everyone in the world be rich

[MannMitAntworten]

The cure for cancer. I know those suffering from cancer now would feel the same versus being rich. My parents who were well off would have preferred not to go the hell that cancer was for them and claimed them each nearly a year apart. I certainly rather have them around than to be rich.

[Simslover92]

I'm sorry.

[MannMitAntworten]

Thank you

[Simslover92]

You're welcome

[Anonymous]

You're right, if everyone is rich, they could help people afford to get the best treatments for cancer.

Cure for cancer would probably be too expensive, most people wouldn't be able to afford it.

[Simslover92]

Right. That's my biggest concern about having the cure for cancer. Yes it's there but is it accessible to everyone and that's the thing that people are not getting. If everyone were rich, they could afford the best treatments and probably catch it before it becomes really severe.

[Opinion Owner]

Exactly, great minds think alike.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

If everyone is rich, that would probably mean that everyone is poor considering how the dominant paradigm is to maintain a system based on inequalities in wealth distribution.

If we're all rich because we have found a viable alternative to social market or free market, then I'm voting for this TOTAL transformation of the world. As it has many more social implications than just curing cancer.

If we're all rich because we're all socially and economically equal and ruled by dictatorship of a single party, well... We've been here before right? I'm not voting for this world, no.

[Anonymous]

Everyone in the world can't be rich because then it would be like everyone being poor.

You think you would have a huge mansion, but who would build it? Who would do the plumbing? Who would clean your bathrooms and cook for you? Who would clean your pool? No one, because they're all "rich" too.

How would you get groceries? Who would farm the food? Drive it to the wholesalers? Distribute it to the local stores? Work at the local stores? Who would make your Starbucks or your Big Mac or wait on your table at a fancy restaurant? You go on big vacations, but who would fly the plane? Who would clean your hotel room or bring you room service?

[SotiCoto]

You assume that just because we live in a world where greed and survival are the only major motivations for work, that it would automatically be the same when those were no longer factors.

[wynning]

Hmm what if with enough rich people there's more of a communal... push? to do things only "the elite" could do before like sink money into finding and spreading cures?

It's a bit of a tinfoily take but I think there might be things that have been found already (not saying cancer cures are one of them) that we just... don't ALL know about...

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

No tinfoil yet, there's a logical reason why medicine would not go in a direction that isn't economically viable. That's why I think it's better when govs are funding the medical field, it ensures a better distribution of health care and it appeases medical field's fear to lose too much money.

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

I hope it doesn't offend your center-right ideas about economics 😝

[wynning]

Food for thought and the masses

[Maybe_Maybe_not]

[SotiCoto]

I'll put it this way: You're comparing a marginal reduction of death rate in a grossly overpopulated world... to complete income equality. Post-scarcity.
Obviously everyone in the world "being rich" is the correct answer. It isn't even close. Crime would drop by at least 90% across the world. It would be an actual freaking utopia. And you're trying to measure that against... a minor medical advancement. I say this as someone whose father and multiple grandparents, uncles and aunts have died of cancer: we don't need a cure for cancer. That is just life working the way it should.

[Likes2drive]

A cure for cancer because what good is wealth if you can’t enjoy it because you’re dying and in reality, not everybody could be rich in the world because who’s going to do all the menial jobs that don’t pay much. I can’t have Rich without having poor.

[strateguy632]

The poor get medicare anyway, long before obama care so they get treatments. No need to be rich. Middle class has insurance by our jobs.

[Simslover92]

Yeah but that cure is going to be expensive for even the middle class for a very long time. By the time it's accessible to all, it may be too late for many.

[Wemix]

Will there really be no dynamic of power if everyone is rich?

[Simslover92]

I guess not

[katiesmuff]

A cure for cancer and I think the vast majority of the population is like me where we don't care about being rich, but just to be able to have enough to be comfortable and happy. I also think are very very few very rich people who are truly happy.

[CupcakeTheDestroyer]

If everyone is rich, no one is. Capitalism would be undone and meaningless, which I’m personally all for lol

[Flower7]

Most people are too irresponsible to be wealthy without causing destruction. Money would be blown on foolish things and also on negative things such as drugs, alcohol, and paying for sex.

[Makeushiver]

I think that it is the character flaw; mostly greed. People accustomed to being wealthy, or the darker side of that, a need to feel they have power over peers. Greedy people don't have a number in mind for being wealthy, I think they only enjoy it when they have more than someone. Then that aggragates

[MemeSupreme]

cancer easily

the economy would just go to shit and what's considered rich would no longer be it

[EmmaMary]

@Simslover92

This is a complete and utter No Brainer...Cure For Cancer.

[TheSpaceGnome]

Fungus caused cancer already has cures, retroviral cancer can't be cured because of how they work, no other cancers exist, and rich is relative, so everyone being rich isn't possible.

[Berethor]

Care for cancer is better obviously, if everyone is rich then money lose it value.

[Makeushiver]

I don't think that everyone being rich would be possible since it would change the definition or at least the parameters

[Lynx122]

It's impossible for everyone to be rich, so cancer.

[AviatorTom]

Cancer cure. If everyone in the world is rich, then, by definition, everyone is also poor.

[ShannynSteen]

Definitely a cure for cancer so that everyone can one day be rich.

[exitseven]

Cure for cancer. Then I would be rich. Screw everyone else.

[Babygirl_S]

Whoever wants everyone to be rich is an idiot. Not everyone has the class to handle that much power.

[Briennette]

Cure for cancer. Thing is, if everyone is rich, then no one is.

[KostasKouvalis]

I'll cure the cancer. Having everyone be rich would be boring and not a good thing.

[PeterLegg91]

Money ain't everything, health is more important, so I'll say cure for cancer

[queenofcardio]

Cure for cancer

[NathanDavis]

money is a disease...

[Nikki1989]

Cure for cancer.

[jazzy34]

The former, of course,

[Alex-Snow]

Cure for cancer any day

[WonderingManII]

Cure for cancer

[wkhan_87]

Obviously first option

[Dongie]

Yep! 100%