If given the choice, Would you rather Cure Cancer or eradicate World Hunger forever?

[PSqueak]

Was thinking the other day about the hilarious Opening Act of Saints Row 4 where your character becomes president and in a parody of "choices" in videogames the very first plot choice the game presents you is choosing between signing a Bill that would find the cure of cancer or one to end world hunger.

Now, like all these sort of threads, let's say you're presented with this choice, the logistics of it don't matter, they just work, Cancer would be gone or every single person in the world would have access to nutritious food, for free, any time, forever. It doesn't matter which one you choose, lives would be saved for it, but what you don't choose will still be a world problem.

What do you choose? Why?

 

[Officer Big Mac]

Hunger. The numbers probably make this a no contest.

 

[Gustaf]

cure cancer

the world hunger can be actually addressed on a really tangible way today.

we have stuck on a cancer cure for decades.

 

[Pokiehl]

Hunger easily. We all die and get diseases, but dying and suffering of hunger is a huge inequity that has no reason to exist.

 

[Transistor]

World hunger easily. It affects far more.

 

[Dest]

As they say in Saints Row 4, fuck cancer.

 

[NineConsonants]

If your goal is to save lives, the obvious answer is world hunger. Food is a basic need for survival. Food being readily available doesn't only save lives. It also advances civilization as more people can be freed from doing agriculture/ranching work.

 

[Spidey]

We may never be able to cure cancer outright, there are obvious solutions for ending world hunger even if it's unlikely to happen, so I'd cure cancer.

 

[AlteredBeast]

We could already cure world hunger... It would require deposing despots and controlling the distribution chains, but there is definitely enough food to go around if we willed it to be so.

Cancer on the other hand is not a monolith, what works treatment-wise for one type of cancer does jack shit against another, and so on.

So "curing cancer" would be the obvious choice.

 

[Shodan14]

Hunger. The numbers probably make this a no contest.

Click to shrink...

You'd be very wrong.

 

[robot]

Hunger. Hunger kills a lot more young people than cancer (I would imagine). Also more people not dying from hunger means more people trying to figure out cancer.

 

[Detective Loki]

Cancer because world hunger is easily fixed by doing away with military spending.

 

[Strangelove_77]

Cancer.

 

[KorrZ]

Cancer. It's something that ends so many lives early and we still haven't found a cure or really effective treatment.

World hunger doesn't need some magic to fix, it could literally be solved today, just needs to will to achieve it.

 

[KarmaCow]

Starvation affects more people, is (and will be even more so) the source of more strife in the world but is more solvable right now than cancer.

But I'm going with starvation if it means that one of them must persist.

 

[Replicant]

Cancer without question. Hunger is 100% curable now. Cancer isn't.

 

[The Archon]

Hunger

 

[Lumination]

Hunger is a policy problem. Cancer is a huge unsolved mystery.

 

[The Adder]

We actually have the ability to end world hunger, people are simply too greedy to actually do anything about it or, when people do do something about it, too greedy to not try to profit off of it. We might someday get that under control.

There's no guarantee that there is a cure for cancer, let alone that we'll find it.

 

[Officer Big Mac]

You'd be very wrong.

Click to shrink...

Quick Google:

Worldwide there will be 27.5 million new cases of cancer each year by 2040.

Some 795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life

 

[Alienous]

Can I hold the cure for cancer hostage until the world gets its shit together and solves world hunger?

 

[NineConsonants]

So many people in here saying we already have fixes for world hunger are very wrong. Food is traded. Even if we have a surplus, it doesn't mean it is distributed to the needy. Many people around the world are not within proximity to resources that assist. Many people are trapped in less opportunistic situations because of the lack of food. Many nations are less influential or advanced because of the lack of food. Why would you ever try and cure an obscure disease instead of the most important thing you need to survive?

 

[Phrozenflame500]

easily hunger. eliminating food insecurity would be massive for the developing world and would have large positive side-effects for those economies

curing cancer might also have positive knock-on effects beyond just saving lives though, not familiar enough to say.

 

[Johnny Blaze]

every single person in the world would have access to nutritious food, for free, any time, forever

Click to shrink...

Hunger 100%, if food is free forever, nobody has to work to survive, everyone could work on a cure for cancer.

 

[littleredcatcher]

Hunger could be dealt it, but I don't trust humankind to ever do it, so hunger it is.

Cancer at least attracts research and money since it affects rich people.

 

[Xando]

Cancer. Much easier to solve world hunger if you throw money at it.

 

[Z-Beat]

Hunger is technically already doable, so curing cancer

 

[Chojin]

Hunger. Its a no brainer.

 

[mbpm]

People can at least beat Cancer and they are trying to come up with ways to beat it, but you can't beat hunger. Also yeah, numbers.

 

[NineConsonants]

I wonder how much people's position in life affects their answer here. If you're living in a well-developed nation with even basic income, you don't have much fear of starving. But the looming threat of cancer is always above you. Cancer kills indiscriminately. Seems like that is a big reason for people's decision and less so how many people would actually be benefited, not only just by surviving, but improving nations.

 

[Sephzilla]

Cancer, simply because we could actually stop world hunger right now if we'd pull our heads out of our asses

 

[MegaManX9]

Curing cancer, because it's much more difficult to do so.

 

[Kinggroin]

Cancer.

 

[Moff]

cancer because I am selfish and cancer might affect people close to me, hunger won't.
I also believe that if we solved hunger it would be back sooner or later as it's a political problem, cancer once cured will be gone for good.

 

[Deleted member 55445]

I can't even remember the choice I picked in game but I played it years ago so my views have probably changed since then. It's a matter of population mostly. If you cure either one of them the population will keep climbing and we'd have to expand to other planets eventually. Also the specifics complicate the question further. Would cancer just not exist anymore or would it still occur but there would be an easy cure for it? The hunger problem could be solved by expanding to other worlds. So curing cancer would be far more useful in an ideal world where we've already mastered space travel and can just keep growing food and feeding people all over the galaxy.

 

[Deleted member 22750]

Hunger "can already be addressed" doesn't mean people care enough to put a plan in order to actually fix it.

 

[The Emperor]

Cancer. It's a no brainer.

 

[Pelicano]

Hunger easily. Then they can get cancer like the rest of us.

 

[Snack12367]

Depends. Cancer isn't just one thing. Cancer is a combination of lots of illnesses and diseases that cause the dormant cancer cells in your body to go wack. So curing cancer, actually cures a lot of other things.

 

[Nivash]

Curing cancer will cause hunger. Cure hunger instead.

 

[SweetNicole]

Cancer has, as far as we know, no solution yet. World hunger is solvable through already existing technology and policies. While I doubt it would ever actually be implemented, it could be implemented in the future if people come together. Whereas no matter how much people come together, cancer could simply have no cure. I'd choose cancer for that reason.

 

[WascallyWabbit]

Hunger, easily.
I think the effect it has on children and development is huge and the world would be a vastly different place if every kid could grow up food secure

 

[diakyu]

World Hunger because it will always be an issue. I believe one day we will be over the cancer hurdle, maybe not soon, but one day we will. You guys picking cancer sure are confident about humanity being all around good and helping with world hunger and not resorting to the "fuck you, got mine" mentality we see everyday.

 

[Sunster]

The world would advance so much and very quickly if no one worried about hunger. Cancer would probably be cured within a decade.

 

[striderno9]

I say cancer because of how dehumanizing it can be but...

 

[Chopchop]

Hunger. Hunger is way easier to do, but it also causes a lot more death than cancer.

 

[captive]

world hunger. various forms of cancers already have cures and treatments and there is tons of funding being put into it.
Solving world hunger could be done by a single billionaire, yet no one gives a fuck.

 

[asmith906]

Cure cancer. Hunger can be addressed by other means.

 

[NineConsonants]

I say cancer because of how dehumanizing it can be but...

Click to shrink...

Slowly starving to death as the rest of the world exchanges food for business and ignores you is a lot more dehumanizing.

 

[Replicant]

Cancer, simply because we could actually stop world hunger right now if we'd pull our heads out of our asses

Click to shrink...

Eradicating world hunger would involve much more than economic and military policy changes. Humanity would have to take a real hard look at population control. Which also ties directly into Climate Change.

So I expect nothing to change with hunger.