View Poll Results: Fuck Cancer or Let Them Eat Cake? Spend the resources on...
Curing cancer. 26 42.62%
Ending world hunger. 35 57.38%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
#1
Old 10-03-2014, 05:42 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
End world hunger vs. cure cancer

Aka I've been playing Saint's Row IV again. Early on, you, the president, are given the choice to cure all forms cancer and eliminate it forever, or feed the hungry and make sure nobody goes hungry again.

You only have the resources for one. Which is the right one to choose?
#2
Old 10-03-2014, 05:46 PM
Charter Member
Charter Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany/Corvallis, OR
Posts: 4,233
I'm not finding a cite now, but my understanding is that a complete cure for all forms of cancer would only raise life expectancy across the world by a small amount--a year or two. Hunger kills the young, and can permanently disable even those it doesn't kill. Hunger in a heartbeat.
#3
Old 10-03-2014, 05:46 PM
Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 22,851
End hunger.

(But...ah...does that mean we get to reproduce insanely without limit, knowing we'll always be magically fed? Or does it come with reproductive limits built in? I'd want to know the details.)

Meanwhile, right now, at our stage of understanding, cancer is largely preventable, detectable, and treatable. If we never got any better at it at all, we've still put huge limits on its ability to harm.
#4
Old 10-03-2014, 05:48 PM
Guest
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,945
Cure cancer first. Because cancer doesn't know from young or old, rich or poor, fed or hungry. Then deal with world hunger. Which will suddenly become a bigger issue with a population generally healthier and living longer.
#5
Old 10-03-2014, 05:58 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
End hunger.

(But...ah...does that mean we get to reproduce insanely without limit, knowing we'll always be magically fed? Or does it come with reproductive limits built in? I'd want to know the details.)

Meanwhile, right now, at our stage of understanding, cancer is largely preventable, detectable, and treatable. If we never got any better at it at all, we've still put huge limits on its ability to harm.
One imagines it's the former; the people always have enough food regardless of population growth.
#6
Old 10-03-2014, 06:02 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: The Group W Bench
Posts: 6,284
We can already end world hunger, thanks to modern agriculture and shipping methods. It's just that humans suck and we lack the political will to make it happen. We can already produce enough food - that part is easy. It's getting the foods to the peoples where things go off the track.

Cancer. otoh, is much, much harder for us to cure since it's really many different types of phenomenon. We might never find a cure for all the different cancers that are possible. I go with the cancer cure.
#7
Old 10-03-2014, 06:32 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Probably lost.
Posts: 1,935
By "ending world hunger," I assume you mean no one will ever go hungry due to economic need again, rather than we can have the technology to do it (which, as mentioned above, we already do). And the answer is world hunger by a long shot. First, cancer mainly targets the old, while poor nutrition causes 3.1 million children under five to die each year, or almost half of all under-five deaths. Second, worldwide about 14 million people were diagnosed with cancer in 2012, and 8 million people died. In contrast, 805 million people on Earth currently don't have enough food to "lead a healthy active life." One in nine people. While that's not starving to death (those stats are hard to get due to the remote places where much of the dying goes on), it's certainly going hungry. Cites for all of the above.

Lastly, not to put too fine a point on it, but more effort will be expended to cure cancer vs ending world hunger because cancer kills everyone, rich or poor. Everybody has at least one loved one who has cancer or died from it, and that's not true with starvation. I feel as though world hunger is far, far easier to ignore in first world countries where most scientific research is done. But a human life is a human life. So, ending world hunger.

Now, wouldn't it be nice if either one was as easy as voting on a poll . . .

ETA: Ah, sorry, forgot one more point: what with the population skyrocketing and climate change, the issue of starvation is only going to get worse and worse (and worse and worse . . .) as time goes on. Cancer, though horrible, will mainly stay stable.

Last edited by Octarine; 10-03-2014 at 06:35 PM.
#8
Old 10-03-2014, 06:34 PM
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
Hunger.

The increased productivity (more healthy people), decreased birth rates (less risk of kids dying = less motivation to have a lot of kids), decrease in conflict, more education (fewer kids working, more money for school fees) and other effects will more than pay for themselves. Plus, as mentioned, hunger is a social/structural problem, not a technical one. We suck at solving those, and it'd be nice to have a victory to learn from.

Ending cancer would be nice, but it wouldn't have the wide-ranging social impact that ending Hunger would bring. Indeed, there is a risk that many gains would be lost as people feel free to take more risks with their health.
#9
Old 10-03-2014, 07:41 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 12,697
Cancer.

Hunger is certainly a bigger problem and a greater worldwide scourge, since as noted most cancers are going to hit those already on their way out in society. But hunger is something we know how to cure, at least theoretically. Cancer we don't very well. That makes it a pretty clear choice for me - eliminate the one you can't deal with adequately ( and free up all the resources consumed with finding ways to do so ) and tackle the one you can.
#10
Old 10-04-2014, 12:05 AM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,104
I've known people who died of cancer. I've never met anyone who died of hunger. Fornicate cancer, all the way.

Last edited by Rachellelogram; 10-04-2014 at 12:05 AM.
#11
Old 10-04-2014, 08:37 AM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
Wow, exactly 50-50 split. I chose end world hunger although I had to think about it for a good while, reckon it'd do the most good and advance humanity the most.
#12
Old 10-04-2014, 10:05 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
I'm not finding a cite now, but my understanding is that a complete cure for all forms of cancer would only raise life expectancy across the world by a small amount--a year or two. Hunger kills the young, and can permanently disable even those it doesn't kill. Hunger in a heartbeat.
This is essentially my reasoning as well, and hunger is the bigger global issue imo.

Last edited by EmAnJ; 10-04-2014 at 10:06 AM.
#13
Old 10-04-2014, 10:07 AM
Guest
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachellelogram View Post
I've known people who died of cancer. I've never met anyone who died of hunger. Fornicate cancer, all the way.
There are millions of people on the other side of the world dying of hunger. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening on a giant scale.
#14
Old 10-04-2014, 10:25 AM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 3,560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinopus View Post
End hunger.

(But...ah...does that mean we get to reproduce insanely without limit, knowing we'll always be magically fed? Or does it come with reproductive limits built in? I'd want to know the details.)

Meanwhile, right now, at our stage of understanding, cancer is largely preventable, detectable, and treatable. If we never got any better at it at all, we've still put huge limits on its ability to harm.
I assume it comes with reasonable reproductive limits, since the contrary would be biologically impossible. Let's say we discover methods to feed a potential population of 20 billion people, or something. Which I strongly doubt we're ever going to reach.

I'd go with 'hunger' in a heartbeat, it's not even a serious question for me.
#15
Old 10-04-2014, 10:42 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 27,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merneith View Post
We can already end world hunger, thanks to modern agriculture and shipping methods. It's just that humans suck and we lack the political will to make it happen. We can already produce enough food - that part is easy. It's getting the foods to the peoples where things go off the track.

Cancer. otoh, is much, much harder for us to cure since it's really many different types of phenomenon. We might never find a cure for all the different cancers that are possible. I go with the cancer cure.
IMHO, this is the correct answer.
#16
Old 10-04-2014, 10:45 AM
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmAnJ View Post
There are millions of people on the other side of the world dying of hunger. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening on a giant scale.
It's the same kind of sentiment that decries outsourcing. Fuck the hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian people that have clawed their way out of unimaginable poverty thanks to globalisation and (relatively) free trade. They're taking away our jobs dammit.
#17
Old 10-04-2014, 10:50 AM
Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Brink
Posts: 11,304
As noted, "hunger" is largely a political and economic problem, afflicting the developing world.

Therefore, "solving" it would entail political and economic imperialism, trodding upon said countries' agency* and sense of identity for the sake of assuaging the cultural guilt and noblesse oblige of the developed world. This will lead to resentment, backlash, and ultimately world war, leaving not even ravens to scavenge from the charred dead.

Cancer, on the other hand, 'don't protest or vote. Boom.


*The author was tempted at this point to just start stringing together fashionable buzzwords until they filled out an outwardly-coherent paragraph. I'm hesitantly confident I could have gotten away with it, too.
#18
Old 10-04-2014, 12:17 PM
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeWinder View Post
I'm not finding a cite now, but my understanding is that a complete cure for all forms of cancer would only raise life expectancy across the world by a small amount--a year or two. Hunger kills the young, and can permanently disable even those it doesn't kill. Hunger in a heartbeat.
I've heard 2-3 years. However it isn't like everyone would just live a few more years in their 80s. I assume it means a minority would live 10+ years longer and an even smaller minority would live decades longer. Most people would be barely affected. That is my interpretation of the life expectancy gains.

Hunger is more an issue of political dysfunction than anything. Overall though I'd pick hunger as that would do more for the world than curing cancer.
#19
Old 10-04-2014, 06:36 PM
Guest
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Des Plaines, IL (Chicago)
Posts: 1,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
As noted, "hunger" is largely a political and economic problem, afflicting the developing world.

Therefore, "solving" it would entail political and economic imperialism, trodding upon said countries' agency* and sense of identity for the sake of assuaging the cultural guilt and noblesse oblige of the developed world. This will lead to resentment, backlash, and ultimately world war, leaving not even ravens to scavenge from the charred dead.

Cancer, on the other hand, 'don't protest or vote. Boom.


*The author was tempted at this point to just start stringing together fashionable buzzwords until they filled out an outwardly-coherent paragraph. I'm hesitantly confident I could have gotten away with it, too.
My (quasi-serious) logic was the opposite: there have been countless riots and desperate crimes due to hunger but (the fictitious Heisenberg notwithstanding) almost none due to cancer. Bread riots have been a "thing" but cancer riots haven't.
#20
Old 10-04-2014, 06:49 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Flavortown
Posts: 34,324
If you save millions from starvation, how many of those will die of cancer?
#21
Old 10-04-2014, 07:21 PM
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The Hague
Posts: 1,012
This is of course a stupid question as it compares two things that aren't going to happen.

However, the most recent episode of the Freakonomics podcasts talks about a similar dilemma: spend 100 billion to prevent (further) climate change or by giving everyone on the planet access to sanitation and clean water (IIRC).

This is a similar dilemma because for those of us in the rich but low-lying parts of the world, preventing climate change is a selfish thing, but we already have sanitation ourselves so doing that is pure charity.

As such I don't think you can reasonably compare the two and go for one or the other on a bang-for-the-buck basis (as the podcast does suggest). So I would go for the climate thing first, just like I would go for the cancer in the unrealistic original question.
#22
Old 10-04-2014, 07:37 PM
Guest
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmAnJ View Post
There are millions of people on the other side of the world dying of hunger. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening on a giant scale.
Did I say or imply that millions of people aren't dying of hunger? No. I've just never met any of them, so I care less about them.

But sure, the reasons I listed are merely mine. That doesn't make them rational.

Last edited by Rachellelogram; 10-04-2014 at 07:37 PM.
#23
Old 10-04-2014, 07:46 PM
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear Itself View Post
If you save millions from starvation, how many of those will die of cancer?
Actually, this is a really good question.

I voted for cancer because, like Rachellelogram, I don't know anyone who has died or even suffered because of hunger, but I do and have known people with cancer. Including my father. So, fuck cancer.

Since it's a completely hypothetical question, I went with cure cancer. If this were a real scenario, I'd obviously give it more thought.
#24
Old 10-04-2014, 07:57 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by bldysabba View Post
It's the same kind of sentiment that decries outsourcing. Fuck the hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indian people that have clawed their way out of unimaginable poverty thanks to globalisation and (relatively) free trade. They're taking away our jobs dammit.
That's an unfair comparison. It's often used (either ignorantly or disingenuously) by proponents of neoliberalism to paint objectors as First World chauvinists, while ignoring often much larger and louder objections in poorer countries. It's just like the phrase "anti-globalization movement" that the corporate media often bandied about in the past.

There's not much about China that conforms to the "free market/trade" rhetoric of the neoliberals, and as for India, consider the success of Kerala state, which is known for policies that are anathema to the neoliberals.

So yes, I would prioritize hunger.
#25
Old 10-04-2014, 08:00 PM
Guest
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranchoth View Post
As noted, "hunger" is largely a political and economic problem, afflicting the developing world.

Therefore, "solving" it would entail political and economic imperialism, trodding upon said countries' agency* and sense of identity for the sake of assuaging the cultural guilt and noblesse oblige of the developed world. This will lead to resentment, backlash, and ultimately world war, leaving not even ravens to scavenge from the charred dead.

Cancer, on the other hand, 'don't protest or vote. Boom.


*The author was tempted at this point to just start stringing together fashionable buzzwords until they filled out an outwardly-coherent paragraph. I'm hesitantly confident I could have gotten away with it, too.
Actually, the developed world really needs to stop taking and/or destroying wealth, i.e. causing many of the problems you mention.
#26
Old 10-04-2014, 08:41 PM
Charter Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 25,757
If you end world hunger, a lot more people will die of cancer.

Of course if you end cancer, they'll just die of something else.

I vote for ending hunger. Everybody's gonna die of something eventually but to be hungry all your life is a horrible way to live.
#27
Old 10-04-2014, 09:08 PM
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,712
Again we're back to an exact 50-50 split, although I'm glad the doc agrees with me (appreciate your feedback as ever QtM).
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:57 AM.

Copyright © 2017
Best Topics: luc havan photo what dissolves gum ergot hallucinations dog on viagra skinned knees salmon spawn gallon vodka japanese your welcome fatigue poisons 5 cards blackjack catheter removal painful phone time number sudden sneezing fit most comfortable glasses shameless hymie radium watch old style 300 fake abs alex kingston race chinese stop sign gross hot dog wet hen girls arm hair mlb rainouts men crossdressed gigantism height average shotgun range hcraes elgoog arlo janis mlk statue lumberjack sayings what does juice mean how to attach old door knobs to wood facebook do you know notification means birth control missed period no water coming out of kitchen faucet moving cats across country next year in jerusalem meaning hedwig and the angry inch ending limerick there once was a man from nantucket word that rhymes with things the speeds of the planets about the sun depend on the owl of athena through no fault of my own can cats eat olives chicken in a biskit review will pepper spray stop a dog brad pitt hair fight club chest pain when drinking cold liquids long sleeve t shirt under short sleeve why are used volvos so cheap why do fat people float desmond dekker israelites meaning j at the end of emails sitting with feet tucked under pro se litigants statistics rent deposit interest calculator how to use checkbook cover the last capitalist we hang 3 prong range cord wiring bluetooth to tv from phone what is the symbol under the tilde mexican 15th birthday traditional gifts how to get sand out of hair