Well, Sup Forums?

Well, Sup Forums?

Is that Trump?

cure cancer obviously

why would trump have a nigger VP idiot?

Cure cancer

Cure cancer seems like the best option to me. Cancer can affect anyone anywhere, so curing it would help people all over the world without regard to race, wealth or status.

Hunger primarily affects third world peasants. If you had some magical "fix" for world hunger that would just mean they'd breed out of control.

I gotta admit, the first ten minutes or so of Saints Row 4 was some hilarious shit

first option but only after TB leaves us forever

Cancer

but if nobody goes hungry ever, everyone could improve everything instead of half the world being a shithole. it's a win/win instead of a win/lose

cure cancer

>If you had some magical "fix" for world hunger that would just mean they'd breed out of control.
Curing cancer also helps overpopulating the world though.

There's way more people dying of hunger than of cancer.

What I'm saying is that both are necessary. Curing either would cause more issues than they solve.

Cancer is the only way

Curing cancer only means a higher population, and therefore more people to feed, meaning more people go hungry

>Eliminating hunger would cause overpopulation
>Overpopulation is when there's too many people to feed
This thread.

>cure cancer
>no cancer anymore, everyone will abuse everything that would give them cancer
>degeneracy
>higher population
>everyone goes hungry

Yeah I'll go with hunger

Who the fuck here personally knows someone who is starving but who has never known someone who has cancer?

Cancer. Feeding the hungry with our resources would pretty much kill the earth. And I'm really fucking scared of cancer.

I think the entire game is pretty amusing.
I think it gets a lot of undeserved flack on here in general.

>but who has never known someone who has cancer?
Me. Well unless you count my cat.
Oh god I miss her so much, cure cancer every time.

>only poor fags have hunger problems
>everyone can have cancer
hmmm

Overpopulation is an undesirable condition where the number of existing human population exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth.

Its space to live brainlet.

Both of course

STD are not cancer you dumbass
Also I don't think that people abusing substances would lead to pregnancies, and if it did abortion is a thing

>Food is the only limited resource on earth

Cancer is a serious disease that affects the entire human population.

Hunger is an intellectual dysfunction that only affects niggers and communists, basically subhumans who need to die out for mankind's gene pool to evolve.

So, cancer.

The carrying capacity of earth is the number of carbon atoms on the planet divided by the number of carbon atoms in the human body. The earth physically can not be "overpopulated"

So it's quite a meaningless term, the actual crux of the issue is the amount of wealth per individual. Which nobody seems to agree on.
In my book, the world is overpopulated if I don't have an entire continent to myself.

>Cancer is a serious disease that affects the entire human population.
So it affects niggers and communists as well?

>The carrying capacity of earth is the number of carbon atoms on the planet divided by the number of carbon atoms in the human body
Im sure that sounded smart in your head.

Oh that's right, all the niggers in africa were going to become rocket scientists but decided not to because they were starving instead, surely if they eat something they'll get right on that.

You're just too much of a brainlet to realize you're using buzzwords like actual truth.
"le word is overpopulated hurr".
So, how much is underpopulated, and how much is just right? There's no such thing as overpopulation, only diminishing standards of living.

Well, you're not hungry and you're not a rocket scientist either.
What's your excuse?

Cancer will be curable/maintainable within 100 years.

Hunger has always been and will always be a global problem

I don't have the education. Neither do they, that's my point.

So you're too retarded to get an education even when you don't have to worry about food?
You should be genocided instead.

Do you honestly believe that if a bunch of mud hut living africans suddenly had full bellies they would start curing diseases and researching space travel?
Pretty delusional my friend.

Why are you diverting from the point?
Not being hungry didn't help you get any more successful, so why should you not be genocided as well?

Neither, the world's too full as it is.

>caring about niggers

because trump isn't very smart and having a black vice president isn't a very smart move

Feed the cancer to the hungry.

You diverted from my point you retard. This is about starvation not who should be genocided. Go back and read the posts again.

Where is the option to divert those funds to real problems? The only people starving in America are the ones who choose not to work

YOU CAN'T FEED PEOPLE WITH CANCER

Cancer obv. Feeding the hungry is just a matter of allocating resources, if any nation wanted to do it they just fucking would.

Says the retard who dropped out of high school.
Do society a favor and hang yourself.

I can see a major loophole/consequence to the end world hunger one. Where will we get all that food ?

We're not past the overload point quite yet, and odds are the human population will stabilize at around 10-12 billion over the next century. That doesn't mean having a population that size with a limited amount of farmable land and living space would cause a boatload of problems

Are you fucking stupid or just gay? Overpopulation doesn't refer to an objective mathematical concept you dumb fuck, it's a term used to refer to a given set of conditions that are contingent entirely upon the number of people that exist at a given time. Even in your post you mention there are only "diminishing standards of living" but if these were caused by some alien race running around punching people in the kidneys, we wouldn't refer to this (clearly) diminished standard of living as overpopulation. If you're going to take issue with the fucking term "overpopulation" you better understand it's fucking use instead of analyzing it in a fucking pedantic facile manner that ignores its referent you fucking pseudo-intellectual.

Modern famines are mostly caused due to incompetent governments.

Feed Hungry. Hunger is one of the core factors driving Earth's most pernicious problems, especially environmental degradation, poverty, developmental retardation, overpopulation, migratory conflict, war, and genocide. Eliminating hunger eliminates one of the core causes of human suffering in the world today and would be a massive boon to the health, safety, and productivity of the world.

While cancer is horrible, it doesn't hold a candle to solving one of the few existential threats to the continuation of the human species: resource security.

>cure cancer, which mostly affects first world countries or solve world hunger which only really affects africa and india
It's not much of a choice.

>you're not a rocket scientist either
PROVE IT

They die of starvation before they get cancer

>forgot Sleepy Ben

racism is against the rules

We have this thread at least once a week

I think we need a another world war because the wars that are going on don't have enough death. There's going to be a point when there's too many people and the resources like fuel and other shit will run out.

Wont happen in my life time so why should I give a fuck?

Sure but it balances out.

Intelligent people in civilized countries don't tend to breed out of control even without disease (after all there are declining birth rates in almost all wealthy countries), and a few extra niggers cured isn't going to change overpopulation for the better or the worse. So you just take away one source of suffering without affecting the overall balance.

Eliminating hunger won't just affect the balance, it will fuck the balance right up the ass. The third world families that have 20 kids only to have 18 of them die to hunger and shit will now keep breeding. Of course this will auto-correct as well over time, since the population boom will create wars, epidemics, etc. But that's not solving anything, it's just replacing one kind of suffering just to have it replaced by several kinds of (arguably worse) suffering. Not to mention the ecological consequences of population booms in areas that have never been able to support even a moderate population in countries that don't have anywhere near the infrastructure to support a population boom.

Neither option is that great in a standalone situation, but eliminating cancer does more good and causes less harm.

You can feed the cancer victims to them though. Ever seen Soylent Green?

Getting rid of hunger forever causes far, far too many problems for the continent of Africa. If they never go hungry again, their entire way of life is done for. What are they supposed to do then? It's the same attitude the French and all the other European countries had back hundreds of years ago thinking they had to save the savage, give him god and such. Just leave them alone. They have an overpopulation problem as it is from western intervention in the form of aid in the 20th century. Curing cancer causes the least amount of instability for the world.

You're such a dumb brainlet.
When you say "the world is overpopulated", what you actually mean is "the living standards are low".
Which means that solving hunger would push back overpopulation, by increasing standards of living.

You're welcome.

You're still on earth and internet cables aren't long enough to go up to space.

That's exactly his point isn't it?

Probably one of the most retarded things I've ever read

Around ghouls don't be a fool

I like picturing people like this in the trenches during WW1.

IQ89 brainlet

curing cancer is almost impossible right now and it's random

feeding the hungry is easy

New game because everyone knows the Boss is a man

>REEE NOTHING CAN CHANGE EVER

Instability isn't a bad thing. An age of chaos must always occur before an age of peace. Thats simply the way of things

>here's going to be a point when there's too many people and the resources like fuel and other shit will run out.
Which will cause war and famine and epidemics, which will in turn reduce the population back to sustainable levels.

It's a closed system, it's going to balance itself out one way or another.

It literally means "There's too many people for our finite resources to handle" Considering 2/3rds of the human race still doesnt have internet access, by your definition, we've been overpopulated since the freaking 80s

And I don't want anything to do with that age of chaos. Simple enough for you?

No you fucking 12 year old, I don't mean solely that living standards are low, because a fucking enormous number of people have amazing living standards and I would still consider the world at large as overpopulated. It has to do with more than just living standards, it has to do with resource management and long-term as well as short-term damage as a direct consequence of population. NOT TO MENTION that if I DID in fact use the term "overpopulation" to mean "living standards are low" such that they two are equivalent concepts, you dumb pussy, then your only gripe and your only real argument is "I don't like the word, nyeeah" like some fucking gay retard.

Is it wrong though? ((They)) are the causes of most wars sending people to die to line their pockets instead of actually getting people to develop solutions during peace times. Every civilization has benefited from war and technology has progressed faster during times when people aren't relaxing.

cure cancer, all that healthcare money could be nicely used to solve hunger

Who are you quoting?
>Instability isn't a bad thing
Yeah sure tell that to the millions of young men who died in WWII. Jesus what a stupid thing you just said.
> An age of chaos must always occur before an age of peace
You said from your room. I don't want to deal with chaos, I don't want my family to deal with a chaos. I can't believe after hundreds upon hundreds of years of meddling in Africa we still have people like you who say we should help them. Leave Africa alone. They didn't want our god, they didn't want our way of life, and giving them food caused them to overpopulate. Focus on your own nation.

I also like picturing people like this in the trenches during WW1.

cancer

And again.
Eliminating a need for a finite resource will not cause overpopulation, it will push it back.

And if the world is overpopulated because not everybody has internet access, eliminating hunger would make the world less overpopulated regardless of whether everyone has internet or not.

Then you can start arguing whether internet is a fundamental need or a luxury, and that's when the fuzziness of the term "overpopulation" emerges. It depends on the standards of living, but everyone has a different measure of minimum standards.

>brained tard can't control his emotions
Typical. Post again when you tard rage soothes down and when you have a point.

>I dont want to deal with chaos

Better you shoulder than chaos than your sons. All you're doing is putting it off by fighting it. It is inevitable.

>Press LT to delete videogames

LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT LT

Blab blah blah you're saying nothing and getting called on it. Fuck off

You added nothing else to this discourse so I'm just going to copy/paste my last post.
>Yeah sure tell that to the millions of young men who died in WWII. Jesus what a stupid thing you just said.
>You said from your room. I don't want to deal with chaos, I don't want my family to deal with a chaos. I can't believe after hundreds upon hundreds of years of meddling in Africa we still have people like you who say we should help them. Leave Africa alone. They didn't want our god, they didn't want our way of life, and giving them food caused them to overpopulate. Focus on your own nation.

You're already on the rollercoaster, so you might as well let go.

If you think my being angry negates my having a point, of which I have 2 and clearly laid out, then I would love to fuck you in the ass.

>that "logic"
So what I'm getting from this is, since wet dogs are smelly, next time I walk my dog in the rain I should just spray him with deodorant in order to dry him?

Didn't trump do a 180 on his deportation promise? Why are poltards still worshiping him?

>female president
Good joke

>blab blug ur say nodig amb getg gad on it faf off

Watch Soylent Green.
The dystopia depicted in that film is the result of "feeding the hungry".

I also like picturing people like this were in the trenches during WW1.

food helps extreme poorfags and 3rd worlders only
cancer fucks everyone equally

Don't talk at me, memeslave.

You didn't make any points.
Whether you consider the world to be overpopulated or not is irrelevant, because that's just your opinion. I bet the people with incredible luxury don't think their living standards are too high, and their word is as good as yours.
And if you weren't retarded, you'd realize that there's this handy trick they teach in middle school called averaging. You take all the people in the world, and measure their average living standards, then you see if the average human has low or high living standards, and base your argument for or against overpopulation on that measurment, instead of spouting shit out of your aids ridden ass.

For an average human being of around 70g there are roughly 7*10^27 atoms. Roughly 1/10 of that is carbon. So we're looking at, as a rough estimate of a rough estimate of an average 7e+26 (which is 7*10^26, or 7 with 26 zeros after it). That's how many carbon atoms exist in a single human.

The mass of the PLANET is roughly 5.98*10^27g and we can assume, based on weight and percentage break down of the earths basic molecules and elements (as far as we know), that there are something like 1.33*10^50 atoms on the earth itself. .04 percent of that is carbon in the air, and 30% of the earth is carbon on the ground or in it. So 30.04% of the earth is carbon. Therefore, we're looking at like 30.04% of 1.33*10^50 which is 4.0432e+49 (or 4.0432*10^49, that is to say 40432 with 45 zeros after it).

So what we want, according to you, is to then divide 4.0432e+49 by 7e+26 to get the maximum carrying capacity of the earth. That number is 5.776e+22 or 5.776*10^22. You're saying then that the carrying capacity of the earth is 57,760,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's like 57 Sextillion people, my friend.

Even if you just meant the .04% carbon in the air alone that's: 7.6e+20 or 7.6*10^20 people. 760,000,000,000,000,000,000 people. That's like 760 pentillion people.

The rough population of the earth is like 8 billion (8,000,000,000) and we're already having trouble.

People in third world countries aren't having so many kids because they're all retarded, user, they're having kids because of resource instability and the prospect of living as an aging human in an third world nation with no family to take care of you as you get old. These are also the same people who need to toil their lives as subsistence farmers and need to generate as many farmhands as possible to maintain their crops as people die from all sorts of preventable causes. This is also draws many third world countries from education and social advancement, because the matter of securing food is much more pressing than learning. Additionally, malnutrition compounds the education problem by mentally impairing hungry or starving individuals.

The idea that eliminating hunger would spark some unstoppable wave of overpopulation is an excuse ignorant westerners use to excuse their callous dismissal of any form of food security in developing nations, when in fact the reality shows that food security actually slows human breeding and generally drives up the level of social development as people are enabled to transition from agrarian societies to modern industrial ones, increasing their degree of education and community awareness.

>free food for a race of people too stupid to build the infrastructure to feed themselves despite living on the most resource rich continent in the world so that even more of them survive and need even more food