Can't have world peace if people are still starving. And both options are lame no offense. Peace and saving lives is great but I'm going to be honest, if I were the most powerful person on the planet I would start making big changes, changes that I see fit for the world, for example making it legal for rape victims to go out and murder their rapists for the first 48hrs after an assault and it is one sure fire way to lower the number. Rape is worse than murder IMO and raping someone and leaving them to live with it is far worse than just killing them.
Cancer. Because I don't see a possible way to just suddenly create world peace + feed the world in a single lifetime. Even if it's done, I don't think the world is ready for that mentality, and greed would eventually lead things back to how they were. At least by curing cancer, I'd make a substantial and hopefully long-lasting impact (assuming it's a completely safe cure--say, a magical strain of marijuana ).
Cancer Edit: never mind we already have a cure but our greedy fellow man wants to make money off of treatments that most if the time have less than 50% chance of working
Peace, i think if everyone was super peaceful hunger would end as well. Cancer can stay, some poeple need to die off anyhow. Too many of these "human" fuckers around.
cancer: here is the reasoning: when you invent a cure for cancer, cancer is cured permanently when you create world peace or end hunger, that's something you have to maintain. like if i create world peace, who's to say someone won't start a war tomorrow? will i have to go back and kill whoever started that war? or do i kill both sides?
Exactly what I was going to say. Cancer is a biological mechanism. They other two are due to man's greed, and world peace has to encompass food equality.
Obviously world peace. If we come together, then that means we would care for one another and see everyone as humans, so feeding people would naturally come thereafter. And together, we can put more focus on curing cancer eventually.
It all sounds nice but can you imagine the population problems we would have with the decrease in deaths? We would definetly have to expand into space
[quote name="Randy Savage" post="19263995" timestamp="1388603691"]It all sounds nice but can you imagine the population problems we would have with the decrease in deaths?We would definetly have to expand into space[/quote]Cancer influences the economy too much and sorry to say, kills off loads of people which saves space and resources. Wiping cancer out completely across the globe would be destructive. We're already over populated on this planet and diminishing all of its natural resources. We would have to solve nearly all environmental problems first and I don't see that happening quickly.
World peace. It would better the human race in far more many ways than curing cancer or solving world hunger would. As a result of world peace those things would probably occur anyway.
you are wrong. there is more than enough resources and space on earth to support 10+ billion people if not more the average US household throws away more than 50% of the food they buy, or food is literally so cheap we have to give it away to poor countries, which destroys their local agricultural economy. aint that some sad shit. at the population density of san francisco, all of the US could live in CA WA OR and NV.