Cure for cancer or end world hunger?

Either choice would cause suffering due to not choosing the opposite option. I choose end world hunger because those people can't really start a life where as people with cancer can still survive longer than someone that is starving to death.
Ending world hunger is something the world can do right now if we weren't so greedy and some of you may dissagree but you know in the back of your mind that I am right.

I say neither. Let nature take its course. Even if you cure cancer, those that would have died because of it, will just die some other way. You didn't cure anything, you just post poned a funeral. As for world hunger, that will never end. Unless you got rid of money, even then it wouldn't work.

Absolutely world hunger. Cancer research is taking huge strides forward every year, and is eventually going to get there, but there is no scientific remedy for the massive shortage of food.

Cure for cancer over ending world hunger is like saying: fuck you to all people starving, we want our relatives free from cancer, but you can starve to death meanwhile. Just from your two choices, cure for cancer over ending world hunger seems selfish. That's what I think.

Some people might see world hunger as a form of population control. Think about if every starving person in the world had food and survived, that would be about 925 million people according to worldhunger.org. Thats a billion people.

We need less people on earth not more.

Well this IS the cancer generation.

Cure cancer. Cancer is extremely painful and drawn out death. I wish it on nobody.

As far as over population goes. By the time we are in dire straits, I believe we will have the technology to start inhabiting other planets in the universe.

I believe they have already discovered some which conditions are suitable for humankind... It's just a matter of getting to these places that are light years away.

Living longer and lowering mortality rates from cancer (it's inevitable if you live long enough that it'll come into your life at some point these days) is a wonderful idea, idealistically, however there is no point living cancer free if you're just going to starve to death.

At present six times what would feed the entire world in grains and food stuff is fed to pigs in the United States. One country, one industry, six times. Eating meat is not economically, ecologically, or in any way a viable food source, as science fiction authors and philosophers have been expounding since even the 1800's. Due to the population of humans reaching such a critical mass, it is inevitable that we will need to identify these issues and begin to look into an alternative.

Eating meat, however, causes more cancers than smoking, and more disease than any other source. However, I'm not a vegetarian or being preachy here, I'm speaking objectively on world hunger and the food shortage that will, by Christmas this year, lead to over a million deaths.

As an aside, the African horn drought is killing millions of men, women, and most of all children. They are vulnerable and need our aid. Think before being a glutton and eating ten kilo's of crap this Christmas. Ask yourself whether you need a 60" plasma or whether you could manage to somehow find a way to live with a 58" and give the extra $500 to charity. The Red Cross have an appeal going for it atm, so hop on over to their site, make a world of difference to some poor unfortunate sods, and have a less gluttonous and guilt free Christmas and NY!

cure cancer, hunger is only present because our world pop is too large in developing countries. once those countries are more educated and have less babies with a proportionate age structure, then they wont have hunger issues. Disease will always be there and the sooner cancer is fixed the better it will be for everyone, including hunger ridden countries who will eventually get cancer once they become educated.

I think most cancer is curable right? Just the government and pharmacy companies are making so much money off of sick people they keep it a secret while keep the population down. Same thing goes for AIDS, many people have been cured.

I bet most starving people don't get cancer. I think its greatly related to what we eat. And how many people do u know who have had a dog die of cancer? I know too many. Its our shitty food that's doing a lot of the damage!

ending world hunger because all the people who survive starvation will add to a bigger population and increase the chances of somebody making a cure for cancer.

yes, I know im brilliant.

Neither! Darwinism! the strong survive!

Suffering from hunger is torture. The people who have cancer would have money to be able to buy panadol.

I feed them zombie-infected meals. Then they start eating all cancer patients, thus solving both problems at once.

Whichever one takes the most lives on an annual basis. Which is probably world hunger but I'm too lazy to look it up.

Interesting stat: 1/3 of the world is well fed, 1/3 is under-fed, and 1/3 is starving to death. In other words, 66% of the world's population is malnourished and half of them are dying from it.

Source: World Hunger Organization

@Momonator, If we ended cancer there would be more of us to help with ending world hunger dumbass