What do you choose /pol/?

Why not both?

Eliminate cancer so we can actually have decent discussion on these boards again.

>Get rid of cancer
>People now live for absurdly long times
>Human population grows at exponential rate, run out of food rapidly

>Get rid of hunger
>Everyone can eat as much as they want somehow (?)
>Human population explodes out of control
>Not enough resources or medicine to keep everyone alive, horrific apocalyptic scenario results

>>140264977
The only way to defeat Cancer is to stop feeding the person with cancer

>>140265130
10/10

>>140264977
Eliminate cancer. It will result in a healthier work force and the billions of government money can be spent on improving infrastructure so less people go hungry. The trillions of money spent on research and treating cancer will go to other useful causes. Additionally assuming this gives a better understanding of how cancer works and cells there's probably other beneficial breakthroughs.

Cure cancer of course because that affects whites and potentially me some day.
Fuck niggers.

Cancer.

Most people who starve are 3rd world savages so who cares.

>>140264977
Fuck cancer. If you're starving, hunt some shit and get a job. If you have cancer, you're fucked.

I have made a difficult decision to sage, as this could detract from HABBENIG threads

>>140265464
THIS

>>140265130
This

>>140264977
curing cancer increases quality of life
feed hungry increases quantity of life

>>140264977
Cure cancer because world hunger is caused by niggers breeding like rabbits and is a form of natural selection.

watch this video on immigration, poverty and gumballs:

https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

The answer is "cancer"

>>140265130
Ayyyyy

File: applause.gif (208KB, 250x219px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 250x219px

>>140265130

>>140265223
Except that first point is wrong. Longer life expectancy tends to lower birth rates.

>>140264977
Cancer for sure. Hunger is a self-solving problem.

File: slide_16-rj5eg7.jpg (100KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 960x720px

>>140264977

End world hunger.

Someone more deadly and evasive will replace cancer, its inexorable.

Hunger is directly corelated to our energy deficit, which plagues us all each day.

>here goy take these energy pills™
because theres little to no nutrition in your food.

>fusion energy>Massive advancements in autonomous agriculture >end world hunger

Energy deprivation is the fundamental and rudimentary crux of our species, and before we are able to do anything of merit, we must tackle this seemingly overwhelming and incessant problem we have faced, since the dawn of man.

>>140264977
Cure cancer.

The reason being that I might get cancer one day. So it will benefit me.

As for hunger, I'm doing alright. I can afford food. It would only benefit shitskins in third world countries. Fuck them.

>>140266640
nope look at africa

>>140265464
>>140265672
>>140265756
>>140266243
>>140266349
>>140266691
Correct

File: 1458318961033.jpg (500KB, 728x640px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 728x640px

>>140265130

>>140266691

The same could be said about cancer

File: deaths-leading-2017.png?n=6152.png (35KB, 500x235px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x235px

>>140265223
>People now live for absurdly long times
Cancer is not the leading cause of death

Cure cancer. An invention is intellectual/scientific progress.

Feeding the hungry is a temporary solution to a larger problem. Top-down models of attempting to provide food to "the masses" always results in mass starvation.

>>140267186
You understand their life expectancy is far behind developed nations, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

>>140267889
Is infant mortality included? Because then, the list is kinda bullshit. Human lifespan didn't change much the last 2000 years, only infant and children mortality dropped.

File: download.jpg (169KB, 658x398px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 658x398px

>>140267700

You clearly dont understand the economical practices of large predominantly Jewish owned pharmaceutical industry.

All we have is temporary solutions
>chemo ect

We are talking about ending cancer or hunger.

Your a fool to think just because you knock out one disease, there wont be more to take its place, deadlier and more evasive than its evolutionary predecessor.

As I stated >>140266997

Our energy deficit is directly correlated to the global hunger crisis.

>a species that cant feed its self thinks it will survive by eliminating 1 puny little disease.

Fun fact, most diseases are because of our lack of adequate nutrition, and unsanitary conditions where said food comes from.

>he doesnt even know about the anti-biotic crisis

Flemming extended the life expectency of our species for 2 more decades for less than a century, now aalmost all our anti-biotics are gonna be useless what will you do then? your trying to fight something that has been alive for billions of years and is constantly adapting, and evolving.

>>140265223
>you can live forever if you dont get cancer

based aussie retard

cure cancer

>>140266997
A cancer cure fixed a problem that we currently have no reliable means to treat.
Hunger is easy to fix, and just needs organization.

Feed the hungry.

Cancer only affects privlged groups (whites) meanwhile hunger affects underprivleged groups (Africans).

>>140268658
It's easy to think that when everybody you know dies from skin cancer by the age of 45.

>>140269544

>hunger is easy to fix
Then it would have never been a problem.

Once again, what makes you think knocking out 1 disease, will prevent another more deadly and evasive than the former to take its place?

Hunger is a rudimentary problem our species face, and must be elmiated first before cancer, diseases, illnesses, war, poverty, ect..

File: a4f88bc9d4d25317fa5f7d63c808bb33.png (749KB, 601x623px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 601x623px

>>140265130

>>140269796

>but I needed dat melanin!

Those people that go to tan booths or tanning in general are fucking retarded and are intentionally damaging their dna so they can appear to have a darker shade of skin.

>humans

>>140269824
>Then it would have never been a problem
It's easy to fix, but niggers.
There aren't really any famines anywhere else.
And there are over 100 types of cancer you faggot, all different.

>>140265223
What are you doing down under, Malthus?

>>140270022
All of Australia is a tan booth.

>>140264977
Cure cancer. They will feed themselves.

>>140265130
Ohhhhhhhh

File: farms.jpg (280KB, 805x1056px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 805x1056px

>>140269824
>Then it would have never been a problem.
Just because something is easy doesn't mean it becomes widespread. Often ideas are lost because people don't believe, they have never done something any other way, or have vested interests in not changing.
>Once again, what makes you think knocking out 1 disease, will prevent another more deadly and evasive than the former to take its place?
Because cancer isn't stopping another disease from manifesting in people. Cancer isn't a cure or immunization against any known illness. Are you saying if you cure cancer then something else will kill people? Yes, that is correct. However, you might extend the life of people and the quality of life for a longer period of time. A 60 year old that doesn't die of cancer may life to be 80 in good health.
>Hunger is a rudimentary problem our species face, and must be elmiated first before cancer, diseases, illnesses, war, poverty, ect..
Implying that poverty and war don't cause hunger and need to be fixed before you can fix hunger.

I can cure hunger today if people would simply do what I say. I can't cure cancer just by telling people what to do.
Hunger is a organization problem, cancer is a technical problem.

File: naked_gun_mode.png (1MB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1360x768px

>>140265130

File: 1501886573927.png (26KB, 600x652px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 600x652px

>>140265130

File: peakoil1.gif (23KB, 648x418px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 648x418px

>>140270736

you didnt read my previous post.

Alexander flemming invented penicillin and extended our life expectancy by 2 decades, now in less than a century its pointless as anti-biotic resistance is rapidly increasing due to poor sanitation in the food corporations livestock.

The bacteria are building a resistance and eventually a common cold can be fatal without anti-biotics. Cancer will be seen as frivilous compared to this.

So please, do go on about how curing cancer will solve all our problems and be more beneficial than ending world hunger AKA Energy crisis.

Your failing to see the bigger picture, Im going to be as bold as to say that Cancer is due to our deficit in energy.

Meat packaging company in china pumps their livestock full of anti-biotics because the conditions they are in are so bad, they would not be able to sell the meat to the market, bacteria start to adapt and become resilient to said anti-biotics.Bacteria spreads and starts to take over less evolved species, and now poor little Jimmy in 1st world country now could potentionally loose his life because of a common cold or small infection. All because we dont have sufficient energy for autonomous agriculture which would entirely negate the current necessity for food corps like tyson, purdue, ect...


You seriously cannot say with a straight face that energy is NOT our number one problem we face as a species besides metaphysical and philosophical conjecture.

and im curious, how are you going to manufacture the cure? Plastics are contigent upon oil and soon that wont be possible, and plastic is the cheapest form of packaging possible.

>invent cure
>your not in debt 250k to pharma because u had cancer.

File: 1449140495807.gif (1MB, 335x210px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 335x210px

>>140265223

>>140265130
Best post.
Winrar.

File: C0M4t00VIAAQQy7.jpg (93KB, 352x1024px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 352x1024px

>>140264977
Cure cancer.
Niggers can starve to death for all i care.

>>140271658
OJ is a shitty actor
>it won't go down any further no matter how hard I try. im serial.

File: db7zmw7wijcy.jpg (191KB, 653x477px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 653x477px

>>140264977
> Ending hunger means more GMO foods which also means giving more people cancer
> getting rid of cancer would also mean getting rid of GMO foods, which would mean more people go hungry

>>140265130

I'm cancer and even I agree with this post

>>140268490
>almost never took any antibiotics
>retards ruin a perfectly good panacea for all sorts of nasty bacteria for you forever
Some people deserve to die.

>>140264977
which game?

>>140273248
Saints Row IV

>>140264977

Cancer.

No one going hungry means that the populations of Africa and India will sprial even further out of control moreso than they already have and millions if not billions will die as the exploding populations run out of other resources.

>feed hungry
>africa's population explodes
>overpopulation makes africa hungry again
I'll take the cancer thanks

>>140264977
Cancer of course. The other is just "more food". But to cure cancer would be the biggest discovery in human history.
Cancer is part of life, it's something that effects every living person on the planet. The only way to NOT die of Cancer, is to die of something else first. If you were to eliminate the ability of the body's cells to turn cancerous, healthy people could live decades longer.
>>140268658
He didn't say forever, he said for a very long time. There's a difference.
>>140267465
It is here in Canada. 40% or something, then 25% for heart diseases, then it drops down to <5% for the rest

>>140264977
I want to see the plans for ending world hunger. If they're just gonna throw money at the problem until it fixes itself, I'm choosing the one that ends a long-term problem on a long-term basis over the one that fixes a long-term problem on a short-term basis.

>>140264977
>Cure first world problem (which you live in) or cure nigger problems (temporarily, until they quadruple their population and problem comes back 4 times as hard)
Is this really a question?

File: 1502238349989.jpg (51KB, 405x543px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 405x543px

>>140265130
/thread

>>140264977
the only reason why there is hunger is because niggers understand neither agriculture nor family planning

certainly wouldn't want to have more of these people

>>140264977
Cure Cancer

>>140264977
If you cure cancer then some other disease will take its place. If you end hunger then Africa could, maybe, develop a viable economy and stop immigrating to other countries.

>>140276043

this guy gets it

File: CMO.jpg (156KB, 936x663px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 936x663px

>>140272234
Antibiotics are still extremely valuable and used in treatments. Removing them today because we have a few edge cases of immunity would be a huge negative to overall health. You seem to be suggesting that we never should have invented or used penicillin because it had a decline in effectiveness in some cases.

Your education is lacking if you think antibiotics have medicinal value for treating the cold. Their is no valid medical use of any antibiotic for the treatment of the cold, doctors would be better off prescribing sugar pills.

The energy conversion issue of feeding people isn't because we lack enough input energy. It is because their is a lack of the infrastructure to deploy effective farming equipment, cheaply transport farm products, and the consuming population's ability to purchase farm products. Between government mismanagement of public infrastructure, poor farming practices and terrible transportation the viability of farms in many areas of Africa is negligible.

China's use of antibiotics has zero effect on the evolution of the cold. We do not have a lack of energy for autonomous agriculture, we have a lack of interest. It is vastly more efficient to allow specialization within industry, leaving less than 1% of the develop world as farmers supplying food to the other 99% and still having surpluses. Any suggestion to move away from work specialization is a developmental step backwards.

We have an energy demand not an energy problem. As demand grows and the ability to consume raises supply will also expand.
As for oil we have enormous supplies of oil that we can economical extract and even larger supplies that are still to expensive with current tech and market prices. However if we did ever face a crunch for oil that wasn't an instant shutoff we can synthesize hydrocarbons. It's literally just hydrogen and carbon, we have plenty of both.

A video you should watch;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8zOHZINyG8

File: peakoil.png (51KB, 539x425px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 539x425px

>>140277026

No It was a comparison of pencilin and how everyone thought it would save us from every disease and illness known to man, and how you all think curing cancer will be the same, in which case your right, they both eventually will be rendered ineffective and a new more deadly disease will take its place.

Meaning the war against diseases is perpetual.

Ending hunger would be the better option, for that is a war that can actually be won.

Thats my point, and you are wrong, Without anti-biotics the common cold can be fatal especially to older people with weaker immune systems. bronchitis, pneumonia, strep throat all require anti-biotics for treatment and they are some most common diseases. So your retarded for thinking they are as usefull as sugar pills.

>we have a energy demand not a energy problem

A energy demand that cannot be met, is in of itself a energy problem you doofus

Nearly 81% of all our energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels which depends on oil, which most plastics and poly-carbonates are made from, yeah the very packaging that those eggs from the farmers depend on oil.

Eventually we will hit peak oil consumption and there will be no more fossil fuels left, which means we would have to replace 81% of our current energy production with something OTHER than fossil fuels, which is impossible within 5 decades.

>>140265130
Finally, a funny post.

>>140276043
They would just have more kids until they faced hunger again. The only solution is gas.

File: cubicmiles.jpg (75KB, 933x706px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 933x706px

>>140278572
>everyone thought it would save us from every disease and illness known to man,
No informed person ever thought that.
>eventually will be rendered ineffective and a new more deadly disease will take its place.
What disease is cancer suppressing?

>Ending hunger would be the better option, for that is a war that can actually be won.
This is a magic fix for cancer. We can't currently 'win' cancer. We can currently win hunger and it doesn't need new tech.

>Without anti-biotics the common cold can be fatal especially to older people with weaker immune systems. bronchitis, pneumonia, strep throat all require anti-biotics for treatment and they are some most common diseases. So your retarded for thinking they are as usefull as sugar pills.
Antibiotics have no medical value in the treatment, prevention or cure of the common cold. No known antibiotic works on the cold virus.

>A energy demand that cannot be met, is in of itself a energy problem
Demand is more than just a want it must also account for an actual means of use If we dropped off a 20GW nuclear reactor In Africa they still wouldn't be able to use that in many areas because they don't have an electrical distribution system or machinery that uses electricity.

>Nearly 81% of all our energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels which depends on oil, the very packaging that those eggs from the farmers depend on oil.
For fuel it's as near to 100% oil as to not matter. For electricity it's mostly coal, natural gas, hydro electric, nuclear. Very little oil is used for electrical generation.
***Pic related is our total energy demand and how it is met.***
As for plastics most plastics are produced from natural gas and to a lesser degree the extreme light ends of oil. My eggs are packaged in paper fibers.

>we will hit peak oil consumption and there will be no more fossil fuels left,
You don't even know what peak oil is.

>which is impossible within 5 decades.
Nuclear power could scale to meet that.

>>140265130
You are a clever man.

File: 1500012259517.jpg (87KB, 640x633px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x633px

>>140265130
ayy

>>140281115
>fission as a viable means of energy

o okie

fusion is only way to save humanity albeit postpone our inevitable demise

I have cancer

>>140267186
even if you cure cancer of all africans, that wont feed them

Cancer.

Had to watch my stepfath die from it only a month and a half ago.

Makes me feel like shit, all those times I've told Anons on here and in games that I hoped they got cancer. That shit is no way to die.

>>140264977

I wouldn't pick either. I think humans should be allowed to evolve natural immunities against diseases/cancers and anybody who can't provide for themselves is dead weight.

>>140284746
There is no immunity against cancer to develop. It's part of our genetic code, everyone has it, everyone will die from it unless they die from something else first.
To evolve immunity against it would be akin to evolving immunity against aging itself.

File: 1399528068769.jpg (28KB, 330x300px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 330x300px

>>140265130

>>140269824
The way to fix hunger is to destroy the tribalism that leads to warlords, find something profitable for them to use so that those currently having problems getting food can get food on their own easier, and finally, you need to get these people to have less kids. (3 to 5 as opposed to dozens)

>>140265130
Nice

>>140265130
Came here to say this. Good show, fellow Burger

>>140264977
Fuck it, both

>>140265130
Good job

>>140264977
>cure cancer
>reduce death rate in first world slightly

>cure hunger
>brown people now breed at an accelerated rate to catch up to their new resource limit and ruin civilization

the choice is clear

>>140283765
>>fission as a viable means of energy
>o okie
>fusion is only way to save humanity albeit postpone our inevitable demise
Fission by means of a breeder reactor.

Raise the population of the world to 16 billion. Raise the average energy consumption to double that of Canada (one of the highest per capital of developed nations). Meet 100% of electrical and fuel demands by LFTRs with only middle average efficiency of conversions.

With thorium breeder reactors the sun will physically destroy the Earth when it becomes a red giant before the thorium reserves would run out.

But we need Fusion power.