End world hunger vs. cure cancer

[iljitsch]

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.

[Rachellelogram]

@EmAnJ

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.

[chiroptera]

@Fear_Itself

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.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@bldysabba

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.

[Lemmytheseal2]

@Ranchoth

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.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

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.

[Mr.Kobayashi]

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).