Remove Poverty or Cancer? Choose Wisely!
@Kchitij2007 (445)
Pune, India
October 6, 2015 2:37pm CST
Ok the source of this question might sound nerdy to some.
It was from Saints Row IV.
If you don't know what that is, good for me 
( Now don't you go Googling it 
)
But it was an interesting choice i had to make!
Would i remove Cancer or Poverty forever?
What would you choose? 
( Now don't you go Googling it )
But it was an interesting choice i had to make!
Would i remove Cancer or Poverty forever?
What would you choose? 5 people like this
5 responses
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
7 Oct 15
I would remove cancer, because the healthy can do something about their situation, an poverty will always be there because it's the lowest level of any cash system, even if they are living in a sustainable living condition.
3 people like this
@Kchitij2007 (445)
• Pune, India
7 Oct 15
Well that sure is one perspective to look at 
1 person likes this
@Fleura (30541)
• United Kingdom
7 Oct 15
That's a difficult choice. As @OneOfMany says, there will always be relative poverty, but it would be good to remedy the situation of those who can't afford even the basics of life. On the other hand many cancers are associated with lifestyle, so in that respect perhaps people should make more effort to keep themselves healthy.
2 people like this
@OneOfMany (12150)
• United States
7 Oct 15
If cancer is a matter of lifestyle then when people everywhere suddenly can afford a better lifestyle, then cancer cases will skyrocket! Then these people that were saved from poverty have to pay expensive medical bills and are reduced to poverty once again.
It's a vicious cycle!
1 person likes this
@Kchitij2007 (445)
• Pune, India
7 Oct 15
@Fleura completely agreed! Cancer is a lifestyle related disease and also hereditary to some extent. If lifestyles are made more active, this can be constrained if nations promote a more healthy living ( a burger costs much less than a plate of salad in a U.S.!? Did excessive wealth lead to this? I doubt! )
1 person likes this
@Fleura (30541)
• United Kingdom
7 Oct 15
@OneOfMany I guess that depends on how you interpret a 'better' lifestyle!
1 person likes this
@scheng1 (24649)
• Singapore
9 Oct 15
Remove poverty first of all.
Poverty affects more people in the world.
Not many people get cancer, and when they get cancer, they suffer for a few years and either recover or die.
But those in poverty cycle will have to suffer for their entire life.
1 person likes this
@Kchitij2007 (445)
• Pune, India
9 Oct 15
That makes sense. Poverty is a pandemic that needs to be dealt with first because while cancer may have a little element of bad luck and bad genes, they are usually the product of our lifestyle whereas poverty is all about bad luck made worse by capitalists around the world.
@Kchitij2007 (445)
• Pune, India
8 Oct 15
It is and that's why it is interesting 
1 person likes this
@wiLLmaH (8802)
• Singapore, Singapore
9 Oct 15
@Kchitij2007 Ok now I have a decision! Haha! I will take out the poverty. If people have money they can have a relaxed life and money to buy nutritious food.
1 person likes this
@Kchitij2007 (445)
• Pune, India
9 Oct 15
@wiLLmaH That is true, the basic needs need to be fulfilled first which are a right of every human being! And so it follows that poverty must be removed first
1 person likes this
