General

World hunger / poverty appears to affect more people than cancer (but I wouldn't know, just a guess after seeing some news on 3rd world / developing countries), so I'd choose world hunger just because it'll help more people in general. Also, world hunger affects people of all ages, killing the young and old alike. But cancer generally affects older people, some young people get cancer too but it's rarer and I haven't heard of babies getting cancer. Sounds calculative, but I'd rather save a starving baby than a middle-aged person with cancer. At least the middle-aged person had a chance to live (even though their life is ending prematurely), the starving baby would never have any chance to live at all.

For the people say as science advances the population increases too, yes that's correct but by the time earth gets completely overcrowded, we'll probably move onto another planet.

cancer probably. but again like others have said, the community on basil will most likely say cancer because they have plenty of food.

@Momijii: I realize that, but stating that we need all these fatal diseases for 'population control' is absolute nonsense. The best population control is and always will be contraceptives and allowing access to them. Curing diseases isn't the problem, it's that females are stuck in the home in these developing countries because they have no means of supporting themselves. Lack of education and little to no access to contraceptives means more children will be born, and because of a lack of child labor laws, as you mentioned, the parents have reason to want more children. That's where the problem lies, not in medical research.

More people die from obesity related issues than hunger, so we have enough food, we just choose not to share. Cancer on the other hand is currently, and in the foreseeable future in curable. Due to the heterogeneity, not between cancer types, but within each cancer, a complete cure is nowhere near ready.

Fix world hunger so we could focus on things like cancer and other afflictions.
Assuming the "fix" is a permanent, end-all solution and no one else would ever have to starve ever again.

World hunger since no one likes being hungry >.<

I think many people who read this will choose to rid of cancer. It's very biased. If we all play maple on our own computers and have internet access to Basil, then we most likely have a roof over our heads and food readily available to us. It seems more likely for a basiler to have gone through losing a family member to cancer rather than hunger. I myself haven't been through that experience, but I know it's horrible cancer sux.
The war against cancer is still going on. The cure is possibly being hidden from the public or is still undiscovered. Conspiracies aside, we have little to no control over that.
However, this world has every supply needed to end world hunger, but we don't act. It simply does not benefit those who have the wealth to do so. It's not like our government will take any significant steps to actually make sure that there is 0 world hunger. That's the way it is, unfortunately. For America at least, our prosperity and financial stability are much more important than lives of those in third world countries. People with luxuries will have that mindset, whether they know it or not. Millions and millions of people are affected by starvation, including newborn children. Most of us know, most of us can help, but most of us don't care enough to do anything. But we're not exactly obligated to do such a thing either. I would obviously put money toward saving my own parent from cancer than to feed a malnourished stranger.

TLDR: With that said, I would choose world hunger. I don't think humanity could ever be selfless enough to give time and effort to completely eliminate world hunger when it doesn't affect them. We are always focusing on technology, and a cure to cancer is very possible, no matter how out of reach.

[quote=cchpm]People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.[/quote]
That's an incredibly valid theory. Our lifespan probably isn't natural. We leave lasting effects on the earth because of it, too.
I also think that because of all the cures, humans are actually getting physically and genetically weaker as a species. If someone with a genetic disease survives and reproduces, those weak genes can be passed onto generations and generations. Rapid spread of a disease like that makes complete sense if you think of it that way. Through natural selection, some people have to die in order for our species to be stronger with time. That's how it is in nature and I think we forget that humans are animals, too.

World hunger.

Getting cancer was somewhat their fault unless it was caused by someone else.

Cancer. I don't know anybody currently suffering from starving so I won't pick that. Of course, you can say that I'm being heartless by curing the thing that's killing less people, but I haven't personally seen world hunger in real life, whereas I actually KNEW a cancer patient.

[quote=Improvement]There's no estimate on the carrying capacity of earth. Advancements in technology and development of society DO NOT mean exponential population growth. Japan is about as developed as they come, and it has a negative population growth. Same in many European states, such as Germany and Italy. Research in the medical field prevents unnecessary death due to these diseases. And it's not because they have more diseases than the underdeveloped states, the biggest factor is education of women and their access to contraceptives. It really irks me to see these types of comments because it largely ignores the problem in favor of an anti-science apocalyptic hysteria.[/quote]
There is no estimate, however you cannot dismiss that we aren't nearing a carrying capacity. Advancements in technology and development of society [i]do[/i] result in a rapid increase population. Two examples being the medical revolution that Western countries gave to Africa and the industrial revolution. Developing countries will have a high population growth until they are in the later stages of being developed. Developed countries have low birth rates because of a lower infant mortality and the general lesser value of children in a developed country (in a developing country families tend to have more children to ensure that there is at least one offspring that survives and also to put children to work).

[quote=cchpm]People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.[/quote]

I was just thinking that.

World hunger by far. The amount of lives we can save.

~250million are affected by cancer,
~1billion are affected by hunger,

hunger pls

[quote=cchpm]People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.[/quote]
If this is as big of a problem as you say it is, then how come nobody is taking steps towards keeping the population low?

um exactly u sound stupid

@Nivea: honestly they would just have to fight for business like other companies do cause right now they rule over everything and they know it. Plus they have made billions not to mention that they own the patents to many alternative fuel options already but refuse to do anything because it wouldnt make them as much money as oil based gas does right now.

Saints Row 4, eh? World hunger

[quote=tk098]I know what you mean, but at the same time when things actually start to get out of hand in terms of overcrowding, there are different measures that can be taken. It's not like once there's overcrowding, it's just gonna be there and then we all die.[/quote]

Less resources for the rest of us... hurr durr

neither. the strong will live. the weak will die. thats how it is, and how its always suppose to be.

[quote=Nivea]I already think someone found a cure for cancer, but they are being "detained."
Like someone found a substitution for gasoline. If someone were to release this info, it would plummet the economy

Also like how this girl found a way to charge your phone to full in under 30 seconds. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZbobPTjYHM)
Why isn't she being noticed everywhere?[/quote]
Actually the gas thing would help the economy because people would be traveling more and more resorts would get the money that would be going to the oil companies. So the resorts get more visitors they hire extra staff means better economy
OT cancer

[quote=Hellksing]Have you been playing Saints Row IV recently?[/quote]

hahahha we have a winner

[quote=cchpm]People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.[/quote]

There's no estimate on the carrying capacity of earth. Advancements in technology and development of society DO NOT mean exponential population growth. Japan is about as developed as they come, and it has a negative population growth. Same in many European states, such as Germany and Italy. Research in the medical field prevents unnecessary death due to these diseases. And it's not because they have more diseases than the underdeveloped states, the biggest factor is education of women and their access to contraceptives. It really irks me to see these types of comments because it largely ignores the problem in favor of an anti-science apocalyptic hysteria.

Have you been playing Saints Row IV recently?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjBdphZHOLY

[quote=cchpm]People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.[/quote]

I know what you mean, but at the same time when things actually start to get out of hand in terms of overcrowding, there are different measures that can be taken. It's not like once there's overcrowding, it's just gonna be there and then we all die.

People just don't understand that people have to die ! The world is overcrowding. This is not supposed to happen in nature, but thanks to all the advances in technology, humans are living longer. As a result, the Earth is reaching its capacity and will drive a lot of things into extinction, humans included in the future.

please no more cancer

I'd get rid of cancer.