Normally when forced into answering hypothetical moral dilemmas, I'll pretend to take the moral choice but know in my mind that I would probably take the immoral one if I were actually put in that situation. The same cannot be said for this question, however. World hunger is an enormous and tragic issue.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Agreed, it would have to be much more than 10 million and even then I'd be hard pressed.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Fuck world hunger. They should have thought of that before they chose to be born in a third world country.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I hate you ignorant people who say that being hungry is a choice, when there is scientific evidence showing that it is clearly genetic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

It reminds me of this geographic luck concept we were learning about in history.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Nope. Solving world hunger is an amazing feat. Plus you'd probably get money from that anyways-maybe not 10 mil., but still a lot.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think most of the NWs are forgetting that humans are fundamentally selfish animals. The YYAs are being realistic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No I agree with YeahIAm on this (I only YYA coz I suck) - usually I would pick the more selfish option, but world hunger ending is way way better than 10 million.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well personally, I would definitely course world hunger. Why would you even choose the 10 million dollars? What would you do with it? After a certain point it's just pure, ridiculous luxury that nobody needs. I'm perfectly happy with my life right now, I'm content to keep living it just the way it is. Besides, ending world hunger would go much farther than the 10 million dollars. It's not that I'm unselfish; I'm sure if I were confronted with a different, more attractive option, the choice would be much harder for me. But in this situation, the 10 million dollars pose no temptation for me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not saying I would choose one or the other. I don't like hypotheticals, there's no way of knowing which you would choose unless the situation actually arises.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Would the solution to world hunger be viable forever? If you removed the world wide deaths from starvation, or any illness resulting from it, that would put a huge dent in death rates. Then those people that survived would have kids and birth rates would sky rocket. If world hunger was ended permanently then the birth rates would steadily keep rising. If it isn't, then we're in the same boat as before but now there's even more people in the world to feed. I think if we solve world hunger, we're also gonna have to solve the population issue and have science leap way beyond its current means so we can find some new planet to accommodate everyone. Or have WW3. Although with every country having larger populations, I think WW3 would be more likely to occur since militaries would be bigger. Moral of the story. End world hunger, cause WW3. (sarcasm)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I was going to say the same thing. People always talk about how solving world hunger is a great thing, but they fail to realize that it we were to somehow feed everyone, we'd be faced with severe overpopulation. Overpopulation is already a big problem because we're expending our natural resources at an alarming rate, and eventually they're going to dry up, and then we're in trouble since instead of funding new ways to grow crops or invest in superior space-travel methods, we pump trillions of dollars into trying to kill each other. Besides, with $10 million the ladies will finally think I'm cool.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You'd probably get way more than that for solving world hunger anyway.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I almost always pick the more selfish option when it comes to these things, but I can't even bring myself to it. Plus, you'd get a ton of money and fame for ending hunger anyways.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

10 million dollars won't be as satisfying as knowing I solved world hunger.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

To solve world hunger all the U.S. has to do is put less than 5% of our tax money that's going to defenses and put it towards third world countries, and I don't think you earn money for solving world hunger, it's kinda like a "yay you solved world hunger.... Thanks!" and then they send you on your way you know what I mean? Also, you could do alot with ten million dollars that's just not a life style change, you can put money towards charity or build a shelter for homeless animals, you can help poor people in our country, I just think you could get much farther with the money then "solving world hunger" and having the other situations arise like Scottyd points out.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

People like to think they would do the morally "right" thing, but if one was genuinely given the two options they would most likely (on instinct) consider the 10 million first.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Exactly! Like if someone walks up to you with 10 million dollars in cash or 10 million loaves of bread to feed the people it'll be real hard to send that money away you know?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

YOLO. I'd rather live my one life with a 10 million dollars. Fixing world hunger won't help me.

by Anonymous 11 years ago