killamch89 Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 Which one would you choose and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blackangel Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 (edited) Global warming. It would be a bigger benefit in every way. I know what it's like to be homeless, and having to dumpster dive for food, and I know that there are nations with people who don't even have that option. But all in all, I still think that solving global warming would benefit the planet and everything on it more drastically than solving world hunger. Edited July 22, 2021 by The Blackangel killamch89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality vs Adventure Posted July 22, 2021 Share Posted July 22, 2021 If you don’t solve global warming, then you won’t solve world hunger either because global warming can cause floods, fires, and other disasters wiping out crops and livestock. And not being careful about destroying natural habitats threatens the ecosystem we rely on for food and genetic diversity. All the corn and soy used for the meat industry could instead be used to feed people. As we speak, China is dumping their human feces in public oceans by the boat load and depleting oxygen in the ocean destroying reefs and fish habitat. killamch89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killamch89 Posted July 22, 2021 Author Share Posted July 22, 2021 Just now, Reality vs Adventure said: If you don’t solve global warming, then you won’t solve world hunger either because global warming can cause floods, fires, and other disasters wiping out crops and livestock. And not being careful about destroying natural habitats threatens the ecosystem we rely on for food and genetic diversity. All the corn and soy used for the meat industry could instead be used to feed people. As we speak, China is dumping their human feces in public oceans by the boat load and depleting oxygen in the ocean destroying reefs and fish habitat. My sentiments exactly - solving global warming or at least destruction of the natural habitat would take priority because some of those bacteria are responsible for keeping the air we breath clean and the plants also. In addition to that, sea plankton and other fish are responsible for keeping our oceans and other bodies of water clean and sustain many other species of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Blackangel Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 We get around 80% of the oxygen that we breathe on this planet from the rain forests. The rain forests that were currently tearing down to build another shopping mall in their place. What do we do once the rain forests are gone? Look around the solar system and see if we can harvest oxygen from any of the planets here? Great. Now we're SpaceBalls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killamch89 Posted July 23, 2021 Author Share Posted July 23, 2021 1 minute ago, The Blackangel said: We get around 80% of the oxygen that we breathe on this planet from the rain forests. The rain forests that were currently tearing down to build another shopping mall in their place. What do we do once the rain forests are gone? Look around the solar system and see if we can harvest oxygen from any of the planets here? Great. Now we're SpaceBalls. At the rate of deforestation, I'd give it 20 years until we'll have to live in bubbled cities with oxygen generators just to survive. Greedy humans never carry about their own wellbeing much less the wellbeing of others, money is their life - nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality vs Adventure Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 Speaking of oxygen, the reason we had dinosaurs is because the environment at the time had a lot more oxygen and life was much bigger. So imagine when humans go extinct and new life forms emerge. They will all be small like the Smurfs. killamch89 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Empire Posted July 23, 2021 Share Posted July 23, 2021 Theoretically, world poverty should solve world hunger, but poverty is a subjective concept that can be defined by countries' poverty lines, while we all can generally agree on what is considered world hunger, so I would say solving world hunger would be more beneficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killamch89 Posted July 23, 2021 Author Share Posted July 23, 2021 15 hours ago, Reality vs Adventure said: Speaking of oxygen, the reason we had dinosaurs is because the environment at the time had a lot more oxygen and life was much bigger. So imagine when humans go extinct and new life forms emerge. They will all be small like the Smurfs. Yeah, I remembered watching a documentary about that when I was much younger and they did an "imagine if the same levels of oxygen existed today" scenario and surprise surprise, we're larger, have super strength and some other crazy abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
