-
toughest decision I ever had to make in a game
-
Cure cancer. We already have the tools to feed the hungry. We just don’t use them. The amount of food waste is horrible. IMHO
-
A proper diet and a healthy lifestyle will delay cancer or prevent it entirely, as such, there is a larger net gain by providing food. Furthermore, the proper nutrition extends to other ailments and will increase quality of life.
You can get treatment for cancer too, a d while it doesn't always work, it does help.
-
No one goes hungry because super cancer is discovered and kills 2 in 3.
-
Definitely pick eliminate cancer forever. Then all the money that was funding cancer research can be used to feed everyone. Boom. Problem solved.
-
What game is this? Is it available for PS, or just PC?
-
Is it really? Feeding the hungry is a no Brainer for me and a much more realistic goal.
-
Ah man. RIP Saints Row.
-
Cure cancer, more people to feed, more hungry people.
Feed the hungry, more people who can spend their energy curing cancer.
Seems like a straight forward decision!
-
And why is Franklin offering these choices? He turn over a new leaf after killing Michael and Trevor?
-
If you cure cancer does that mean smoking becomes ok?
-
Sadly cancer is only one of the ways smoking kills. It's one of the biggest risk factors in a disease process called atherosclerosis - which is the basis of heart attacks and strokes.
-
Ah well, that's probably for the best. Everyone would be amoking again if we cured cancer and there was no other repercussions :p
-
Yep, none of my smoking family has died of cancer, mostly COPD and heart issues got them. 100% smoking related, but not cancer.
-
I assume it means you can still get cancer, it's just always curable.
That being said, I don't think I want lung cancer regardless.
-
It says eliminate cancer for ever so I think it means getting rid of it completely
-
I mean, if there's a cure for cancer, you can bet the smoking companies will try to normalise smoking again.
-
That's a pretty interesting question, I suppose the answer is no because nicotine alone is bad for you although I can't remember why but I remember looking it up because I thought the idea of a drug that made you lose your appetite and reduce stress was quite interesting.
-
Cardiovascular problems. You can die of a stroke from blood clots through smoking as your liver releases fat into your bloodstream to break down the nicotine.
-
How about feed the people with cancer to the hungry ones, job done.
-
What game is this? Bezos Simulator??
-
Yes.
-
Feed the hungry. The fight against cancer has enough support as it is.
-
It only seemed like a hard choice for a moment. Of these two options cancer is much more likely to effect me. But solving food insecurity is too big. Magically meeting one of humanities basic needs is too good to pass up. Cancer is horrible, but so are heart attacks, car accidents and Alzheimer's. Making it so noone ever had to worry where their next meal was coming from for them or their kids is on another level. Now if the paper said Cure All Diseases that would be different.
-
I choose feed hungry because not everyone gets cancer but everyone does go hungry
-
No it isn’t. Cure fucking cancer.
-
I think I'd feed the hungry. Nobody seems to be helping them and, at the same time, we're constantly trying to find a cure for cancer so that one seems inevitable with time. Sorry to anyone with cancer...
-
Eliminate cancer. We already have enough food to make sure no goes hungry. We just don’t do it.
-
Cancer for sure. That would free up so much money
-
Probably cancer so I could start smoking cigarettes again lol
-
I would chose feed the hungry. The cure for cancer will one day be found, but the cure for world hunger will be overtaken by greed.
-
more hungry than sick ppl , ez choice. also good food can prevent cancer.
-
Easy, cancer. Sooo easy.
-
Why not both?
-
If hunger was solved, all my money would be spent on rent and hobbies... Hmmm...
-
Hunger is priority on this planet atm
-
If there are some drug or procedure that can cure wvery cancer, I bet its cost would be insane.
-
That's how mafia works
-
Cancer is a pretty big no brainer
-
I've lost some many important people to cancer, so for me that's what I would pick hands down.
-
Cure cancer. Use money saved in cancer research to end hunger
-
Not that the choice matters, which is probably the point, but I chose to cure cancer. I don't really have a reason, didn't really think about it too much.
Maybe because it's purple and that's the theme color so it seemed more natural?
-
Listen playa, we only got enough clout for one bill. Oh, some motherfucker named Zinyak wants to have a chat with you too.
-
Fuck cancer 🙁
-
I choose the third option: sacrifice both for nine-tailed fox girl waifu.
-
Cancer, that's a near impossible game of cat and mouse that kills everyone sooner or later some people just aren't alive long enough to get it.
Hunger is an issue because of ""logistics"" and would cost a measly 80 billion a year to feed every single person on the planet. That's about how much money churches don't pay in taxes every year just in America.
Take the money we saved on cancer treatments and use that to feed people.
-
ohhhhh snap. Uhhhh. . . cancer for Technoblade
-
No one goes hungry means you help out more people. Here’s the reasoning. If you cure cancer, more people will become older and avoid death a few more years. That means more food to the seniors. More food in one area means less food in another. If you cure hunger everyone is happy.
-
"YOU CAN'T FEED CANCER TO THE HOMELESS!" - TBFP
-
Why not both?
-
Feed hungry. Then more people can work towards a cure for cancer.
引用元:https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/psg4aq/toughest_decision_i_ever_had_to_make_in_a_game/
