wtf? how you wanna do that? we can't controle what the earth does.
He was asking a hypothetical question.
Which would you rather be able to do, if possible?
Would you choose to have the earthquake to never exist, or end world hunger?
Personally, I would choose to end world hunger. There are always going to be earthquakes, and this is stopping only one. Yes, it was terrible, but world hunger is also very terrible.
i whold stop world hunger. even if we remove "ïn japan" and just say no earthquakes at all. then earthquakes are only bad for a short time. world hunger is always going on.
and no eathquakes means that the planet is not active anymore and will die out.
Stop the earthquake. If everybody got the same amount of food, we could eat ourselves sick and still have plenty left over.
I would agree with that, but that is impossible. There are simply too many humans on this planet for everyone to have equal shares. Why do you think there are famines across africa from time to time (aside from draughts)? I would say end world hunger if it was possible.
If one were to stop that earthquake from happening, you would have saved some people in one country, but the rest of the world would still be starving.
If one were to stop world hunger, those poor earthquake victims in Japan would at least not be hungry.
Well, I'm sure we would have the possibilities to nourish all of earth's population if we'd really all want to, and if we'd be ready to do a few small sacrifices. We just have the wrong preconditions with our current society.
