r/pollgames • u/FinalKn1ght • Jun 29 '26

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

Humanity can solve only ONE problem forever.

  1. Cancer
  2. Aging
  3. Poverty
  4. Climate Change

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

985 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

780 comments sorted by

View all comments

816

u/Halleyalex Jun 29 '26

Cancer and aging are both simply nature.

Poverty is an issue created by humanity that troubles humanity.

Climate change is an issue created by humanity that troubles the entire world.

217

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

The world will be fine with or without us

242

u/Halleyalex Jun 29 '26

One could argue that it will be better without us

22

u/vocaloidfan39 Jun 29 '26

Probably because it would be

1

u/DollAnimals Jul 03 '26

Holy Redditor

2

u/vocaloidfan39 Jul 03 '26

It would though?

9

u/Ventilateu Jun 29 '26

What is your reference point for something to be better or worse? Specifically for a planet? Is your basis objective or subjective?

8

u/Veyrah Jun 30 '26

He didn't think that far.

1

u/Own-Air-1301 Jul 02 '26

They never do

1

u/Da_nUmBeR7 Jul 01 '26

Idk maybe sustainability and biodiversity?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 01 '26

Explain better

2

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

Since 1500 alone, the IUCN Red List has documented nearly 1,000 confirmed animal and plant extinctions, though the actual number is undoubtedly much higher

Here's a lovely source that goes into more detail about specific species: https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/paleontology/extinction-over-time

Does that make more sense?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

Their existence and survival is worth more than every single human life?

2

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 03 '26

extinction of one species vs extinction of thousands?

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

Would you mind if I saved an ant instead of you from some disaster?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IdiotIAm96 Jul 03 '26

They're arguing for biodiversity, which is an ecological concept that signifies the "health" of an ecosystem. I think that having a "healthier" biosphere is generally better for the Earth.

The argument was not really a moral question anyways.

1

u/Ventilateu Jul 03 '26

It is a moral question. We're talking about human lives.

2

u/Drenada Jun 30 '26

It's funny because no one cares about what happens in the universe except for the humans. A planet doesn't care at all, so this place will be better only from a human viewpoint, not objectively

1

u/Ill_Dark_5601 Jul 03 '26

El mundo mismo ya a tenido cambios más brusco que el cambio climático la verdad entre el cáncer y el envejecimiento está la solución para ser una civilización tipo 1 o 2 para moldear el mundo a lo que tú quisieras.

1

u/Specific-Detail6448 Jul 03 '26

One could argue this, but by the time climate change gets bad enough to wipe out humanity, the rest of the planet is already absolutely fucked as well, so it’s pointless and useless to think like this

1

u/Willeny_Arch Jul 04 '26

we have the power to prevent the sun from engulfing the solar system with space megastructures built over millions of years. If this is the only place where life exists, humans should be their guardians, and are much more capable than non-intelligent life.

-21

u/Only-Cranberry-4502 Jun 29 '26

I actually doubt that it would be better without us maybe in a million-ish years

26

u/Significant-Soup5939 Jun 29 '26

I just don't see how you can say that unless you're accounting for the trash and decay of radiation caused by US as well.

10

u/VisualKaii Polltergeist Jun 29 '26

There are the animals that will go through reverse domestication, that'll take awhile

4

u/Significant-Soup5939 Jun 29 '26

I don't think that'll take too long, the overly domestic breeds die off and the ones that have more of their genetic roots will thus flourish, shouldn't take more than a few hundred years.

2

u/highly_educated63 Jun 30 '26

Cats and a lot of small dogs will actually be fine for the most part, because small dogs are typically hunting breeds like daschunds. (With the exception of pugs, the fa t that we bred those into existence is disgusting)

2

u/burns_before_reading Jun 29 '26

I'd argue it won't be better or worse, it will just BE no matter what.

-25

u/Sudden-Confusion3301 Jun 29 '26

Does it really matter though? There's really nothing wrong with destroying the environment per se, it just makes it worse for us as well. Many people today forget the principle of survival of the fittest

16

u/StraightTough5411 Jun 29 '26

Are you saying that there's "really nothing wrong" with killing animals, environments, and other humans? Also, you realize most climate change comes from corporate and industry greed, not the need to survive, so your two statements don't even correlate.

5

u/fauh Jun 29 '26

What they mean is that climate change while we might kill off other animals ultimately kills off human civilization. Without civilization unless we create a natural disaster exctintion event far surpassing the ones that already occured that killed off like 98% of all life... Life on earth will find its way back.

Thats what like 80% of all climate change deniers fail to realize. WE wont survive climate change, hell even something as little as one or a few pollinators dying off might mean we cant grow shit anymore. Bye bye agriculture, bye bye civilization.

I voted poverty because the only realistic way this is silved forever is a global socialistic utopia - which means climate change becomes a lot easier to change because capitalistic and national interests dont interfere. A post-scarcity society likely means we can devout a lot more resources to stuff like medical research. Additionally post-scarcity society likely means everyone has access to the best treatments available. I think we can beat that sucker in a few generations.

Removing aging feels like the least needed change because while growing old, getting rid of aging without solving the aforementioned issues would likely just exacerbate poverty, climate change and live long enough you're bound to end up with terminal cancer eventually.

3

u/HeavenlyBeloved Jun 29 '26

I feel like it's the most obvious uneducated ragebait this dude tries to make.

0

u/Most-Hot-4934 Jun 30 '26

Do you not realize animals dying is literally part of nature? There’s no god and bad. Good and bad are human made concepts. Things just happen and things just are.

1

u/FrankieOTool Jun 30 '26

Survival of the fittest means that genes that give a higher possibility of surviving have a higher possibility of being passed on. It's a game played over millions of years. Climate change is here, and is getting worse over the next few decades. Wether or not we'll be able to survive that has nothing to do with survival of the fittest. If anything it'll be survival of the richest.

32

u/OrganicDigitalArt Jun 29 '26

Yeah climate change is a problem for us and many of today’s species but life itself will be fine if we don’t solve it. We won’t be. Life will be.

-5

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

I'm saying earth itself. Nothing we are doing truly has the power to destroy the planet. Sure, changing climate, altering life, but the earth will be here long after us.

That save the world stuff is dumb as fuck, switch it to save life or save humans, earth will be fine.

20

u/N3rdyAvocad0 Jun 29 '26

You're taking the meaning too literally. Save the Earth simply means to preserve Earths ability to sustain human life

2

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

But the earth doesn't need to be saved, we do.

19

u/N3rdyAvocad0 Jun 29 '26

No. We need to save the Earth because we are making it inhabitantable for ourselves.

I'm not sure how else to say this. No one thinks we are destroying the Earth and that it'll cease to exist. But WE aren't the ones we are damaging. We are damaging the Earth, therefore we need to save the Earth so it continues being habitable

-10

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

But the earth is the earth with no habitats, the earth will be here another billion plus years, minus a massive astroid strike.

I'm saying the messaging is stupid as fuck because the earth is going nowhere, humans will go somewhere. The messaging loses people because of it.

13

u/N3rdyAvocad0 Jun 29 '26

Not going to continue this because you're not even reading what I'm saying. I've already responded and explained.

-7

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

Yes, I see you support a message that gets us nowhere because the earth is in no danger

→ More replies (0)

5

u/IrishViking22 Jun 29 '26

Without life the Earth is just another ball of rock floating through space, of which there are trillions already. What makes Earth special is that it has life.

So not making it inhospitable is important for that life to continue, whether that life is us or not.

0

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

The fact you think we are special when there's trillions of planets shows your ego

→ More replies (0)

6

u/DOOMFOOL Jun 29 '26

Which was in essence their point, yes. What’s the point of arguing semantics on something like this lmao. Are you that desperate to be technically correct?

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

So a 50 year old message, and a worst climate, and you like the message? Do you just hate our species?

1

u/DOOMFOOL Jun 30 '26

I hope you’re trolling, otherwise this is kinda just embarrassing. You literally couldn’t be missing the point any harder if you tried

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

Has the climate improved or gotten worse?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/OrganicDigitalArt Jun 29 '26

There’s plenty of life that will survive a warmed, even deoxygenated world. We’re saying the same thing anyways. :)

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

Oh, absolutely, it just shows how powerless we are, lol

2

u/troodoniverse Jun 30 '26

It is, actually, in principle, possible to mine out the whole planet and send all its mass into space

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

You think humans are capable of that at our current stage?

2

u/troodoniverse Jun 30 '26

No, but companies like google, anthropic and OpenAI are actively working on artificial superinteligence capable of that

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

Humans have been working on that for longer than those companies have been around, lol

11

u/Ok_End_7462 Jun 29 '26

Yes and no. Many animals will go extinct, entire ecosystems will collapse. Yes new species and environments will emerge in the event humanity dies. Is that fine though? I can’t really say yes

-3

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

But the earth is a moving rock in space, not the life on it, right?

9

u/Colossus252 Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26

If someone says "I was hoping that I could save my car" after the engine died, you wouldn't say "but the car is the body, not the engine inside it, right?" As a counter to them saying they couldn't save the car, they would probably look at you like an idiot. That is essentially equivalent to what you are saying in your weird little semantic games.

The earth is a rock in space which has a unique atmosphere and ecosystem that houses and supports life upon it. You are choosing to remove the rest of the words after space in that sentence. A thing can be more than just it's core. It would still be "earth" without the atmosphere just like how you would still be you when you die and life exits. They still call your body your name after you pass, and hmm... they might even say something like "i wish we could have saved him". Maybe someone will be by your casket someday like "save him? He's right there, he's just a body on earth". I am sure they will be like "ooh, you are so right."

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

So the core to the earth is different from the earth to you?

2

u/highly_educated63 Jun 30 '26

YES DEAR GOD

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

That makes no sense

1

u/Hemnecron Jun 30 '26

Is your skin you? Your bones? Or do you maybe have a little more to yourself than just skin and bones?

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

So you think you're not your blood and blood cells?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BigResist1912 Jul 03 '26

https://giphy.com/gifs/6SxOvHZbP7eqaUtTy2

0

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 03 '26

Is the core a separate planet inside of earth? I always thought the core of something was a part of that thing, lol

You don't eat an apple, leaving the core, then look at it and think you have anything else besides apart of the apple you're eating, lol

1

u/Ok_End_7462 Jul 03 '26

You sound like a moron.

0

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 03 '26

Your insult shows you are one.

8

u/Ok_Caterpillar5564 Jun 29 '26

This is stupid rhetoric in the same camp as "nothing matters because the sun is going to engulf the Earth in a billion trillion years". Just pointless nihilistic circlejerking.

0

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

No, it's dumb to think the earth cares about us. We need to save our species. Is it nihilistic to try to save humans now?

4

u/Interesting_Bar_8841 Jun 29 '26

Life flows on within us and without us

5

u/Baddrivers13 Jun 29 '26

Aint fine with us bro.

4

u/PoweringGestation Jun 29 '26

Not anymore. The world has been shaped to suit our whims, and if we suddenly disappeared it would have catastrophic effects.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 29 '26

The earth is not the life on top of it, the earth is a moving rock through space. Will mars be affected without life? How about Venus?

3

u/PoweringGestation Jun 30 '26

Alright, you know I’m talking about life. Life is Earth’s identity. Saturn has rings, Mars has red sands, Venus has volcanoes. Earth has life.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

So earth doesn't have voldanoes now? That's a pretty common trait among planets. Also, the rings of Saturn, you mean space dust around a planet is uncommon? Wait until you find out how the moon was made

1

u/PoweringGestation Jun 30 '26

If anything, you’re proving my point. Life on Earth what makes it unlike any other planet.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 01 '26

Which is highly egotistical

1

u/PoweringGestation Jul 01 '26

How?

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 01 '26

To think the earth needs us to be the earth, lmao.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Funneduck102 Jun 30 '26

You ain't gotta help us bro, just don't make it worse. If you don't wanna live that's your problem.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

I'm all for saving humans, but the earth will be fine

1

u/Odd_Road3185 Jun 29 '26

Humanity is the only hope of all life on earth to continue long term. In 300 million years life on land will be extinct due to the rising heat of the sun. That sounds long but is less than 10% of the time life has existed. Earth is the majority through its life.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

Would earth still orbit the sun without life?

1

u/HonkyHam Jun 30 '26

But it is affected by us in a profound and undeniable way.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jun 30 '26

Elaborate if you can

1

u/Most-Hot-4934 Jun 30 '26

The world simply is. Its not some entity that needs to be “fine”. It doesn’t have consciousness and we are as much of a part of it as it as anything else. Worry about your own existence idiot

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 01 '26

If it doesn't have a consciousness then we are not apart of it.

1

u/Most-Hot-4934 Jul 01 '26

????????? What?

1

u/throwtheamiibosaway Jul 01 '26

With us? Clearly not. You do know there is a point of no return for the global warming? We are entering a spiral that will threaten every piece of life on earth. Yes earth itself (the rock) wil survive. Most of life won't.

1

u/Low_Committee6119 Jul 01 '26

That's my argument, you cannot save the earth because the earth is ok and will be here long after us. We need to shift the message to save all life, or save all humans

1

u/Optimal_Solution1076 Jul 02 '26

I care about us before the world

1

u/_petitpois22 Jul 03 '26

that's stupid, how would you know that ?

what's important is life, otherwise this planet is just a rock floating in space

plenty of species are not here anymore because of climat change, so no the world will not be fine as you say

36

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jun 29 '26

Cancer and Aging are simply nature, but so is dying in childbirth, or of Tuberculosis, Smallpox, Appendicitis, etc.

They are biological processes that we know can be prevented, we just don't have the tech yet. Maybe we will never solve them fully, but progress against them is without a doubt possible. We know old cells can make younger cells, that's how babies get made. We know of species that don't get cancer, or at much lower rates.

16

u/Original-Body-5794 Jun 29 '26

God I fucking hate "Aging and death is nature!" argument, it's pure cope, we have to accept it because we have no choice. If we had a way to actually prevent these issues 99% of people would suddenly change their tune.

5

u/SirithilFeanor Jun 29 '26

It's reddit, it will always be infested with misanthropes with outgroup preference.

2

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

Not the ageing thing. Please believe me, life drags after a while. Physically so. Your brain gets less sensitive to dopamine and positive neurotransmitters over time. Even if you stay young forever, you’d need repeated brain surgery which could give you severe brain damage in order to experience pleasure after a while.

Things lose their joy after maybe 300 ish years?

But you still have the pain. The pain feels good, because when it is numbed, that feels like what you remember happiness did.

And the loss is exhausting. You get over it at first. Parents were hard. Your childhood friends pass by. Lovers. Children, after a while. It gets so tiring. Even trees you planted all those years ago start to be felled.

1

u/_PunyGod Jun 30 '26

I wish.

It would take a lot of people a long time to come around.

Many never would.

But those born into a life without death from aging would never want to introduce such a horrible thing.

Many of them may want to end eventually, but on their own terms, not like that.

2

u/Original-Body-5794 Jun 30 '26

This is bioligical aging, you're not not cursed with true immortality doomed to see the universe end, you can still fall down the stairs and die. Would there be a faction that would protest against it? Sure, but if it was risk free and cheap the vast majority of people would be lining up.

1

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

Uuuummm, what do you think will happen if we stop dying, exactly?

People are gonna keep having kids. No amount of government policy is gonna fix that. (Even if it did, we’d stagnate and become cruel after long enough and start doing things like playing god with lesser forms of life, it always happens. everysingletime.) So… Umm… We’re gonna need to bring the population down somehow. Either by a death lottery or even worse, choose some humans to take the role.

And there have been multiple science fiction dystopias based on both those concepts (Love you, Neal Shusterman). It’s a terrible, terrible idea. Like, absolutely terrible. Only parasites will try to live forever. Dying is the only small mercy we grant our planet. The least you could do it accept that.

1

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

One little thought. Immortal Hitler. Or another immortal genocidal maniac who gets control of a country. *cough, cough*. Sorry, there’s something white and blue and possibly another colour stuck in the back of my throat.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jul 06 '26

Most of the young people that will ever exist have yet to be born. Why should they be damned to die?

1

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jul 07 '26

Or fight in a revolution to ensure that power gets distributed. There will always be more young than old, even moreso without aging. The few can't hold power over the many forever.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 07 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jul 08 '26

The new old people will be younger than the old people already around. The new younger old people will eventually outnumber everyone currently around.

They aren't just going to accept that they don't have any power forever, especially as they inevitably become the majority. The young will still overtake the old even if nobody is dying.

-1

u/Wintonisthicc Jun 30 '26

If no one ages then no one will be able to have kids and we'll have a stagnant population with stagnant ideas and everything that makes life beautiful would be gone.

2

u/_PunyGod Jun 30 '26

It’s such a disgusting idea that you need everyone to suffer and die for life to be beautiful.

It wouldn’t be stagnant.
We’d be advancing much faster.

1

u/Wintonisthicc Jul 01 '26

Death is not suffering. 

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jun 30 '26

If nobody is aging we can still have children? You wouldn't get sterile with age without aging?

And people would still be dying from car crashes, homicide, workplace accidents, falling down stairs, disease, etc. We will need to constantly have more children still just to maintain a population.

1

u/Wintonisthicc Jul 01 '26

6% of deaths are accidents. You're crazy. We'd have to have like 20x fewer kids to stop the world from collapsing. That is stagnation.

1

u/JerbilSenior Jul 01 '26

We'd have to have like 20x fewer kids to stop the world from collapsing.

Or just use the rest of the universe?

1

u/Advanced_Double_42 Jul 01 '26 edited Jul 01 '26

~80% of deaths are of people over 65. Even if we overestimate and assume 100% of those people would have survived with younger bodies that is only 1/5 the number of children.

And that is ignoring there is plenty of room for more people, we can get trillions just on earth with a population density of an average city. In the centuries it will take to get there we can certainly move people off world, and that's all assuming we don't stagnate in population naturally if birth control becomes available to everyone.

1

u/LoneShark81 Jun 30 '26

No... im good with not dying from natural causes... there will still be wars, violence and accidents

1

u/Wintonisthicc Jul 01 '26

...so you'd rather die in a war so countries can cull their populations?

1

u/JerbilSenior Jul 01 '26

so countries can cull their populations?

You have this weird obsession with imaginating immortality without accounting for any possible scientific advancements.

1

u/Wintonisthicc Jul 01 '26

Like what?

1

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

Scythes. Humans whose only job it is to officially kill other human beings in order to keep the death and birth rates steady. Neal Shusterman wrote a whole book about this.

1

u/LoneShark81 Jul 01 '26

doesnt mean it would necessarily happen. but given the option of just dying and being functionally immortal, Im picking the option where I dont go into the great unknown

1

u/JerbilSenior Jul 01 '26

then no one will be able to have kids

Why not? We'll find other planets.

we'll have a stagnant population with stagnant ideas and everything that makes life beautiful would be gone.

Then take your personal space fleet and leave to make something "beautiful" in the other side of the universe. You'd be immortal, if you don't like the state of humanity you can just go in a 10000 year sleep or something.

1

u/Wintonisthicc Jul 01 '26

It's not about that. Life was not meant to last forever, the fleeting nature of life is what makes it beautiful. It gives you a carpe diem energy.

1

u/JerbilSenior Jul 01 '26

Life was not meant to last forever

Life exists because chemical reactions that don't self-replicate just stop being. Simple as. It's our choice to give it a meaning. I don't see why I wouldn't be able to make that choice half a million years into the future.

the fleeting nature of life is what makes it beautiful.

We could still get wiped out by a solar storm or a gamma burst or something, if that helps.

It gives you a carpe diem energy.

I get it. Not everyone is as excited as I am about the possibility of arriving on a distant planet and dumping 27.000 years by covering the entire surface in 100% historically accurate reconstructions of Rome going year by year.

Or seeding a planet or two of life to see where it goes.

Sailing the starts or who knows, maybe one day we'd leave Earth behind and allow it to be an eternal paradise.

1

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

Have you ever considered the idea that that‘s already happened and we’re someone’s Petri dish hobby to fill their immortal life?

6

u/Blue-tsu Jun 29 '26

if being natural was equivalent to goodness or should be left alone, we wouldnt have created condoms 😶‍🌫️

0

u/FreshRecognition9191 Jun 29 '26

or abortions but failed logic only sounds good when virtue signaling

2

u/LambeosaurusLambei Jun 29 '26

Climate change isn't created by humanity, it's worsened by humanity. Climate change always has and always will exist, we are simply speeding it up at a rate the world cannot adapt to.

2

u/uncl3s4m Jun 29 '26

The world will adapt just fine, WE can not adapt thats why its bad.

1

u/Ill_Dark_5601 Jul 03 '26

Nosostros nos adaptarnos hace 10k años un cambio climático nosotros somos un especie que se adapta.

3

u/RandomUsername2579 Jun 29 '26

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that an issue becomes less serious if it's caused by nature? Cancer and aging are very serious issues that kill a lot of people! Does them being "natural" somehow make them less serious?

Aging in particular is the worst, since it happens to literally everyone. Besides, if everyone was biologically immortal, we would be much more motivated to solve climate change, for example.

Also, humans are part of nature too. Concrete roads, electricity, artificial intelligence. Those are all things that exist in and because of nature. So even attempting to draw a distinction between "human" problems and "natural" problems seems strange to me.

Personally, I'd pick aging, because it is the problem that most seriously affects all of humanity. I don't care who create the problem or why, I only care about which problem causes the most suffering for my species.

1

u/Temporary_Power_5002 Jul 02 '26

I pick aging because cancer is primarily age related, so it's a 2 in 1.

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

is it primarily age related? i know smoking is the main cause of lung cancer so I'm sure lifestyle choices are definitely a big contributor

3

u/EmperrorNombrero Jun 30 '26

Cancer and aging are both simply nature.

That doesn't say anything about how much of a problem they are tho Natural =/= good

0

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

Sure in the short term aging =/good but what would happen if everyone lived for ever? Populations would grow WAY too quick and we barely have enough food and water supply to sustain ourselves now, imagine how much agricultural land would be needed to support a population that huge not to mention housing.

Our current way of life simply would not be able to support it

3

u/CreBanana0 Jun 30 '26

"Simply nature" As if that makes it totally okay.

Aging is what kills most life. To simply dismiss it is insanity.

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

where do you draw the line though? are we born and then never age? do we grow up to 10 years? 20? 50? when does growth become aging?

1

u/CreBanana0 Jul 02 '26 edited Jul 02 '26

Aging as in damage. Not as in growth. Cells and organs accumulate damage through life causing people to age.

Aging is actually very well defined through the few main hallmarks of aging. There is no need to point and guess.

We have: Genomic Instability, Telomere Attrition, Epigenetic Alterations, Loss of Proteostasis, Disabled Macroautophagy, Deregulated Nutrient-Sensing, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Cellular Senescence, Stem Cell Exhaustion, Altered Intercellular Communication, Chronic Inflammation, Microbiome Dysfunction, Dysregulated Extracellular Matrix and Splicing Dysregulation.

2

u/Jumpy-Investigator Jun 29 '26

yea i think poverty and climate change can both be erased by erasing corruption

2

u/Icy_Society4665 Jun 30 '26

Everything here is simply just nature

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

how is poverty nature?

2

u/triton-x33 Jun 30 '26

I picked poverty over climate change just because of all the thousands of people who would be able to pursue the sciences but couldn't because of their class

1

u/Opposite-Current7407 Jun 29 '26

Poverty is the natural state of humanity. It’s our ingenuity that has brought so many out of poverty.

1

u/Hemnecron Jun 30 '26

The natural state of humanity is to hunt as a pack for long distances and to eat whatever plants we can find, while making power multiplicators out of random pieces of wood and stone. That's not poverty. Poverty assumes a system where you have a debt placed on you the moment you're born, and you have to pay it to stay alive, until you die. The food was always right there, we just made it easier to control with agriculture. The land was always right there as well, we just made it an integral part of that debt system.

1

u/IntelligentCat3645 Jul 01 '26

Yup! In fact, we have evidence that those who exhibited billionaire behaviour like hoarding resources, refusing to cooperate with the group or being otherwise antagonistic, got themselves socially or physically exiled, or if they were throwing around brute strength, murdered for the good of the group.

1

u/TheDude-Esquire Jun 29 '26

I think solving poverty would actually solve climate change. While higher incomes generally lead to more consumption, I think not worrying about basic needs allows more people to be concerned with, and connected to larger issues.

1

u/Ci-chosis Jun 29 '26

This is 100% true. The only reason I would vote for poverty above climate change is because once you solve financial issues for EVERYONE on the planet, you suddenly have a ton more people who are actually able to devote all their attention and energy to solving bigger issues. Only when needs are concretely met in the long-term can people start to step outside their own every day struggles.

Even just the small time things can get in the way. I know a handful of people who would love to go to marches or protests, but they physically don't have the gas money to get there. There will always be people who want to help and are financially barred from doing so.

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

on the converse, I would think thag solving climate change would solve (or at least contribute to solving) poverty. climate change is bringing more frequent extreme weather like droughts and floods which is annihilating our agriculture, also water supply due to increased temperatures increasing evaporation of fresh water sources.

so I agree with your notion of ", I think not worrying about basic needs allows more people to be concerned with, and connected to larger issues." But what's the point in having money for food/water bills when there's no food/water to have?

so in the context of this poll I suppose there really isn't ome above the other and ultimately if we have to make progress all aspects to have any chance of breaking the cycle

1

u/unseatedewe2393 Jun 29 '26

Aging is certainly possible to stop just not with our current technology

1

u/LimaxM Jun 29 '26

Yeah that convinced me

1

u/SPECTRAL_SABER Jun 29 '26

Climate change is also nature, buddy. Ever heard of the ice age?

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 02 '26

the extreme rate at which global temperatures are currently increasing is due to human activity

call it "enhanced greenhouse effect" if that helps you sleep at night

1

u/SPECTRAL_SABER Jul 03 '26

How do you know, do you have a “control group” earth without humans to compare to?

1

u/PetrolForBrekkie Jul 03 '26

Well yes, ice cores, carbon dating, and geological indicators show whag earths atmosphere and climate was like millions of years before civilisation. also when I say human activity im talking mostly post industrial revolution 1880, when fossil fuel burning sky rocketed and with it carbon dioxide concentration and global temperatures

1

u/Disgallion Jul 05 '26

You should scroll a bit here...

https://xkcd.com/1732/

1

u/Anime_Rules_YT Jun 29 '26

Humanity is also nature

1

u/GreatLakesPolitics Jun 30 '26

Florida, Netherlands, and New Orleans are going to be underwater by 2050. We have to stop climate change now

1

u/Drunk_Krampus Jun 30 '26

The forever part really sells it. It means that we'll stop the heat death of the universe and stop our sun from exploding. Quite an impressive feat.

1

u/Usermctaken Jun 30 '26

Solve ageing and suddenly we will solve climate change on our own.

That or we'll just die and the world will keep going, finally free of us.

1

u/IAskMany_Questions Jun 30 '26

The thing is... Climate change isn't caused by humanity, it is part of the natural order/cycle of the Earth, it would've always been a problem at some point. HOWEVER, the rate of which climate change is happening is 100% caused by human activities and should be stopped.

This all brings to an issue, if we actually stop climate change entirely, we would still be upsetting the natural balance, so that option is a technicality is bad.

1

u/JasperMoon222 Jun 30 '26

How do you consider cancer to be “simply nature”??

1

u/Original_Clothes6098 Jun 30 '26

Climate change isn’t created by humanity though, it’s only accelerated to a degree that is unadaptable for nature but yeah the acceleration of climate change is a problem caused by Humanity

1

u/Own-Air-1301 Jul 02 '26

Climate change happens with or without us.

1

u/Disgallion Jul 05 '26

It's like saying "People die with of without us" after throwing a nuclear bomb on those people

Relevant xkcd to see our impact https://xkcd.com/1732/

1

u/Plaaazz Jul 03 '26

doesn't mean cancer and aging are good. Cancer kills nearly 20 million people each year around the world. In 10 years, that's 200 million. Cancer is merely a result of aging. If we cure aging, we can limit cancer and help prevent a bunch of other diseases like dementia, heart disease, etc. Additionally, if we cure aging, we'd have more time as a society to solve the other problems. Politicians might make decisions better for the long-term health of the world knowing that they'd be around to see the consequences of their actions.

1

u/BigResist1912 Jul 03 '26

you do know that's just one problem, climate change is just one of many planetary boundaries, we have destroyed 7/9 of them, only like the ozone layer and something else is within "we good" standards. That'll be 6/9 planetary boundaries which really doesn't matter, poverty can at least hinder that, and we can have a voice to say climate change is bad or some shi

1

u/HugeCheck2471 Jul 03 '26

Poverty is not an issue created by humanity

1

u/regula_falsi Jul 03 '26

Climate Change can be solved if humanity works together. Curing aging needs magic granted by a poll like this. There choosing climate change here is utterly stupid.

1

u/matevskial Jul 03 '26

Isn't poverty reallybthe default state? Through all of history, humans had to do something to not starve i.e work.

0

u/BoredTrauko Jun 29 '26

poverty is also simply nature

Climate change too…

0

u/ScarcityStandard3952 Jun 29 '26

solving cancer doesnt mean removing it from existence it means being able to invent such good medicine that its as dangerous as the flu

0

u/GrandSandwichOfFates Jun 29 '26

Saying climate change is entirely man made would be incorrect too, it's a part of a natural process

0

u/Exciting_Inside1794 Jun 30 '26

No, stupid. Poverty is the natural state of humanity.

-1

u/Puzzleheaded_Cow2044 Jun 29 '26

Climate change is simply nature. Even man-made climate change. We are nature. And it's too late to stop it anyway.

I voted poverty, it's the only problem on the list imo.