Would you choose money or food?

Question

We're about 50-80 years ahead. Climate has reduced harvests by about 40-50 percent around the world. But you are given the option of choosing all the money you'll ever need or all the food you'll ever need. But the catch with money is if you choose the cash 20 million people will die as a result. But you can use that money to invest in futuristic buildings that can withstand the elements to come. Food if that's what you choose has become more valuable than gold or diamonds but this leaves you the possibility of dying through severe weather. I'm curious to know what you would choose. Food or cash?

Answer 1

Food, you can't eat money, and you will have the strength to build yourself a shelter.

Your scenario is realistic, but not only because of Global Warming. Peak oil means that oil will become scarcer and scarcer and more and more expensive. At the moment we have high crop yields due to oil based fertilisers and pesticides, which has resulted in a population increase from a steady, but stable 2 billion to 6.5 billion today. Without oil, these levels of population are unsustainable.

The University of Reading Peak Oil Study Group has calculated, after careful research that worldwide, oil from all sources, will peak in 2011-2012.

There are no alternatives to oil. The social and economic implications do not bear thinking about. Technology will not save us.

Grow your own food, get out of debt and buy a Stirling engine generator that you can run on old cooking oil. Brace yourself for the end of life as you know it.

Answer 2

Food. I would use the food to feed the world instead of squandering a bunch of c-notes into my mattress. Money is truly the root of all evil and we wouldnt be in such a severe climatic depression if the billionaires of the world would invest their fortunes into sustainability and new technologies to reduce pollution of all kinds as well as new forms of energy. We have smart people out there who have the ability of saving thin tainted planet, however unless we feed them, treat them equally and give them the proper instruments to discover these new found technological breakthroughs, we will die out just as the Dinosaurs did. You question has holes because if food will eventually be worth the value of diamonds today, wouldnt then the person with all the food in the world be in turn the most powerful and wealthy? Its not about who is the best and who is the worst, its about coming together as a world to fight the hypocracies and learn from our mistakes. we all know we are going behind mother natures back, lets face her and confess to our addictions and start the intervention to allow our kids a healthy, full life.

Answer 3

Well if i'm guaranteed all the food i'll ever need, and said food is so valuable, wouldn't it stand to reason that the food is as good as money but also immediately valuable. in the future perhaps money loses value, whereas i'm assuming this infinite stock of food will only grow in value. (plus 20 million people don't die)

Answer 4

I would choose the food because I don't think money is as equally as important as human life. I don't think that person's life should be lost solely because of money. Thieves and other criminals kill people everyday over man-made possessions and I think that that is extremely sad and callous. As you explained above, food would be the most valuable thing so being in possession of food would make me wealthy anyway. I wouldn't need the money to be wealthy because I would have the food and no one would lose their life. This would be one of the rare occasions where I get to have my cake and eat it too! LOL :)

Answer 5

It's a non-question.

Nobody can predict whether Global Warming in 50 to 80 years will decrease or increase food production.

The Russian residents of Siberia would certainly welcome a few degrees warmer summer (and longer growing season), as would Canadians.

How dare you try and advocate hardships for the people who stand to benefit from a warmer world just for YOUR personal convenience!

Answer 6

I wil choose food because if you dont have food what are you going to eat the money you have ? and if you have food you can sell it to get money !!! money cant grow but food come from plants and animals so they can become more!
Food is the Best way to stay longer on earth

Answer 7

If taking the money can save the world and future generations, i would take the money. Only with the positive support of everyone still alive.

Answer 8

With a decreased harvest I would go with food. You could always use the food to barter for any sundries that money would normally buy.

Answer 9

Im assuming by skill of picking a sort of you income a limiteless volume? if so, i might % Love. If love ought to be quantified and that i had limitless of it, then all beings might infact love me. which could be fuckin candy. walk in the process the city and all of the folk love me... walk in the process the jungle and all of the animals run as much as me simply by fact they love me... **** even swimming around the sea and all of the fishes be loving me. Yup, that'd be the main badass element. Itd be like being the action picture star of the finished universe. Plus, if this became all authentic, human beings might cook dinner me nutrients each time i want. i could be waiting to do and function something i might want. Definition of triumphing.

Answer 10

Neither - Your scenario will never happen. It's just a fairy tail to scare people. Understandably so, as no one would believe global warming if you didn't scare up some business.

Keeping the environment clean is very profitable.