War, Disease, or Hunger (Non-TEF Game!)

quadraptor's picture
I came up with an interesting game today.

So basically, there are three things. War, Disease, and Hunger.

One of the three things can be completely eliminated, but at a cost, as another one would be dramatically increased. The third thing would remain the same as it is now.

So for example if you chose to eliminate War, there would be global peace, but there would be a dramatic increase in either hunger (worldwide famine) or disease (global pandemic).

Or if you eliminated Disease, all diseases would not only be simultaneously cured but also prevented, but you would either have to pick a global war situation or shortage of food.

Or if you eliminated Hunger, no one, humans and animals alike, would ever go hungry again as there would be bountiful food. But you'd either have a world at war or widespread disease throughout the globe.

So what would you choose?

This got potential, would

This got potential, would like to see it full-fledged.

So do I get to choose what comes with my pick? Or that's kept a surprise?
In the first case, I'll go with the screw Disease/on with the War scenario.
Had I no choice with the outcome, I would eliminate Hunger.
quadraptor's picture

You wouldn't really know what

You wouldn't really know what would happen, I mean if you could pick then certainly the easiest choice would be more disease and make it the common cold X3

But no, you wouldn't have any control over what happened. The war could last a year, or could result in nuclear Armageddon. The famine could be easily solved or could wipe out humanity. Disease could be something simple or something catastrophic. There's no telling what would happen.

And bump. But naturally,

And bump.

But naturally, ignorance is the best part.
No, what I meant is, picking the counteraction from the two things left. Or that's to be determined by the one who started the game.
Leads to another thought: how would a multiplayer of this pan out.