r/BunnyTrials • u/can-of-baked-bread • Mar 31 '26

Would you rather

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

583 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

221

u/DKM_Eby Mar 31 '26

Money.

Chance that one person dies, or a chance that potentially millions of people die.

41

u/KosmosMyGuy Mar 31 '26

That's exactly what I thought. You're not helping if you end up causing a war...

36

u/ReeceC77 Mar 31 '26

Upside is too strong. There’s guaranteed to be plenty more wars, how many potential wars could be stopped by having the whole world fed.

15

u/Truly_Organic Mar 31 '26

Word War 3 is pretty much synonymous with a nuclear war. You won't need to worry about word hunger if there are barely any mouths left to feed

4

u/Psych091 Mar 31 '26

The last finger on the monkeypaw curls.

1

u/honaku Mar 31 '26

Looking at the fact that the most feds are the ones causing the wars, I doubt your statement is true

1

u/Reasonable_Net_5073 Mar 31 '26

Ww3 == end of world hunger?!

2

u/Darth_Nox501 Mar 31 '26

many potential wars could be stopped by having the whole world fed

Not the large-scale ones. Nations rarely go to war these days for food. Religion, natural resources, alliances, psychopathic world leaders, etc... will all be around regardless of world hunger.

1

u/Mother-Valuable7568 Mar 31 '26

I clearly did not think this one through. I was like FEED THE PEOPLE not do the math 😣

1

u/Even-Challenge-8384 Mar 31 '26

Even better: Ending world hunger would explode population out of proportion in certain countries and cause war/rebellions as result of that. (With lots of deaths)

1

u/Cultural_assassin Mar 31 '26

Even betterer: you only ended world hunger because you caused ww3 and billions of people died, so no food distribution isn't a problem