Would you rather solve global warming or solve poverty?

Interesting question. While it is really important that we still have a viable planet to live on in a 100 years time or so, I think I'd rather solve poverty first. This is mainly because I believe once everyone has a decent standard of living, there'd be a greater range of people who would then be equipped to solve global warming.

But of course, I'm looking at this pragmatically. If I were a genie of some sort, and had the power to solve one with the click of my fingers... I'd still fix poverty first. When I think about poverty I think it includes your quality of life, AND things like health and education.

Also, Global Warming, as such is not really the problem here. Yes, there seems to be an increase in temperature, resulting in the melting of the ice caps... and the imminent destruction of Tuvalu. But there's also a host of other environment problems not just related to the climate. I'm not sure how much would change if "Global Warming" were solved, because then none of the other issues (I'm thinking deforestation... desertification... holes in the ozone etc) would have really been impacted. Overall, poverty seems (in my humble and not really educated opinion) the more wide-reaching issue here.

Ask me anything