Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
When you are given the ability to solve a possible or an impossible problem, always chose the impossible one so that we can solve the possible one later... Cure cancer and kill the greedy, muhahaha!
:)
Except both those conditions are exacerbated if not completly the result of mans doing. So dont blame nature. The number of cancer patients exploded in the 1960's and is still on the rise. nature didnt do that, men did.
we just cured clamytia cancer cant be far behind
This wouldn't actually overpopulate the Earth, because third world countries have so many children per family BECAUSE they lack food and shelter, they get kids to support them.
Overall this would boost the entire future of the human race, reducing conflicts after the third world countries fight to get their natural resources back, and it reduces crime because people don't have to worry about staying alive as much.
With education because of the living needs covered people wouldn't be as dependant on resources like land either, and wouldn't grow up in desperation turning to religeous fanatisism nor hate other people for stealing their land.
in the game, it doesn't matter ofcouse.
Yeah, this was my thinking.