World Peace vs. Solving Hunger and Poverty

Yesterday, I was struck by the question: "Have world peace or Solve hunger and poverty."

It is sad that you can only select one from world peace and solving hunger and poverty. I selected to have world peace. 

Since I think that planet earth, future generations, and the improvement of human technology and culture is very important for the existence of humanity, it is important to have world peace. By having world peace, we can stop the use of nuclear weapons that can wreak havoc to our nature. By having world peace, people, like scientist, can focus on improving science and technology. The government will be able to give the fund reserved for the military and will be turned over for the development of science and technology. Better place, it will be. 

Though solving poverty and hunger is not bad to do, it won't benefit most of humans and the future generations compare to having world peace. People might think that it is unfair that some people live in luxurious life but some people don't, but strictly speaking, having hunger and poverty is part of the nature. It is normal that some organism suffer from this because of lack of resources. By having poverty and hunger, death rates will compete against birth dates. Taking poverty and hunger out, will make birth rates even higher and can even affect our environment badly.