The solution for world destitution.

Remove all ads!

'

And herein is the false dichotomy underlying the entire rationale.

Your survival is in no way shape or form impacted by giving aid to African nations. If you believe that because money is spent on Africa that money is not spent within a nation (say Canada or the US for example) then let me suggest you don't understand the manner in which politics decides budgets. You act as if there is a peculiar sort of zero sum game going on - there isn't.

 

This is the essay by Garret Hardin that I have been basing my argument on. It is called "Lifeboat Ethics", and while it is a little out of date, I think that it still holds true today.

@Judas

The boundries are important in the world. Without them there would be chaos. It would be changing human nature not to have boundries, and like Chris said, "any scheme that depends on changing human nature is bound to fail." I know that the borders are just imaginary lines, but they keep people together in groups to help each other. That is what I think that the boundries main puposes are.

@Chris

IMHO, the UN is a bunch of officials from different countries who make decesions that sometimes work, or are done. Eventually, they are going to make a big mistake and end up like the League of Nations.

@Laches

I am not saying that helping under priviledged countries does effect my survival, I am saying that it could effect my survival. What if there is a shortage of some items. Or we hit another Great Depression. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wager my life on the fact that it will not happen.

 

Jaguar, the UN does a great many things badly, but it collects beautiful statistics. You can trust their numbers.

Now, as for Mr. Hardin's article:

Several people have already pointed out that we haven't found the limits of either the rich or poor lifeboats. Even with the AIDS crisis and rampant poverty, the third world population continues to grow. Clearly the lifeboats are still expanding, even if they aren't adding luxury berths.

The assumption is that Indians do not benefit from new Indian neighbors. His argument in favor of "clean beaches, unspoiled forests, and solitude" against human life - with all its creativity, tragedy, and beauty - betrays an aesthetic prejudice which is biasing his ethical theory.

These female immigrants become truly American women, so we needn't draw long-term distinctions between first- and tenth-generation American moms. The American census forms used to track Irish, Italians, and Jews separately - now they're all folded into "Caucasian". I'll bet that within a few decades, "Hispanic" and "Caucasian" will fuse into a single category. The American identity and its sub-categories are shifting and changing - we can afford to absorb another few dozen cultural groups.

And let's suppose that, theoretically, these immigrants immediately stopped having children once they swore the citizenship oath. Presumably the rest of the rich world is having the same birthing problem - today, America is breeding more per-capita than its European competitors, so if America hits zero, chances are Europe and Japan would've hit zero long before. So the US would have a cheap-labor boost to support its Social Security system, while Europe and Japan greyed haplessly and helplessly.

But we aren't living by the ethics of the spaceship anyway. The rich countries are eating, drinking, and making merry, and then throwing crumbs to the dogs. It's partly because we're so rich and wealthy that we can indulge a little secular compassion. For those issues that might help the poor nations but at a hurt to the rich - like ending farm subsidies - the luxury lifeboats laity aren't helping.

All aboard the American lifeboat!

 

@Sharlp

Yes i know that Africa has not been fully exploited or better yet, only a fraction is being exploited. I did not said that this happens. My point was that the resources of Africa (those that are exploited) ,are not being exploited by local companies and interests, not benefiting therefore the native population.

I don't think that any of us or anyone for that matter can judge who should and who should not be on the boat. You are there by circumstance and that does not mean that you or any of us deserves that de facto.
This whole lifeboat theory is a covered racism theory that would not existed if Mr. Hardin was a member of these poor countries. Would he then sacrifice himself for the benefit of others? I think not.
Anyway our human society has a pretty effective way to diminish this overpopulation problem. War, nothing works more efficiently and it causes less guilts than cool blood murders, and helps science take giant leaps forward.

 

@Grey Magistrate

First, I'll agree that the UN keeps good stats, if nothing else. I liked your interpretation of Mr. Hardin's essay. t gave me some new things to think about, from other perspectives.

@Mithrantir

I believe that that comment was a little harsh and unfare to Mr. Hardin. Granted, he comes from one of the 'richer' countries, but he still has a good grasp on the situation. As for him being racist, I think that that is going to far. I do not recall him once mentioning race, sex, age, religion or anything else but nationality. And even then, he was only speaking of them in a broad sense.

And I believe that if he thought that sacrificing himself would help the world for the better, then he would. He wouldn't do it foolishly, and give his space in the lifeboat to one other person. But I think that most people, or I would hope so, would give their lives for the greater good.

Ther is a point when surviving wouldn't be everything. I know I said that I want to survive, but if my death would help countless numbers of people, then I think that I would.

Of course this is easy to say, sitting here in my comforatable home with a full stomache, knowing that sacrificing myself wouln't make a lick of difference. But I hope that if it came down to it, I would. Would you?

 

Racial discrimination fits better according to you? I don't think he would do it though and furthermore i want to say that he would not even think that theory if he has gone in these poor countries and saw that the real problem is not overpopulation but wrong exploitation of the natural resources availiable to them. True, people are increasing rapidly and they die with slower rates than they did, but come on who is to judge if the country has reached its limits? The situation must be so bad that people would sleep on each other and feed from each others flesh.
Not to mention that Mr. Hardin ( who have died or suicided with his wife this Semptember according to this link have forgotten the fact that another solution is the redistribution of wealth in order to blunt the hardships of many people.
And something else

Can you define this please? If anyone sacrificed in this theory this would be for the benefit of another and many others. That's why he calls for major decrease of population. As for the greater good issue this holds a lot of discussion as to what is presented as such.

As you said my friend when you are out of the dance it is easy to speak heroicly and give big promises. When you are in things do tend to change. If you were born in a poor country i think that your first and upmost goal would be survival as you said in a previous post. Even at the cost of others life. I won't say a thing to answer to you other than i do not know.
But when it comes to donate to help starving or dying children i donate, because i know that i may have been in their place and i would expect from my fellow human being, who lives comfortably, will say "i will give this dollar and won't buy a hot-dog for a change. I will eat my home cooked meal". Doesn't this appeal to you as a solution?

 

You brought up Garrett Hardin who is also linked with Malthus by many. Regarding Hardin, I came across something about Hardin that I think is similar to how I think of Malthus:

http://www.mail-archive.com/fork@xent.com/msg13433.html

Regarding similar things I debated once before elsewhere, I agree with others that many of the basic principals of Malthus and Hardin and jaguar aren't correct

An excellent article imo from The National Interest No. 59:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2897/increasingreturns.html

And others:

http://www.cast-science.org/cast-science.lh/tenb_nr.txt

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb072303.shtml

Edit - I just paid attention to the racism allegations. They're silly allegations. Do a search on Hardin, who is well known, before flinging such accusations. They're also ad hominem you big poopy head.

[ December 06, 2003, 06:36: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Firstly, I don't know how this was changed, but I was trying to say that Hardin was not a racist, nor were any of his comments racist. Sorry if this confused anyone out there. I can see how this can mislead people.

To resond to Laches;

Just to clarify, I don't agree with everything that Hardin says. Just some.

I would like to thank you all for posting on this board. It was my intention when I posted to gather other opinions and try to re-establish my own. You have all given me much to think about (especially you Chris). Perhaps I was wrong to think that stopping aid was the solution, or perhaps I was right. All I know now is that I need to think on this a little more, maybe read some more backround material.

Any good suggestions?