# data[].attributes.headline
Fighting Hunger and Famines by Helping the Poor - Alexa Alfaro 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fighting Hunger and Famines by Helping the Poor - Alexa Alfaro 

# data[].attributes.body
Garret Hardin presents some very strong views throughout his essay. He believes that there is something to be done about overpopulation, and that it is ruining chances to be self sufficient in the long run. Hardin believes that giving an automatic easy way out is a quick fix, and will ultimately lead to demise later on. For example, a rich country would never go through a famine because they have everything they need, and they are self sufficient. A poor country, on the other hand, would suffer because they do not have the help or the resources to do good on their own. Hardin does not believe in easy fixes because they end up leading to worse things happening to the targeted population. I think that the solution for this is to provide aid where poor countries need it, because it is the morally correct thing to do. I also think it would be beneficial to include steps to teach them ways to become self sufficient. Teaching someone how to do something for themselves would be so much more sufficient than just doing it for someone. This could be related to correlation and causation. Because these poor countries cannot fend for themselves, richer countries must take it upon themselves to take care of them, but also provide them with skills to help them become self sufficient. When we provide these countries with what they need, it helps them for a short time. If we are strategic and teach them life skills, it will help for a life time.

# data[].attributes.body
Garrett Hardin wrote a piece called Lifeboat Ethics: A Case Against the Poor. In this piece Hardin claims that poor countries should remain left to survive with no help from other countries. Hardin's main argument for poor countries failure being overpopulation. Hardin did not consider the years of culture that has dealt with poverty. Places such as Africa have dealt with poverty for years, with no help, and still have not fallen. Overpopulation is not the issue for failure of poor countries nor is it the reason poor countries are poor. The lack of resources is why poor countries are poor. With help from wealthy countries poor countries would be able get their own resources and no longer be poor. All the countries need is a little help. Hardin uses a black and white fallacy in his piece, either the wealthy countries help the poor countries and they become dependent on that help or they receive no help. Neither are true, poor countries can receive help without becoming dependent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Benefactors of Foreign Aid - Emily Dowden

# data[].attributes.subject
Benefactors of Foreign Aid - Emily Dowden

# data[].attributes.body
Hardin presents a very biased tone in his writing. He does this because he believes that the less fortunate countries should no longer receive foreign aid. Reasons being is that overpopulation put these countries into the current situation. If the US for example were to provide aid to a dwindling country, Hardin believes that they will become very dependent on the US for providing more and more aid. Hardin says that the country will not learn how to fend for themselves, and they will not prosper on their own. This is believed to be wrong. Although overpopulation is major problem today, there is no way of preventing it. The world will always continue to grow, and there is little one can do to stop it from happening. But there are ways that society can slow it down. By providing the foreign aid countries need, they are able to start from what is given and learn how to prosper. This will create a more economically successful environment for all countries. According to an article titled, "Foreign Aid Effectiveness and the Strategic Goals of Donor Governments" the author goes to explain the benefactors of foreign aid. "...when the strategic benefits associated with aid provision are relatively small for Western governments, their foreign aid should help leverage economic reform in recipient countries, thus leading to greater economic growth" (Bearce & Tirone). Foreign aid should not be seen as a source of dependency, it should instead be seen as an ally for the improvement of third world countries. The aid provided should be seen as start of a new prospering world as a whole.

Works Cited:
Journal of Politics. Jul2010, Vol. 72 Issue 3, p837-851. 15p.
https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bakersfieldcollege.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=22&sid=47c1e416-4c69-4083-9b3d-50dfc1e0462f%40redis

# data[].attributes.headline
Rachell Becerril- Black and white Fallacy

# data[].attributes.subject
Rachell Becerril- Black and white Fallacy

# data[].attributes.body
Garret Hardin, in his article regarding population and assisting the poor argues that rich nations do not have any obligation to give aid to the poor and many agree with him. However, this is not true because helping is the ethical thing to do. Populations will always continue to grow no matter what, and sending resources to third world countries does not mean that their population rate will speed up. By providing aid to the poor we would be helping them be able to prosper on their own. Hardin utilizes a black and white fallacy in his article. He argues that the only way of stopping or at least slowing down overpopulation is to deny impoverished nations the help they need to survive. This is not true because plenty of other solutions to overpopulation exist.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Green Revolution Solution-Raegan Null

# data[].attributes.subject
The Green Revolution Solution-Raegan Null

# data[].attributes.body
In Hardin's argument, he claims that the solution to saving resources is for the rich countries to stop providing for the poor. However in the article, "The Green Revolution: For Bread and Peace" written by Norman E. Borlaug, it proves that there is a way for the resources to be shared to everyone. Borlaug states, " It was the first time in history that such huge quantities of seed had been imported from distant lands and grown successfully in their new home. These imports saved from three to five years’ time in reaping the benefits from the Green Revolution" (Borlaug, 1971). This quote shows that there is a way for the rich to provide resources to the poor without it affecting the resources, by giving the seeds to the poor countries and allowing them to grow their own food the rich won't have to give away any of their food and the poor can learn to be resourceful and not have to rely on the rich countries for their resources. Hardin also uses the slippery slope fallacy in his argument by saying that if we let the poor countries mend themselves and potentially starve out, it will make way to an end of overpopulation. This argument is flawed however, because if the rich were to stop providing for the poor then there is a great chance of the population as a whole becoming underpopulated and there would be too many resources at that point. Mankind as we know it could possibly die out if too many people die in the poor countries as they make up most of the population.

Work Cited: https://web-p-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.bakersfieldcollege.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=28&sid=1aaf0ba3-840b-4e57-9b2d-0ea865485f62%40redis

# data[].attributes.headline
Provision of Foreign Aid for Those in Need - Spencer Corum

# data[].attributes.subject
Provision of Foreign Aid for Those in Need - Spencer Corum

# data[].attributes.body
The provision of aid to struggling countries is beneficial to their recovery and development. Richard Ilorah and Collins C. Ngwakwe shows this in their paper “Foreign Aid and Economic Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Mediating Role of Governance Effectiveness.” in which they state, “Cungu and Swinnen (2003) applied econometric analysis to examine the impact of aid on economic output and economic growth using a panel sample of countries in transition. Their econometric analysis discovers the existence of a significant and positive relationship between economic growth and receipt of foreign aid.”(Ilorah and Ngwakwe 7). Additionally, Ilorah and Ngwakwe found that the positive relation between economic growth and foreign aid only increased when the government maintained control of internal corruption. This is important because it shows that providing foreign aid is not a pointless endeavor, despite the Sisyphean nature Hardin describes it to be. If foreign aid is not pointless, then clearly it should be provided to countries in need.
Hardin uses numerous fallacies in his essay. He uses the Black and white fallacy to turn the argument into a rich vs poor, rather than focusing on the world as a whole. He also uses the either/or fallacy to make the decision between a global dictatorial rule or leaving countries to starve. Lastly, Hardin uses the slippery slope fallacy when describing that if foreign aid is supplied, countries will become over reliant and overpopulate to the point of collapse.

Works Cited

Ilorah, Richards. Ngwakwe, Collins C.. “Foreign Aid and Economic Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Mediating Role of Governance Effectiveness” Managing Global Transitions: International Research Journal, 8 Dec. 2021.

# data[].attributes.headline
The need for foreign aid- Fatima Amezola

# data[].attributes.subject
The need for foreign aid- Fatima Amezola

# data[].attributes.body
Many people in poverty are suffering more now than ever, since others can provide the help they need, poverty can become decreased, unless people don’t provide the assistance. Garret Hardin believes that poor people should have no help from the upper classes. I believe that with the help of others the lower classes can rise up from that poverty level. Hardin provides a fallacy in his article, he states, “…poor countries will not learn to mend their ways and will suffer progressively greater emergencies”(Hardin 5). Hardin does not know for a fact that the poorer population will not be free of poverty. They just need to be helped to be able to come out of that poverty.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ethics mustn't step aside to find viable solutions. -Aleyna Lencioni.

# data[].attributes.subject
Ethics mustn't step aside to find viable solutions. -Aleyna Lencioni.

# data[].attributes.body
A closer look must be taken at the common denominators of these overpopulated, hungry nations. In doing so one will find that inept education and medicine are a trend amongst the aforementioned nations. These circumstances lead to hard labor being the only viable way of life, families siring a horde of children to aid with family income. As well as to make sure that should one or two of their offspring die after succumbing to some illness they will not be left without the extra pair of hands. If higher education and better medicine is introduced to these impoverished nations then they may finally be able to look to the future rather than having to worry about merely surviving the now. Introduction of these resources will raise a new generation that can solve its nation's problems, since they would then be educated on how to do such things, themselves. As the Chinese philosopher, Lao Tzu, proclaimed “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”, Hardin is correct in that wealthy nations should not just give poor nations food. But rather than letting them fail and figure it out themselves, starving along the way, as Hardin implies, the more fortunate nations must instead give them the tools to help themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
In “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helping the Poor” Garrett Hardin presents a false dilemma fallacy. There is a much broader concept of overpopulation and hunger than what Hardin presents. There are more solutions and factors. Hardin continuously speaks solely of why the poor countries fail and why the U.S must save themselves from being dragged down with them. However the more important topics are how can we help them succeed on their own, what could be done to involve everyone in the process of regeneration, and through aiding poor countries what are the benefits we gain. Hardin in his argument suggests that we remove the poor from our nation, eventually the poverty of the Earth will be removed entirely. However, this is completely illogical, immoral, and unjust. There will always be a distinction between the poor and the rich, it is the way society works. Hardin questions if foriegn countries will take advantage of the resources we offer, but isn’t just as likely that if the world is filled with wealthy people who strive to be the greatest that they would eventually take advantage of resources just the same, for their own self serving ideas. It is our human nature to want to survive, but generosity is only wasteful without logic, sympathy, and morality.

Works Cited

Orrenius, Pia. “Benefits of Immigration Outweigh the Costs | Bush Center.” George W. Bush Presidential Center, https://www.bushcenter.org/catalyst/north-american-century/benefits-of-immigration-outweigh-costs.html. Accessed 2 October 2022.

“Overpopulation and water scarcity leading to world future food crisis.” MAHB, 12 July 2020, https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/overpopulation-and-water-scarcity-leading-to-world-future-food-crisis/. Accessed 2 October 2022.

# data[].attributes.headline
All governments of the world can help. They do not need to be dependent on the wealthy nations. (David Chaves)

# data[].attributes.subject
All governments of the world can help. They do not need to be dependent on the wealthy nations. (David Chaves)

# data[].attributes.body
Hardin's lifeboat argument and his entire section labeled, "Multiplying the Rich and the Poor" are nothing but blind hate. His lifeboat argument is based on the assumption that everyone wants to move to a wealthier country, because their lives are miserable in their home country. Judging by the World Happiness Report in 2021, poorer countries only scored half or one and a half points lower then richer countries. Also the WHO counts up the suicide rates across the world. The wealthier countries on average have a higher suicide rate then poorer countries. So, it's probably be fair to say that there isn't much emotional motivation to "get in the lifeboat", but what about the issue of feeding the world population. The Governments of the world should be able to help each other. During WW1, there was a famine in Europe. America allied itself with a group of European countries. Since those countries were helping the war effort it made since for America to help the governments of those countries feed their population. Now the question is asked, how can a group of poor countries help a wealthy country in exchange for food? Well, most of the poorer countries are poor because they are under developed, but they are sitting on top of valuable resources such as iron, silver, gold, and jewels. The governments could start the process of extracting these materials to sell for food resources or give plots of land to another country for food resources.

# data[].attributes.headline
The immigration benefits - Stan Pryor Slippery Slope Fallacy

# data[].attributes.subject
The immigration benefits - Stan Pryor Slippery Slope Fallacy

# data[].attributes.body
From the beginning of time immigrations has been around, from when the English moved to the Americas or when the Spanish fled to America because of there civil war. Immigration's a long lasting way out. Hardin's claims that include taking that safety factor away from American immigrants affects the way the outside world sees America. Hardin is comparing the lifeboat method to the rich nations of the world, and those drowning are the poor countries. In the article, "Impact of foreign direct investment", the author states, "besides boosting the capital formation of the recipient countries, FDI contributes to economic growth of such countries through improvement in technologies in forms of innovative production techniques, managerial skills, and introduction of new capital goods" (Babalola 10). Foreign aid brings many ways of help to countries that may be suffering. Hardin uses the slippery slope fallacy when explaining the capacity of the lifeboat stating, "But which ten do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best 10? First come first serve?" (Hardin 8). Hardin makes the mistake of using this fallacy which in the end weakens his argument.

Work Cited:
Babalola, Sikiru Jimoh, et al. “IMPACT OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, AID AND TRADE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH IN NIGERIA.” The Journal of Developing Areas, vol. 53, no. 4, 2019, pp. 15–31.

# data[].attributes.headline
The positives of foreign aid and Hardin's Logical Fallacy-Brittanie Bennett

# data[].attributes.subject
The positives of foreign aid and Hardin's Logical Fallacy-Brittanie Bennett

# data[].attributes.body
Foreign Aid helps with economic growth in small or poor countries.  In general, the world has more poor countries than rich. In the essay "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" written by Garrett Hardin argues that helping poor countries will make them keep asking and would make their population spike out of control which isn't good.  However others would disagree. In the article "Does Foreign Aid Have an Effect on Economic Growth? New Research Adds to the Debate" written by Ivonne Acevedo claims that helping smaller or poor countries helps them grow their economy. In the article Acevedo states "The study finds evidence that aid increases economic growth among poor countries in which aid is a large source of funding." (Acevedo 2016).  Foreign aid does more good than bad. It keeps economies somewhat stable in poor countries so people can survive and live a good life. Hardin used lots of fallacies in his essay, One fallacy in particular is Logical Fallacy. He targets his audience emotionally by discussing things about poor countries using the lifeboat method and why we shouldn't be helping the poor countries and what would happen if we did.  Overall, foreign aid helps poor countries more than it does damage it other rich countries.

Work Cited

Acevedo, Ivonne, et al. “Does Foreign Aid Have an Effect on Economic Growth? New Research Adds to the Debate | Chicago Policy Review.” Chicago Policy Review |, 15 June 2016, https://chicagopolicyreview.org/2016/06/15/does-foreign-aid-have-an-effect-on-economic-growth-new-research-adds-to-the-debate/. Accessed 2 October 2022.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rich Nations are Robbing the Poor Nations from Advancements- Eileen Bejarano

# data[].attributes.subject
Rich Nations are Robbing the Poor Nations from Advancements- Eileen Bejarano

# data[].attributes.body
Garret Hardin raised a contentious subject regarding population control, the distribution of resources, and the trade of products in Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor. Although one could suppose that the fact that he is a biologist renders his argument solid, it actually involves errors. At the beginning of his speech, Hardin poses the hypothetical question of what privileged passengers aboard a lifeboat would do. Even though his lifeboat analogy has a weak argument, it varies from the spaceship analogy in that it emphasizes how wealthier nations only gain while the less fortunate struggle. He disregards the fact that not everyone is poor or rich in every nation. The fact that Hardin claims that nature would take its course and lead to population decline through disease and crop failure if poor or developing countries did not get aid or food from other nations is another issue with his lifeboat analogy. However, he argues that it is required since caring for them would be expensive in order to support his claim. But this is a biased and elitist frame of view. Hardin disregards the fact that a sizable portion of the food consumed in developed nations is produced by the underprivileged. Hardin frequently places wealthy nations above all other countries and blames their issues on the poor. One can easily see why such an advancement has occurred if one considers the American foundation philosophy (colonization), which also supports the idea that wealthier nations deprive the poor of their progress. Hardin provides a case for the efficient use of resources, but he ignores the fact that consumption rates in countries like the United States are far higher.

# data[].attributes.headline
Rachel Mullins-The Case FOR Helping the Poor

# data[].attributes.subject
Rachel Mullins-The Case FOR Helping the Poor

# data[].attributes.body
In Hardin's Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the poor, Hardin's main claim consists of the idea that larger states, such as the United States, shouldn't contribute to foreign aid or allow immigration. Foreign aid however  strengthens national security, due to the fact that it helps to get rid of circumstances that can create terrorism, such as poverty, weak institutions or corruption. This is because foreign aid promotes economic development and existence of a good government. Foreign aid has also promoted stronger means of trade in the United States, as fifty percent of United States exports go to developing countries. For reference, "Over the past 40 years, trade has tripled as a share of our economy, with half of U.S. exports now going to developing countries... 11 of America’s top 15 trading partners were once recipients of U.S. foreign aid," (Guest Author, "Here's Why Foreign Aid Assistance is Important," 2016).  In contrast to what Hardin attempts to convince his audience, immigration can also be a source of good for the United States. One benefactor that has came about from immigration is the advancement in technology, as well as competent workers. For reference, " In the country’s — and the world’s — most important tech hub, 64% of engineers are foreign-born... And immigrants overall account for nearly half of the U.S. workforce with a science or engineering doctorate, including 60% of workers in computer and mathematical sciences," (USA Today, "Why Immigration Is Good for American Workers and Their Employers," James Pethokoukis, 2020). Immigration also allows for a higher contribution in taxes for the United States government. It also creates a heightened number of military participants, which strengthens America's overall power. Though there are some downsides to immigration, such as fewer jobs available, there are also some very prominent positives as well.

SOURCES:

Guest Author, "Here's Why Foreign Aid Assistance is Important," 2016

https://www.usglc.org/blog/heres-why-foreign-assistance-is-important/

USA Today, "Why Immigration Is Good for American Workers and Their Employers," James Pethokoukis, 2020
https://www.aei.org/articles/why-immigration-is-good-for-american-
workers-and-their-employers/

The Opportunity Agenda, "Today’s Immigrants are Diverse and a Part of America’s Fabric," Kate Tomas, 2010
https://www.opportunityagenda.org/explore/resources-publications/why-immigration-matters-all-americans

# data[].attributes.headline
Sophia Wheeler - The reasoning for supporting the poor and the loaded language fallacy. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Sophia Wheeler - The reasoning for supporting the poor and the loaded language fallacy. 

# data[].attributes.body
Hardin claims that the United States should not support the poor because many of them are immigrants, who are not natural-born American citizens. Therefore, they do not have the same rights to funding and resources as immigrants. However, his argument becomes weak when it is questioned who qualifies as a natural-born American citizen. Mexicans account for the majority of immigrants coming to the United States for work. According to Tomás R. Jiménez, Mexican Americans become increasingly involved with the American population. For example, Jiménez states that “Mexican Americans are simultaneously part of the U.S. populace that considers the costs and benefits of immigrants and members of an ethnic group that represents nearly a third of today’s newcomers,” which illustrates the results of increased immigration into the United States (2). The prevalence of immigration from Mexico demonstrates the diversity of the United States and the importance of considering the consequences of cutting off relief programs for immigrants. The United States would lose a substantial portion of its physical labor force without support for immigrant laborers, who tend to have lower incomes. According to the Migration Policy Institute, immigrants greatly impact the function of the United States labor force. For example, MIB illustrates through a table that “Immigrants tend to be in the labor force at rates higher than the U.S. population, as most who enter the United States are of working age,” which establishes that majority of immigrants come for work purposes. The statistics show immigrants' prevalence in the United States population and workforce. They also display the impact immigrants have on the United States economy, which would not be possible without immigrant relief programs. Furthermore, Hardin’s argument includes loaded language, which develops an elitist tone when deciding not to support the poor. For example, when disproving the idea of the spaceship earth, he refers to the concept as “the tragedy of the commons,” which provides a negative connotation to the idea that people will not take care of what is not their own (Hardin par. 16). Hardin uses the loaded language fallacy to disprove the other argument by using words that force the audience's negative reaction. As a result, the fallacy leads to no consideration of the concept he introduces.

Works Cited
“Immigrant Share of the U.S. Population and Civilian Labor Force, 1980 - Present.” Migrationpolicy.org, 15 Feb. 2021, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-share-us-population-and-civilian-labor-force?width=1200&amp;height=850&amp;iframe=true.
JIMENEZ, Tomas R. “Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Mexican Immigration: The Mexican-American Perspective.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 3, 2007, pp. 599–618, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00474.x.

# data[].attributes.headline
Benefits of Foreign Aid  -Shannon Cline 

# data[].attributes.subject
Benefits of Foreign Aid  -Shannon Cline 

# data[].attributes.body
The world is mainly divided into the wealthy and the poor.  In our current environment, there seems to be more poor countries than wealthy. The most logical way to help less fortunate countries would be to provide aid, but some disagree. Hardin, for instance, argues that foreign aid will lead to ruin and disaster for everyone. Yet, foreign aid has been a big benefactor in creating trust, alliances, and overall saving those in need. In a report titled "What every American should know about US foreign aid." George Ingram, mentions multiple benefits of providing aid. "...development assistance that promotes the economic, social, and political development of countries and communities; and security assistance, which helps strengthen the military and security forces in countries allied with the United States." (Ingram, 2020). Not only does foreign aid provide assistance to those in need, it also promotes regional and global stability and overall peace. In addition, supplying resources for countries in need, will help them rebuild their economy to the point they will be able to provide for themselves. Hardin uses a fallacy of emotion. He uses strong appeals to emotion and uses a scarce tactic to persuade the audience. By demonstrating the lifeboat analogy, he creates a fear of disaster whilst continuously mentioning the inevitable future problems if we fail to give up helping poor countries. However, helping these countries won't lead to any ruin. Foreign aid has been proven to not only help the one receiving aid, but also the one giving aid.

Work Cited:
Ingram, G. (2020, October 1). What every American should know about us foreign aid. Brookings. Retrieved October 2, 2022, from https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/what-every-american-should-know-about-us-foreign-aid/

# data[].attributes.headline
Alison Isaacs- Garrett Harden and False Dilemma

# data[].attributes.subject
Alison Isaacs- Garrett Harden and False Dilemma

# data[].attributes.body
In Garret Hardin’s essay, “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor”, he continuously talks badly about the disadvantages of the poor nations. Due to the poverty of about two thirds of the countries, this is a problem. Garrett Hardin uses a false dilemma fallacy by favoring extracting immigrants rather than working to alleviate poverty because immigrants are already drowning due to the lack of resources. He tends to ignore that there are many sides to ending poverty but instead focuses on his own beliefs. Hardin should instead concentrate on reducing the rate of poverty. He can approach this problem by focusing on other important features such as expanding safety net programs, creating better paying jobs, and raising minimum wage. Instead of dividing the nations based on their wealth, this approach offers a better chance for equal rights for all.

Work Cited

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/top-12-solutions-cut-poverty-united-states/

# data[].attributes.headline
Darren Valles- altruistic and naturalistic fallacies 

# data[].attributes.subject
Darren Valles- altruistic and naturalistic fallacies 

# data[].attributes.body
Hardin argues against assisting the underprivileged and humanism. He contends that if we get rid of the poor, poverty would end throughout the entire globe. This is ethically wrong, illogical, and immoral by definition. I propose as a counterclaim that one should instead endeavor to reduce poverty and promote more equal resource allocation and consumption patterns, as there may then be fewer people in poverty with better standards of life. Garrett Hardin presented a significant statement on how income and resources are distributed in his paper "Living on a Lifeboat".  He claims that granting aid to underdeveloped nations would cause their populations to grow unchecked and beyond the "carrying capacity" of their environments, ultimately serving as a catalyst for more serious environmental and social problems and resulting in the "tragedy of the commons." The allusions made to support his claims are the spacecraft analogy, which means that on Earth everyone has equal access to the scarce resources.  Nevertheless, impoverished nations are at a disadvantage in the lifeboat comparison since they lack the resources and standard of living enjoyed by wealthy nations according to the author (Hardin 1).  His lifeboat analogy, nevertheless, has several drawbacks since he fails to understand that no country has all wealthy or all poor people, but rather, every country has wealth disparity, and more nations are economically at the medium income level. Furthermore, whereas Hardin compared countries with carrying capacities to lifeboats, where a lifeboat has a set carrying capacity before sinking, the carrying capabilities of actual nations are changing constantly and depending on area, environment, and population. The idea of "tragedy of the commons" is based on the idea that since there is no ownership of shared resources, there is no accountability for those resources. As a result, everyone uses and depletes the resources, leaving the world in utter disrepair and degradation. According to this idea, the catastrophe was caused by people acting selfishly and profitably. It recognizes that everyone has wanted that must be satisfied and that the environment takes care of those needs. Thus, the environmental burden would increase as the population grew.  Hardin's argument is based on an altruistic and naturalistic fallacy of these, as not all people regard the environment in this way, harming the commons is a cultural issue rather than an economic one, and the bulk of human cultures did not destroy the environment as we do now. Overall, Hardin makes a case against helping the less fortunate and humanism. He argues that eliminating the poor would put an end to poverty worldwide, but that instead, one should work to lessen poverty and encourage more equitable resource distribution and consumption patterns, since there may then be fewer people living in poverty with higher standards of living.

# data[].attributes.body
While the idea of viewing one's country as a lifeboat is on paper, practical, it is extremely pessimistic and unnecessary. Hardin uses the argument of a false dilemma throughout his entire essay. When discussing the problem of hunger in 3rd world countries Hardin argues that poor countries cannot be helped, and when they are it makes the problem worse (Hardin 25). The problem of food shortages is a problem that has plagued countries since the beginning of time and is still a threat today but there are ways to handle it. Instead of first world countries supplying food they might instead provide the infrastructure and education to help poor countries sustain themselves. Though the issue of overpopulation is real, specifically in poorer countries where the birthrate is much higher than their first world counterparts, it can be tackled with a tax on the amount of children. But without the help of first world nations, poor countries can increase cooperation with neighbors to help with trade and thus their economy.

# data[].attributes.body
In his essay Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor, Garrett Hardin uses the analogy of a lifeboat to discuss why "rich people are in command." Hardin contends that if the wealthy help the poor, the population of the impoverished can be balanced. However, because they are supplied for, the poor might cite financial aid and other forms of charity, such food banks, as a justification for their unemployment. Hardin makes a logical fallacy in paragraph 21 when he claims, "Our experience with the "Food for Peace program," or Public Law 480, gives us the answer. Over the past two decades, "this initiative transported billions of dollars' worth of surplus U.S. grain to countries with large populations and food shortages."This may be the answer to grain but not an actual solution to overpopulation and hunger.Yes, the government has benefited from this initiative, but is the poor population actually being helped? Because these programs meet one of their needs, it may just be causing unemployment. In order to encourage reproduction, it is necessary to meet these demands for disadvantaged countries. inferring a rapid increase in population.

# data[].attributes.body
The essay "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor" by Garrett Hardin has been the basis of environmental and humanitarian reasoning for rich countries' not helping the poor countries. Hardin claims that if the rich countries help the poor, it will cause overpopulation and more poverty, in addition to wasting resources that they should keep for themselves. However, Hardin’s argument has a logical fallacy. In paragraph 28, Hardin claims that "every Indian life saved through medical or nutritional assistance from abroad diminishes the quality of life for those who remain" (Hardin 28). However, this is a Tu Quoque fallacy as Hardin’s own country saves people's lives through the same efforts. It does not make sense that it’s wrong for Indians to be saved, however it’s okay that Americans can have government relief programs and humanitarian charities helping the ill and impoverished.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hardin's logical fallacy within his writing -Natalie Davis

# data[].attributes.subject
Hardin's logical fallacy within his writing -Natalie Davis

# data[].attributes.body
After the severe, catastrophic global economic crash in the late 2010s, numerous nations, including China, Brazil, and Ecuador, have yet to return to their prerecession economies as they continue to suffer from reduced growth rates. Their economies continue to trend downwards as the population trends upward. As many individuals and nations globally grow concerned about whether the earth can hold such an increased population over the past three generations, numerous environmentalists and economists, including Garrett Hardin, wonder about the best way to tackle the issue. In the article regarding overpopulation and hunger, Hardin consistently utilizes a fallacy that continues to make his argument unsound: a logical fallacy. He targets his readers’ emotions by referencing shocking statistics and utilizing negatively charged expressions that instill a deep sense of shock and dismay in the reader. While he applies logical thinking throughout his writing, his gross use of a logical fallacy overpowers his main point and fails to accomplish anything informative. Despite Hardin’s abhorrent lifeboat metaphor, there remain alternate methods to dealing with increasing population density and global hunger. Instead of leaving impoverished nations to learn the hard way, industrialized countries must fabricate international reforms that “facilitate the developing countries to prosper on a faster pace” (Tsopanakis). Such reforms must focus on international development, including providing more access to reproductive education, financial assistance, and the liberalization of labor flow. Studies have exemplified that this solution to overpopulation and hunger proves successful in most examples, meaning that it must be “pursued by the rich nations in order for the poor ones to be supported in more meaningful ways” (Tsopanakis). By introducing reforms that impose life-changing effects on individuals currently deprived of food, education, and water, affluent nations can successfully and effectively address issues regarding food security in impoverished nations. Additionally, it will help decelerate population growth due to increased access to reproductive education in countries where population density remains an extremely apparent issue.

Work Cited

Tsopanakis, Georgios. “Should Rich Nations Help the Poor?” Journal of Contemporary African

Studies, no. 3, Informa UK Limited, June 2018, pp. 409–11. Crossref,

doi:10.1080/02589001.2018.1486028.

# data[].attributes.body
The world is surrounded by poor and rich countries which continue to grow. Earth is burdened with the growing poor and malnourished population. Some, like Hardin, may argue that foreign aid will only increase the poor population growth and be of no help to both the rich and poor countries. However, financial aid has a positive impact on the wealthy and poor countries. According to a study by Riyazuddin Khan et al, “The empirical findings reveal that remittances, foreign aid, and economic growth play a significant role in bringing down the MENA region’s poverty levels” (Khan et al. 1). This shows that foreign aid does not always increase the poverty rates in poor countries. Supplying financial aid to poor countries allows them to grow economically and bring their poverty rates down. When poor countries grow economically they can invest in more agricultural systems that would allow them to trade with the wealthy countries. The countries on Earth are all interconnected and each trades with each other. Supplying foreign aid to poor countries opens opportunities for trade with all countries and development of new resources. Hardin uses an either-or fallacy in his writing by arguing that there is only one solution to dealing with the poor countries and seeing the Earth as either a spaceship or a lifeboat. However, there is always more than one way to see and solve problems, even if the other way seems more challenging. Because the world is an interconnected society, wealthy countries assisting the poor will lead to more trade opportunities and growth.

Work Cited

Khan, Riyazuddin, et al. “How foreign aid and remittances affect poverty in MENA countries?” PLoS ONE, vol. 17, no. 1, 2022, pp. 1-20. EBSCOhost, https://doi-org.ezproxy.bakersfieldcollege.edu/10.1371/journal.pone.0261510.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why The Lifeboat Analogy is Unethical and Dehumanizing- Kya Haner

# data[].attributes.subject
Why The Lifeboat Analogy is Unethical and Dehumanizing- Kya Haner

# data[].attributes.body
In Garrett Hardin's article, "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor", he repeatedly references a disparity in rich nations and poor nations. The explanation of this disparity is not problematic, it is in fact a reality. However, the implication that this disparity equates to a necessity of ignorance on the richer nations' part is unethical. This article is full of loaded language, all of which contribute to the conclusion that Hardin is not only biased, but privileged. The entire piece is proof that not only does privilege exist, but that it establishes a perspective that is detrimental to human compassion. Hardin's lifeboat analogy implies that those who are in the poorer countries NEED to be brought into the lifeboat to survive. This is not the reality. These people, who are friends, siblings, parents, and human, can live without being brought into a richer country, or even becoming a richer country. Hardin means to diminish the ethical dilemma of his proposal by referring to the populations as statistics. Ethical dilemmas are dilemmas because of emotion, not statistics, and as such, his appeal to logos should not be considered when speaking of "ethics". Our duty is to our species before our planet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tackling Overpopulation- Jace Crocker (Rough, morbid idea)

# data[].attributes.subject
Tackling Overpopulation- Jace Crocker (Rough, morbid idea)

# data[].attributes.body
The world, today, struggles with a dilemma regarding the expanding poor and starving population. While an “ethical” solution to overpopulation and world hunger does not exist, an overall solution does, in fact, exist. Critics implore that, “we must take action”, but to solve the issue of overpopulation requires patience, as morbid as it sounds. Hardin, in the  “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” writes that, “the rate of population increase will decline much faster in the U.S. than it will in the other countries,” where “the doubling time for [said poor countries’] population is 21 years, compared to 87 years for the U.S,” (Hardin 12 and 15). However, Hardin fails to consider that overly dense populations tend to decline over time.  For example, a study of a pupae population manipulated with a limited food source, held in Kenya, observed that, “adding food promoted a significant increase in the number of pupae,” (Legros). By adding more food, more pupae survived and reproduced more pupae. On the contrary Legros states, “in a situation where each individual does not have access to the entire food supply (highly diluted nutritional resources), mortality is merely caused by this scarcity,” (Legros). In other words, the pupae population declined due to the lack of nutritional resources. Similar to the pupae species, humans, without food, become malnutritioned and die off.

Hardin also employs a black and white fallacy, attacking the spaceship to the world analogy with an unrelated argument, such as the analogy of a lifeboat to wealthy countries. The world does not necessarily relate to a wealthy country, therefore, making Hardin’s counter argument irrelevant.

Work Cited

Legros, Mathieu et al. “Density-dependent intraspecific competition in the larval stage of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae): revisiting the current paradigm.” Journal of medical entomology vol. 46,3 (2009): 409-19. doi:10.1603/033.046.0301, 24, Sept. 2022.