Lifeboat Ethics or Spaceship Earth - Research Paper Example

August 2, Lifeboat Ethics or Spaceship Earth? Richer countries should leave poorer ones to drown. This is the view of Garret Hardin, as stated in his article titled “Lifeboat Ethics,” where he argues that the Earth has a limited capacity, and that those who put forth the view that we should all help each other on “Spaceship Earth” are “misguided idealists” pursuing “suicidal policies for sharing our resources through immigration and foreign aid” (38). Foreign aid is one of the most contentious issues with regards to helping the poor. Opponents of foreign aid argue that it has a negative impact on jobs in the countries giving the aid, but those who support it say that this impact is drastically overstated. Others claim that developing nations like those in Africa have serious problems with democracy, and should not be supported, but those who support foreign aid say that supporting these countries provides many benefits to the whole world. Ultimately, Hardin’s view of Earth as a lifeboat is as unrealistic as the view of Spaceship Earth he dislikes. Since assisting developing countries now will lead to their being able to support the rest of the planet later, there is a greater benefit to supporting foreign aid than trying to destroy it. According to Darren Weeks and others, one of the most damaging forms of foreign aid is the globalization of America’s economy as seen in free trade agreements which cost America jobs. Weeks claims that this kind of agreement has been directly responsible for leading America into the recession, and that export agreements that benefit “impoverished Central American countries” where people can’t buy things can not possibly be “in the best interest of American citizens and workers” (Weeks). In fact, Weeks makes an impassioned argument that this kind of trade agreement is ruining the country entirely, and that it will soon result in “unemployment in America, the loss of our jobs, the shrinking of the American way of life, the eradication of our freedom to travel, the elimination of the middle class” (Weeks). According to this view, foreign aid is not limited to just donations and charity, but to trade agreements which benefit poorer countries at the expense of richer ones. These trade agreements, according to this argument, are dangerous to prosperous countries because they destroy the jobs of those countries’ citizens. However, not everybody agrees that trade agreements with poorer countries are really this bad for domestic job figures. William Overholt, for instance, argues that the globalizing free trade agreements that the USA has been involved with have not been nearly as disastrous as people like Darren Weeks claim they have. Griswold notes that although there is a slight amount of disproportionate gain among executives and business owners, “incomes of workers as a whole go up as well, but more slowly” (Overholt). Furthermore, he notes that building up economies overseas will in fact create more business for US companies, not less as Weeks argues. For instance, when China’s huge population is sufficiently advanced, “the ability of American corporations to expand and refine their operations through a division of labor with China, [will create] many high level jobs in U.S. operations ranging in diversity from Motorola to IBM to Caterpillar to Boeing to farming” (Overholt). Those who support and promote trade agreements with poorer countries, in other words, argue that not only do these agreements have the benefit of making people’s lives better in poverty-stricken countries, but they will also result in an eventual increase in jobs here at home. Of course, the argument against foreign aid is not limited to trade agreements alone, nor is it even restricted to just the economy. Many who oppose foreign aid claim that developed countries should not be giving money to poor countries where the governments are corrupt and will just use the aid to abuse their people. Ike Oguine, a Nigerian writer, shows some evidence of the dangers of Africa’s ruling classes. He notes that there is a dangerous tendency for African countries to try and return to “the Life-President Syndrome that has so terribly scarred Africa” (Oguine). Interestingly, Oguine opposes foreign aid because of the bad effects it has on the third-world countries in Africa, and not the developing world. He complains of “the application of one-size-fits-all economic policies fashioned in Washington” which do not take into account whether or not the countries are democratic or whether they abuse their people (Oguine). If what Oguine says is true, developed nations should surely think twice about handing out money to anybody who asks without checking on how they treat their people and whether they have their country’s best interest at heart, or only their own. This could be a very solid argument against foreign aid. Despite these misgivings, it is unreasonable to demand that all foreign aid to developing nations with corrupt officials should be cut. Africa is a good example of this, as well, as Dorr, Lund, and Roxburgh point out. They note that “Africa today is alive with rising urban centers, a growing consumer class, and sizzling business deals” and call it “a land of opportunity” (Dorr, Lund, & Roxburgh). Although they admit that there are still some darker areas, they argue that “nothing spawns growth like growth, and Africas urbanization is also increasing demand for new roads, rail systems, clean water, power generation, and other infrastructure” (Dorr, Lund, & Roxburgh). If growth leads to further growth, as would seem to be the case in Africa, then it is absolutely necessary to give African nations that need it foreign aid so that they can have a nest egg with which to start their growth to development and democratic fairness. Withholding money will only condemn these countries to the poverty and undemocratic rulers that make developed countries unwilling to help them out today. The opinion of the opposition, regardless of whether the topic is trade agreements or more traditional foreign aid made with donations, is incredibly depressing and paranoid. They argue that by helping the poor and starving of countries which are not well off, developed countries will end up bringing themselves down to the same level. This is the opinion of those who support Hardin’s “Lifeboat” metaphor as a way of approaching globalization. They see the world as a dangerous place where you could sink and drown at any moment, and where trying to help someone else will only make that more likely. On the other hand, there are those who seem to support the “Spaceship Earth” model more. These people argue that, far from it being dangerous for developed countries to support those in need, it can actually be to their advantage in the long run. If developed nations give money to poverty-stricken ones, for instance, they can use this to kick-start their own economy and eventually give back to the global economy at large. The same is true for trade agreements, which will create larger markets for goods in underdeveloped countries and because of this, will also create domestic jobs to supply those goods to the new markets. I believe that viewing Earth as a lifeboat is completely unrealistic and will not help anybody. This view basically puts the planet in an unrealistic situation where it is a closed system, meaning that the only supplies available are what is already on the boat, and where the passengers’ survival depends on making sure those few supplies last until they can be rescued. The problems with this metaphor should be obvious. Not only is Earth an open system, with supplies that can be increased drastically, there is no real destination as on a lifeboat where someone will eventually come and rescue the survivors. Although the spaceship metaphor has problems as well, it is less damaging than to assume we are in a limited “sink or swim” environment where all we have to think about is our immediate survival for the next few days or weeks or months. Instead, developed nations need to think about the long term, and consider what foreign aid and trade agreements can do to help the entire world’s economy a few years or decades down the line, and not just what it does to our own economy today. Such a view is short-sighted and will only lead to further problems. There are convincing arguments on both sides of the debate over foreign aid and the duty of developed countries to support ones still developing. The opposition argues that foreign aid is damaging to developed countries, but others claim that by helping these poorer countries we will also benefit ourselves. When looking at the long term, it becomes clear that there is a greater benefit to helping developed countries with foreign aid than there is to leaving them to stay in poverty. Only by helping those in need can we create a planet where poverty and misery may eventually be conquered. This is true economically, with the giving of trade agreements that benefit other countries, and it is also true politically, since charitable donations to these countries can help them to get started. Although the Spaceship Earth metaphor may be unrealistic, as Hardin asserts, it makes much more sense than viewing our planet as a Lifeboat, where we have to either support countries forever or leave them to drown. Works Cited Dorr, Norbert, Susan Lund, and Charles Roxburgh. "The African miracle: how the worlds charity case became its best investment opportunity." Foreign Policy 183 (2010): 80+. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Aug. 2011. Hardin, Garret. "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor." Psychology Today, 8.4 (1974): 38-49. Print. Oguine, Ike. "Democracy Faces Major Obstacles in Africa." The Third World. Ed. David M. Haugen. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Aug. 2011. Overholt, William. "Globalizations Negative Impact on U.S. Unemployment Is Exaggerated." Unemployment. Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Aug. 2011. Weeks, Darren. "Globalization Increases U.S. Unemployment." Unemployment. Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Aug. 2011. Read More