nations, we would be perpetuating the problem. This means that more people would be healthy in these nations and the already phenomenal birthrate would increase even more. One theory states that countries pass through a "demographic transition". When modern medicine is not available, high birth rates are balanced by high death rates in poor countries. When sanitation and medical facilities are introduced, the birth rates soar and the death rate lowers, meaning more hungry mouths to feed. It takes a while for people to realize that they don't have to have as many children to stay at the level of surviving children that existed before the improvements. In time the population levels off and the poverty level decreases.As stated before, if we can prevent some absolute poverty without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, we ought to do it. Contributing to this cause would make life much better for many millions of people.Part II.The question of whether affluent nations are required to assist poor nations can be answered with the theory of "Lifeboat Ethics" presented by Garrett Hardin. This theory states that the affluent nations are in a lifeboat that seats 60 and they represent 50 people. The 50 in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water trying to get in the boat. Letting them into the boat may seem like the right thing to do, but if they are all allowed in, everybody sinks. Even letting 10 more into the boat could be detrimental, taking away our safety factor. This example translates directly to the problem at hand. If we give poor nations enough to solve their problems, we will inherit problems of our own. The extra 10 seats represent our surplus. If we give away our own surplus, we would be vulnerable to a crop disease or a drought.The UN's target of seven-tenths of a percent of a wealthy nation's GNP is a good idea. The statistics that place the US near the bottom with only 0.0015 percent are misleading, ho...
