I am, of course, referring to the famous analogies used by Garret Hardin (Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor) and R. Buckminster Fuller (Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth). Now there isn't a true clash between the arguments because Hardin was writing several years later than Fuller, and so had the luxury of responding to Fuller's claims. However, since both of these analogies have been around for roughly forty years now and have entered into popular usage, they more or less serve as ideological vessels. My question for you is simple: Which analogy, Hardin's lifeboat or Fuller's spaceship, more accurately describes the condition of human civilization in the modern world? I doubt anyone will fully agree with either author, and some people may find things true in both, but choose the answer that best fits. Personally I think Hardin is more accurate in his description. It seems that we've overextended our comfortable carrying capacity already, so we should treat the globe with more of a "damage control" mindset than anything else. Still, I think Hardin grossly underestimates the benefits of helping others. We need to develop poor countries in order to exploit them, and they certainly aren't going to be able to solve the problem themselves. Lastly, you can investigate a wild card candidate, Peter Singer's Practical Ethics, which in Chapter 8: Rich and Poor, discusses flaws in both arguments and updates them a bit. Still, since Singer doesn't offer his own solution/worldview I think he best be left out of the question.
