Lifeboat Ethics: Sink or Swim? Independent Population Policy Study Shelby Uritz Lewis & Clark College Portland, Oregon This paper is dedicated to CFL/GAF and my father. Copyright 1994 Shelby Uritz. All rights reserved. For information contact the auhor. Table of Contents Section I: Overpopulation: Is it really a problem? 2 - The Human Perspective - Technology - The Food Myth -Overpopulation vs. Overconsumption - Carrying Capacity: A Useless Tool - Morality Section II: Intrinsic Responsibility and 18 The Tragedy of the Commons Section III: The Concept of Lifeboat Ethics 24 Section IV: The Prospect of Lifeboat Ethics 33 - Russia: Lifeboat Ethics' Test Run? - The Paddock Plan: Aid as a Population Tool? - International Administration: The Failure of the United Nations Section V: Conclusion 42 "Short of nuclear war itself, population growth is the gravest issues the world faces. If we do not act, the problem will be solved by famine, riots, insurrection and war." -Robert McNamara Former President of the World Bank The past fifty years have brought tremendous change to both the international system itself as well as, most recently, the way in which we are forced to look at its dynamics and the factors that determine its security. Since 1991, with the end of the Cold War and the military monopoly on international affairs, we have had the important yet painful opportunity to look at the state of the world; from economics to ecology and bring the not-so-good results to the forefront of the international agenda. Over the past century people have placed increased pressure upon the environment and its capacity to deal with their consumption. However, until recently, concern for environmental well being was left virtually unnoticed by the greater population. With two Earth Days behind us, and environmental crisis gaining awareness, I believe we still continue to simply walk around the real issue that is at the core of what could turn into humanityÕs environmental misery: population. When evaluating the causes of global resource pollution, consumption and scarcity, there is a common denominator to these problems. Whether it be smog, deforestation or endangered species, the cause always comes back to the damage that people cause. Thus, one could say that if there were no people, these problems would not exist. This extreme aside, even the most skeptical would agree that environmental degradation is the one problem whose solution is going to be fundamental in the insurance of an inhabitable planet. I maintain that the solution to overpopulation is the key to our survival. ÒLifeboat EthicsÓ (LBE), the term that gained both attention and criticism in the 1970Õs through the work of biologist, Garrett Hardin, is one of the most intriguing solutions to overpopulation. It addresses the problem head on. Hardin uses the image of the ÒlifeboatÓ to illustrate his theory on American or Western food aid support of Third World countries. After explaining the situation in full detail, he gives the occupants three options. First, they could allow everyone who "needs" to be aboard to get in the ship and in all probability sacrifice all the people by sinking the ship. The second option, only accept the number that would bring the boat to maximum occupancy thereby not causing certain death but eliminating the cushion of some leeway and security. And third, not allowing anyone aboard and actively keeping begging swimmers out of the boat and leaving them to drown. The third option sets the foundation of Hardin theory of the lifeboat ethic. It recommends the severance of all aid ties between the developed and lesser developed nations thereby forcing all nations to depend on themselves for the support of their populations. I strongly support the third choice not only because it is effective but because it questions many of the assumptions that humanity has built itself upon. Overpopulation: Is it really a problem? Unfortunately there are many obstacles that stand in the way of such innovation like lifeboat ethics ranging from the questionable morality to the lack of public consciousness. However, I would place LBE and its obstacles in the context of a larger problem that any population policy must overcome which are inherent in the nature of the problem itself. Before getting into the intricacies of LBE as a solution, and in order to appreciate its value, we must first look at the problem itself. There are six main areas which I will focus on: the Òhuman perspectiveÓ, technology, the Òfood mythÓ, consumption, carrying capacity and morality. The Human Perspective If overpopulation is the major cause of the laundry list of environmental disasters, why hasnÕt there been any formal action on the international level let alone on the majority of domestic agendas? Or more appropriately, if overpopulation has placed our society in such imminent and serious jeopardy, why has public opinion remained at a less than concerned level? These questions, address the first obstacle to a LBE policy. The answer, simply put; the majority of people donÕt see population as the problem nor do they make the appropriate connection between other environmental problems and overpopulation. If people canÕt see a problem, how can you expect them to see a solution? In 1991, the population of Kenya grew 16% but this fact went relatively unnoticed. Table: Time Required to Add Each Successive Billion to World Population1 years year reached First Billion 2,000,000 1830 Second " 100 1930 Third " 30 1960 Fourth " 15 1975 Fifth " 11 1986 Sixth " 9 1995 Looking at the above table, Lester Brown attempts to show how man has surpassed what has historically been the normal population rate. Admittedly, an small increase in acceleration is appropriate with the development of medical technology and a higher quality of life. This data was originally published in 1978 and in 1995 we will be "right on schedule". However, the population is clearly growing at an "abnormal" rate which compounds the exponential nature of population growth. But the question still remains, why do the majority of people not perceive a dire need for population control? People are more likely to notice a specific event rather than a trend over a long period of time. Moreover, the effects of overpopulation are only widely noticed when the conditions have gotten so bad that not only is the damage irreparable but the land is mostly uninhabitable. It took the Exxon Valedez spill which irrevocably damaged a large part of the Alaskan ecosystem to bring the dangers of sea transportation of toxic substances into the public eye. Awareness is one aspect but motivation is another. Citing the Exxon spill once again; on the whole, most people took heed of the disaster but relatively few took action to help the clean up and change oil transport laws. It is already hard enough to get the people motivated over a more tangible crisis let alone a problem, like population, whose costs are not readily and immediately noticeable in the span of some people's lives. In addition, I would ask, to what extent are people prone to caring about the future beyond their own existence? Almost none. Agreed, there has been efforts in the environmental arena that use the Òbenefit of future generationsÓ argument as their main motive. However, most of those actions do not infringe upon the day to day lives of most people as would a population policy or LBE would. I think that if I was to ask those same people to give up their family for the future of the environment, the support for those future generations would markedly go down. Hardin writes, ÒWe have been programmed by evolution to esteem the good opinion of our fellow men. But we have also been programmed by evolution to place that esteem to personal survival.Ó2 To me this introduces and interesting paradox; if we are so concerned about our survival, then why do we seem to be consistently working toward our destruction? I donÕt think that people take the costs of their actions seriously enough nor do they see the repercussions of those actions clearly. This goes back to my original notion of the human perspective. People do not perceive that their actions really have a seriously detrimental effect on their own personal livelihood. A second element to the "human perspective" is the construction of our relationship with the world. I think that people are very removed from their environment and the stresses that we place it under. For example, people dispose of tons of garbage each year. But how many people have ever visited the land fill that they contribute to? Not many. I don't think that they environment is a reality to most people. In Oregon, people have a daily contact with nature therefore people in Oregon have been one of the leaders, even in the midst of their logging industry, in trying to get environmental preservation laws through state and federal legislatures. However, on the whole, most people, particularly in the industrialized countries, have very little contact with the nature that they are destroying. To me it is this disconnection that hinders people from dealing with the reality of environmental degradation especially when it is on a long-term cycle. The Òhuman perspectiveÓ makes discussion about population very difficult to begin when the mass perception is that there really isn't a problem. Technology In 1972, the book entitled, The Limits to Growth marked the beginning of one of the longest standing debates among the environmentalists. Traditionally, the discussion had divided into two camps: the Neo-Mathusians, constituted of ecologists and biologist, and the economists or Òpro- growthersÓ. The first, generally predicts completely global disaster unless population is contained. They believe that the world is on an apocalyptic path which man is doomed to take unless appropriate measures to limit population growth are taken. The second, conversely, argued that human inventiveness in technology and agriculture with inevitably defeat any minor flare-up of overpopulation and thereby easing all fears of an environmental apocalypse. The anti- Malthusians believe that this fear is not only exaggerated but dangerous. They believe that, at best, as Donella Meadows puts it, the Malthusians Òexpress too little faith in the adaptive, creative potential of humankind. At worst, they allow some people to declare other people too numerous, a threat to the planet - with horrendous social consequencesÓ3 Colin Clark, and economists, stated in 1969 that India would, within a decade, be the most powerful country in the world because of its growing population.4 On the less comical side, Nobel laureate Robert Solow writes, ÒCertainly there are too many people in some parts of the world, but there is hardly any doubt that modern technology could make it possible for all of them to be adequately fed.Ó5 Not only is this view questionable, it has undermined a united front against the problem of overpopulation. I have two initial problems with technology: time-lag and cost. With the complexity of technology deepening on a daily basis, and at the same time the need for new innovation; technology is having a hard time keeping the pace with demand. For example, the Norplan birth control device has only recently been made available and that is only after 20 years of diligent research yet the demand for such a device has been obviously apparent.6 In the meantime, women have had to deal with other forms of birth control or have intercourse with none at all thereby contributing to the problem that Hardin is trying to solve. Safety precautions, governmental bureaucracies and consumer apprehension all significantly contribute to technologyÕs sluggishness. Moreover, research time and resource scarcity have both forced the cost of new technology to sky-rocket which makes widespread use less likely. This is particularly damaging in the area of population because the majority of overpopulated areas are in the lesser developed countries who do not have the resources or financial backing to develop of purchase the needed technology. In addition, a dependence on a technology to solve any problem will inevitably lead to another need that again must be solved by a new technology. The Green Revolution, developed by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in the 50's and 60's, is a good example. On the one hand, the new strands of wheat and rice brought food to a growing population. People had a need and technology met it. On the other hand, it required the development of many other technologies to accommodate the increase in population whether it be new housing and development or more food to feed the children of the first Ògreen-generation.Ó As a result, China not only has its share of population problems but it has had to deal with pollution and waste. All of this came out of the development of a new strand of wheat and rice. Although, after a period of time the cost goes down and common usage increases, when dealing with environmental degradation, time is something that people do not have a lot of. Years can make a deadly difference. Going back to Mr. SolowÕs point, I would ask, if technology is such a miracle worker as he implies, why is it having such difficulty with other aliments like cancer, AlzheimerÕs and more recently, AIDS? Or does he mean to imply that technology has the ability to be selective in what it chooses to conquer? We have already seen man weave itself a difficult web with the problems of technological advancement with the Industrial Revolution. People have a complex fascination with technology. It has become the hallmark of development, power and the arena for international competition. It has become a race against time and to get ahead of the problem is the ultimate prize. Former US. President, Richard Nixon said, in response to the development of nuclear capability regardless of safety factors, "We must always explore the unknown. We must never be afraid of it."7 Although I can appreciate NixonÕs general sentiment to the extent that technology is indeed a complex and intriguing thing, I think that when we are dealing with population we are taking an unnecessary risk. To me, technology is not the only answer. It is a gamble. One that, in the context of population, could cost people the world that they enjoy. What if all the economists and scientists are wrong? What if technology cannot bail up out of our situation? We have burned our bridges by having our children and consuming all of our resources with the deadly assumption that our own ingenuity would save us. We are a lot safer if we limit population now and find out later that technology has given us some additional space rather than testing ourselves at the possible expense of future generations. It seems terribly ironic that we will use the same device to solve the problem as the one that created it. Regardless, I think that any economist would find difficult to argue that there is a spatial limitation to the earth (inter-galactic expansion aside). The Food Myth Frances Moore LappŽ and Joseph Collins put forth their "twelve myths" of world hunger in which, "there's simply not enough food"8 is on the top of the list. They continue to support their claim by implying that indeed there is enough food, citing that "overproduction is US farmer's biggest headache."9 But because of a great social injustice, the poverty stricken suffer from maldistribution more than a real lack of food. Looking at the graph below under LappŽ and Collins assumption, their point might be proven. But knowing the fact that throughout the twentieth century the US and other ÒNorthernÓ countries have steadily increased the amount (not as a percentage of GNP, rather simple dollar amounts) of food aid that they gave to lesser developed nations (this is only compounded when you figure in UN Peacekeeping Operations which include food aid as well)10 yet at the same time the population of those countries continues to rise, gives little indication that food aid does anything but perpetuate overpopulation. With that understanding, I assert that food aid gives people no incentive to have less children. In fact, while the first world keeps at a relatively steady rate, the Third World is still growing which could be because of social and cultural pressures that cannot be quantified. In fact, Jan Kippers Black introduces an interesting paradox which is directly applicable to this situation, ÒTreating the Symptoms may prolong the disorder. Even with the best of intentions, a development program that simply meets the immediate needs rather than enabling communities to organize sustainable means of meeting their own needs is likely to kill local initiative and build dependency.Ó11 Food aid, actually perpetuates the overpopulation problem. It allows more people to live and reproduce thereby adding to the number of people suffering from the effects of overpopulation and requiring additional food aid. There is very little effort placed on teaching people why overpopulation is wrong and how to survive on their own without the crutch of Western aid dollars. This sense of responsibility to oneÕs own land and people is the very goal of HardinÕs policy (which we will examine later) and for that very reason should be considered seriously. Figure :Population Growth Source: United Nations ; ÒGeography of PopulationÓ Food and food aid gives developed countries a unique opportunity to help the lifeboat cause. William and Paul Paddock in their book, Famine! - 1975 devised the ÒperfectÓ plan for the US to implement a food aid policy whose ultimate goal is limiting population. In his essay, ÒPaying the PiperÓ, Paul Ehrlich summarizes the Paddock policy into three approaches. Ò1. Announce that it (America) will no longer ship food to countries such as India where dispassionate analysis indicates that the unbalance between food and population is hopeless. 2. Refuse all foreign aid to any country with and increasing population which we believe is not making a maximum effort to limit its population. 3. Make available to all countries extensive aid in the technology of population control.Ó12 Although Hardin is strongly against food aid, I think that he could agree in principle with the goals of the Paddock/ Ehrlich plan. One of the biggest arguments against discontinuing food aid, as Hardin would suggest, is the feasibility of such a move whether it be because of the uproar from humanitarian or political sectors. However, I think that using food as a tool is feasible. Increasingly we are seeing that nations such as the US are reluctant to help other less fortunate nations unless US national interest is there. I believe that population is going to become a threat to national security just as much as any environmental concern is today. The United States although ever hesitant, under the Bush administration began funding some countries on the basis of effective food policies.13 Out of the Paddock argument comes an interesting question. Is overpopulation of the third world the real problem? This introduces the third argument against the population problem. Overpopulation vs. Overconsumption With every discussion of environmental problems in general, everyone throws around the names and numbers of the most "consumptive" countries in the world. Although the actual number might vary, most people agree that the US consumes about 60-70% of the worlds resources while Americans only account for a relatively small percentage of the population. Many would argue that populationists are going after the wrong people. The environmental problems lie not with the starved and poverty stricken of the third world rather with the indulgent practices of the developed countries. Moreover, if one really wanted to help the third world limit its population, the developed countries should raise the general standard of living of the poor, both in terms of economics and education, and thereby relieving them of their dependency on children and giving them the understanding as to why larger families are not desirable. I have two main problems with this argument. First, although there is some indication that there is a direct correlation between a high standard of living and less children. I would have to say that many of the reasons for having children, go far beyond economics. Whether it be religion, cultural norms or social pressures, having children is a quality of some societies that cannot be overcome by mere investment in business or education. For example, Roman Catholicism is one of the religions that has taken the strongest stand on anti-birth control policies and reproductive rights. At the same time, many Roman Catholic families have a very high standard of living and a good education. Even if I did agree that people would have less children if standard of living was raised, that would only increase the amount of consumption and thereby cause even more environmental degradation. I am sure that many environmentalists would not appreciate turning our planet into a world of American consumers. My second concern might not be as quantifiable and come down to my personal perceptions of human nature. Many pro- growthers argue that if we limit consumption we will not only limit the amount of environmental degradation but at the same time be able to expand the number of people that the world can sustain. This brings up two points. First, this introduces the question of what is the appropriate quality of life that people should be sustained at? To me there is a huge difference between what I think is a ÒqualityÓ life as opposed to what a Japanese living in downtown Tokyo thinks is a ÒqualityÓ life. Therefore, one could imagine the possible discrepancy between a Westerner and person from a lesser developed country trying to establish the appropriate criteria for a quality life. Second, I do not see people willingly giving up their level of consumption for the sake of the world's health. Look at the situation that the United States is in right now. Although people have eagerly jumped on the environmental band wagon, companies are working to find boxes and plastic containers that are both environmentally safe and at the same time pleasing to the American consumer. People do not want to willingly give up any aspect of their lives. Products that are environmentally safe have had to consistently show that it is just as effective as the traditional product. For example, the cleaning product ÒSimple GreenÓ might be environmentally friendly but many companies and households refuse to use it since it is not as effective as other industrial cleaners.14 Consumers do not want to have to change anything about the way that they live to save the environment. Look at the arguments that commuters use against public transportation, ÒIt isnÕt convenient.Ó or ÒI like driving my own car.Ó I think that we are looking at our environmental problems backwards. The problem is not necessarily the rate of consumption of each individual. The problem lies more in the amount of people that are consuming at this rate. In terms of environmental preservation we must begin with the most feasible option. I believe that there is a higher feasibility to limiting our population as opposed to getting people to universally and unconditionally limit their consumption. Although consumption is something that we are going to have to deal with, population is an area where we can ease the pressure and hopefully "buy time" for not only technological advances but also for people to readily accept environmentally safe products. While the population is expected to double in the next 60 years, the economy is expected to grow at about a rate of 2% per year.15 We are clearly going to have a problem with too many people wanting to consume with too little resources to meet that demand. Population is a problem that only perpetuates the consumption rate and it is the area that needs the most attention. Carrying Capacity: A Useless Tool There is a French riddle that illustrates a lily pond that contains a single leaf. Each day the amount of leaves doubles. If the pond is completely full on the 30th day, on which day was it half full? The 29th.16 This story illustrates perfectly the concept of exponential growth; a concept that many either deny or believe that we can overcome through technology or human will. I do not necessarily suggest that we are living in the global lily pond, however, exponential growth is a serious concern. The Òcarrying capacityÓ of the earth is the questionable number that is used to determine what the worldÕs Ò29th dayÓ is. I do not debate the number itself, rather I take issue with the usefulness of such a number. In the midst of all the discussion and controversy whether it be the technology or the limits to growth, one of the base assumptions that I must call into question is that, whoever said that population growth was a good or desirable thing? Analysts spend so much time trying to calculate the definitive "carrying capacity" of the world. In many respects I think that we are putting the cart before the horse. Does the world not have enough problems to deal with? Are there not enough humans here to have responsibility? Is the future of the species threatened? I find it hard to believe that humans are an endangered species. Marvin Soroos suggests, ÒReducing unnecessary and wasteful resource consumption in the industrial world would allow for a substantial increase in the number of people that the planet can accommodate.Ó17 But why would you want to expand the carrying capacity? In a certain way Soroos is admitting environmental defeat. He is saying that there is no way for humans to limit themselves so we must make every effort to relieve us of reproductive responsibility. LetÕs assume that Soroos is right; we reduce consumption and expand the carrying capacity of the planet. Where does that leave us? We have limited consumption, environmental degradation and the food to feed them. What about space? Where are we going to put them all? Although I have read of very intriguing development plans, I have yet to see someone argue that there is an infinite amount of space on this planet. So, regardless of when and how, we will run out of space and there will be too many people. Carrying capacity has a special place in the scheme of overpopulation. It has become the Russian Roulette of the environmental game. But it also relates specifically to Hardin's lifeboat argument. Obviously the capacity determines the number of people the lifeboat can hold. Too many people are glued to the idea that we have to be a maximum capacity. In a real lifeboat situation, I would prefer some room to maneuver and some cushion in the food rations as opposed to being shoulder to shoulder with people where my existence within the lifeboat would be compromised by too many people. Critics would argue that this is completely selfish and cruel. However, I think that it is more selfish of people to have 3-10 children which are going to have a huge effect on the environment beyond their own life. This brings us to the larger argument against a population solution. Morality While the "human perspective", technology, the food myth and carrying capacity can be arguments against overpopulation as a problem, one of the biggest problems that really inhibits even the mere consideration of both the problem of population and a LBE policy is the issue of morality. The people who take the moral high ground are a mixed bunch on the issue of overpopulation; some feel that it isn't a problem for some of the issues that I cited earlier while others do see population as a problem but for moral reasons, population control policies should not even be considered. In many ways, I think that morality is the one point that the population problem might not be able to overcome. It is all too difficult to watch another human die for no ÒrealÓ reason, let alone legitimize it though a LBE policy. I cannot see many people rallying behind Gregg's Law which states, "a cancer cannot be cured by feeding it."18 I cannot see policy makers and aid organizations referring to people as a "cancer" nor do I think that people would appreciate being identified as such. In addition, on a more philosophical level, there is, what I call, "the theory of the optionless" which suggests that development, overconsumption, and procreation are just innate to human nature and that it is our destiny to destroy ourselves. The issue of morality can also be linked to the ever- important notion of individual rights which I will address in greater detail later in this essay. In short, we have come to a juncture where human rights are beginning to conflict. On the one hand, the UN grants the right to have children. At the same time it is that right that is infringing on my other right to Òlife, liberty and the security of person" or "torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."19 When dealing with the issue of morality in the context of overpopulation, once again we are seeing two different concepts of "morality." On the one hand, one could argue that it is immoral to let someone die. On the other, I would argue that it is also immoral to let someone live and in turn cause a slow death for many people. Once again we see religion playing a major role in the leadership in the campaign against any population policy. In 1907, Reverend John A. Ryan, a leader in the anti-birth control movement, states that Neo-Malthusianism is Òintrinsically immoral, implying foeticide, or the perversion of natural faculties and functions.Ó He continues to states that small families Òfoster a degree of egotism and enervating self-indulgence which in turn diminishes the incentive to labour and reduces industrial production.Ó20 Although the Catholic Doctrine has changed since 1907, with the current heated debate over safe and legal abortion, I still think that there is a large religious sector who would fundamentally oppose any population control policy for moral reasons. Unfortunately, I do not think that people properly understand what such a moral stand implies. There needs to be a fundamental shift in our conception of what is right and wrong. We no longer have the luxury of taking the moral high road when dealing with environmental degradation. I believe that at this point in time, it is more immoral to conttribute to the possible destruction of society and our environment rather than take the appropriate measures to insure its well being. The issue of morality does not end here. I will look at it again, more specifically in the context of the lifeboat concept itself. Intrinsic Responsibility and The Tragedy of the Commons One of the most important components of the lifeboat argument, "the tragedy of the commons" must be evaluated separately from the lifeboat ethic since it establishes the principle on which LBE is based. Many people take issue with the validity of the commons argument and the assumptions that Hardin makes in his essay of the same name. However, the "tragedy" is part of a larger cycle which only reinforces the validity of the greater LBE argument. Figure 1: This diagram above illustrates the chain- reaction of the commons argument. The term "intrinsic responsibilityÓ is used to describe the alleged innate sense of caring that humans can have for the world around them. The main debate over responsibility is generally over whether or not humans do in fact naturally care about their surroundings or whether it is something that must be instilled in them. Advocates of intrinsic responsibility agree that initially people might be careless with their use and abuse of the environment but eventually their conscience will kick in and the person will rise above their own irresponsibility and begin to take care of their surroundings. I have two main arguments against such a belief. First, I would return to my Òhuman perspectiveÓ argument and reiterate that most people do not perceive a problem until the environment has gotten sufficiently disgusting enough to infringe upon their personal existence. In this respect, intrinsic responsibility really has no meaning since most of the damage is done and intrinsic responsibility is meant to be a preventative movement. Thus, there is a time factor in terms of both the time in which it takes for people to actually perceive that there is a problem as well as the time that it takes for the solution to take effect. For example, it is great that some Southern Californians are beginning to carpool and use public transportation. But first, it took Californians years, until the air was almost unbreathable to become concerned and take responsibility. And it will also take time for the effects of the new-found responsibility to take effect. But the smog is still there and it will stay there, unless it blows over to another place, but still it is something that someone somewhere has to deal with. Even assuming that people perceive a problem, I still have a concern in making the assumption that people are rational enough to do something about their habits. People are individuals. People are different. There is always a few that ruin it, sometimes even intentionally, for the whole. No matter how strict the law or the punishment, there is always a few who break it and jeopardize "innocent people." Unfortunately this probably the most apparent in the population situation. Sex is not rational. I am sure that most people are not thinking about carrying capacity and the food myth while in the midst of intercourse. Thus, there is an error factor inherent in the population problem itself and the ultimate goal of 0% population growth is unattainable. Of course, there are some that would say that a few accidental pregnancies here and there is not going to make that much of a difference. Initially that is a correct assumption, but exponential growth is the factor that is ignored here. Although it might only be ten additional children, those children have some children with a few "accidents" and eventually it turns into the vicious cycle that we are currently caught in. Second, I would ask, what incentive is there to care about the environment? One might respond, Òthe personal satisfaction and peace of mind, knowing that you did your part to save the environment.Ó This might work with national parks or places that are for recreational purposes but when people have to depend on their environment for their livelihood, peace of mind does not pay the bills. Therefore, the people that actually have the best interest of the environment at heart are the ones that lose economically since their competitors are, for example, polluting the air as much as they want and outputting more than the ÒresponsibleÓ company can. Either way, the person or company is in a Òcatch 22Ó situation; either they feel the environmentalist tugging at the heart strings of their conscience or they are seen by business people as the Òsimpleton who can be shamed into standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons.Ó21 On the international level this situation is also evident. China was able to enforce its policy not only through their system of government but the international perception was in agreement that population was indeed a problem in that country and the economic costs for such a move were completely outweighed by the obvious environmental pressure ass s result of their population. However, if, for example, Great Britain (who is actually experiencing negative population growth as is most of Europe) adopted a population policy similar to that of China, it would be perceived as stupidity because first, they are not having a population problem and proactive actions are not really appreciated on the international level. In addition, coming from the realist school I maintain that power is the ultimate goal of national interest. I also maintain that environmental preservation is in many ways empowering some countries by insuring their future. But a country is only powerful if other nations perceive it to be. Looking at the social and economic costs of limiting population whether it be having to restrict religious freedom, and your work force, it is hard to see that country, in todayÕs system as more powerful. Intrinsic responsibility has a cost and I cannot see many countries willingly give up some of that power for the sake of the environment unless environmental quality actually became one of the Òcriterias for international powerÓ like GNP. A third question I would ask is how effective is it to simply ask people to limit population? Assuming that there are some people who do take heed of the population problem and therefore do not procreate. Eventually, those people die out and what are you left with? All of the people that do not see the problem or choose to have children anyways or in other words, just the people that are causing the problem in the first place. Since responsibility is not widely practiced, we are lead to the Òtragedy of the commons.Ó The commons theory comes out of the traditional English system whereby a villager has access to a publicly owned pasture whose rules state that 1) each herdsman mat have as many cattle as he/she wants and 2) the benefit of the grazing to the cattle goes directly to each individual herdsman. This system is satisfactory until the Òcarrying capacityÓ of the pasture is reached. At that point, with each additional cow, the grass supply is depleted to the point where the pasture itself is unfit for grazing for any amount of cattle thereby leading to the ÒtragedyÓ. Interestingly enough, the tragedy is almost inevitable since the commons system leaves no incentive to take responsibility for the pasture as a whole and actually provides incentive for overgrazing since each herdsman is the sole recipient of the grazing benefits. Hardin maintains that this same theory can be applied to most of the current day situations whether it be the oceans, air or land. For example, if one looks at the Columbia River salmon fishing industry, the theory of the commons applies perfectly. Everyone was able to fish as much as they desired and the benefit from fishing went directly to each fisherman. The effects of such a commons idea are all too clear; there are virtually no salmon to be found in many parts of the Colombia. This also applies to pollution as well except people are not taking away from the commons they are putting in toxic waste and trash. Although most analysts agree with the principle and logic of the commons and the lack of intrinsic responsibility, opinions diverge when we deal with the assumption that the commons and lack of responsibility are applicable in any situation and are just a given part of human nature. Obviously, we have seen the evidence of the tragedy of the commons in most of the "real world." But looking beyond such a blanket statement I would pose two questions. First, how have some "real world" countries escapes the damage of the commons and second, if approached again, would people develop in the same way that they have or would they change their ways based upon the information that they have now? With regards to the first question, I think that most of the countries that have dealt with their environment and have found a way to coexist have the ability to do so because of their direct dependence on that environment. Whether it be Australia or Buthan, both of those countries were forced initially to depend on themselves and deal with the waste of their own consumption. Initially, Australia was an island of convicts that had no capacity of development with the outside world. At its inception, Australia was not perceived as becoming a major economic interest for anyone. Buthan is a small country that obviously has little chance of becoming a major economy and has very little to offer other countries in terms of investment or other resources. Native Americans as well, were able to maintain with their environment not only because they lived off the land but most importantly, they had found a respect for their surroundings. Australia and Buthan as well, were forced to respect their own land because they had no other option. Currently, although we do "depend" on our land, I think that it is this respect that we have lost sight of. Instead of valuing it, we take it for granted. When looking at the commons as applied to everyday life, another important factor is whether or not people truly have the ability to learn from their mistakes. The relationship between Oregon and California clearly illustrates the possibility of a human environmental learning. California is used as an example of what Oregon should not turn into thereby enforcing environmental preservation policies and rationalizing the cost of the maintenance of the commons in the minds of consumers and workers. Although I see the logic of intrinsic responsibility in the Oregon/ California case, I am still not convinced that this would happen if people were to get a new world. I think that people need to have a constant tangible reminder of what could happen if they go back to their ways. California provides that model. In addition, I am not convinced that people would not have the desire to live at the same level that they did on planet #1. This goes back to an earlier point about the nature of overconsumption. People like to live well. And I think that if they were given a new world, all we would do is simply transplant many of the characteristics of the old one while trying to maintain some level of environmental quality. Now, I agree that this isn't a bad idea. But I would wonder about the aspects of our life that have no "environmentally safe" replacement: would we simply leave them at planet #1 or would we forgive ourselves and allow a few things get through. As much as I would like to think that people have the ability to learn from their mistakes, I do not trust them enough to not make the same mistake twice. In addition, I am not fond of the idea of giving people another chance because it relives us of our responsibility of this first chance. I want people to play the hand that they were dealt and attempt to solve our one of our biggest problems; population which leads me to the solution: lifeboat ethics. The Concept of Lifeboat Ethics I briefly touched upon the concept of LBE in the introduction however, after looking at the reasons as to why population itself is a problem and the validity of the tragedy of the commons, we must now look at the directly at the LBE policy itself. A stated earlier, LBE has two main goals. The first, to instill intrinsic responsibility and second, to mainly limit the global population and other environmental problems. There are some assumptions that I am operating under when examining this concept. I assume that it is understood by all nations that there is a population problem and impending environmental disaster if that population isnÕt appropriately limited. The main question that nations are discussing is which policy to adopt to achieve the necessary outcome. Marvin S. Soroos is one of the authors who has actively taken issues with many of HardinÕs assumptions and conclusions. After reading his article, ÒThe Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological PolicyÓ, I found that many of the discrepancies between the two men, lie in their different constructions of human nature. After reading SoroosÕ argument I have reached one of two conclusions. One, that either Soroos misunderstands HardinÕs entire argument or two, that SoroosÕ arguments are so shallow that he really has no other option but to skew HardinÕs approach. Although I fundamentally disagree with SoroosÕ position, there is a minor amount of validity to his argument, I will use his article as a framework in order to properly endorse yet conditionalize HardinÕs concept. Initially, Soroos identifies what Borgstrome calls the "calorie swindle" where the West/North gets the high nutrition food from the lesser developed countries thereby lowering the amount of good food that they have for themselves. It is this dependence on exports that contributes to the low quality of life in the third world thereby proving that population is indeed not a problem. Ironically, Soroos in fact proves Hardin's point of the success of intrinsic responsibility and LBE. If the "nutrition exporting" countries, through the LBE policy, actually kept the food for themselves, then they can raise their quality of life and support themselves thereby supporting their lifeboat. The more developed countries would have to depend on themselves and limit their luxury consumption, the largest contributor of pollution. Therefore, the LBE is effective to the extent that it not only regulates the population but also forces countries to limit their pollution. Soroos attempts to find additional weakness in HardinÕs argument by citing an apparent confusion of food aid and buying power. Thereby implying that nations can buy a larger carrying capacity. He writes, ÒAlthough it is clear that food assistance programs are inconsistent with the practice of intrinsic responsibility, is not the policy also violated by the sale of food to wealthier countries that are unable to meet their agricultural requirements from domestic production?Ó22 Yes, and I think that Hardin would agree as well. However, I think that Soroos is missing the point. Hardin wants to have the first world fend for itself. Soroos continually seems to think that Hardin excludes the First World from this policy. That is simply not the case. While the Third World is receiving no aid from the First World, the First World is not receiving any revenue or resources from the Third World, thus employing intrinsic responsibility. Soroos writes, Òstrengthening the structure of the rafts of the lesser-developed countries would enable them to support many of the occupants who otherwise would fall into the water and swim over to the American lifeboat.Ó23 He goes on to imply that through economic aid, the Western countries could reinforce the boats of the lesser developed countries thereby alleviating the boat ethic situation. Through this statement, Soroos, is perpetuating the very problem that we are trying to solve. I would refer back to the paradox the Jan Kippers Black cited, ÒÒTreating the symptoms might prolong the disorder.Ó24 If this is the case, than food aid and economic support is actually condemning the lesser developed countries to a life of misery caused by maldistribution of wealth and overpopulation which, in my opinion, is more immoral than letting the nations fend for themselves under a LBE policy. The reality is the no one is ÒstrengtheningÓ anything, we are continuing the cycle of dependency that contributes to the severe lack of intrinsic responsibility as well as continuing the patterns that many Third World advocates condemn. Some critics of international aid programs claim that Òthe developed countries have not justly acquired their wealthÓ25 and therefore it is the First WorldÕs responsibility to help the Third World get out of its poor situation. Soroos writes, ÒHunger and malnutrition, which Hardin sees as manifestations of overpopulation, may also be attributable to inequalities in the international distribution of wealth. That these inequalities are largely a consequence of centuries of colonialism as well as more contemporary forms of international economic domination is a compelling reason to question the ethics of HardinÕs lifeboat policies which would have the developed countries turn away from problems they played a considerable role in creating.Ó26 To me, Soroos is at the peak of hypocrisy here. On the one hand, he criticizes Hardin for devising a policy that would in fact give the Third World their independence from economic domination. But on the other, he criticizes the fact that the First World doesnÕt give enough aid to lesser developed countries in order to strengthen their lifeboat which in fact perpetuates the economic domination that Hardin is trying to alleviate. Inadvertently, Soroos even points to the fact that an LBE policy would narrow the gap between the developed and the underdeveloped. He uses the US and the OPEC countries as an example. While the US has the food that the OPEC countries need, the OPEC countries have the oil that the Americans need and that through a LBE policy everyone would have what the other country needs. To me this perfectly illustrates how the LBE policy is very effective is stopping environmental degradation. In America, they will not have the oil that they need to consume as much as they do which is obviously hurting the environment and in the OPEC countries there will not be any overpopulation because there is no food to feed them thereby keeping them at the natural carrying capacity. Along these same lines, many critics make an improper assessment of HardinÕs lifeboat assumption that the lifeboats are Òself-sufficient.Ó Agreed, that if nations wanted to maintain their level of consumption with no change whatsoever to the manner in which each nation produces, then the current system of interdependence would be undeniable. However, Hardin proposes this division for a specific purpose. It is that interdependence that critics are quick to cite, that has largely contributed to the current condition of the environment today. If Americans didnÕt have the materials, they wouldnÕt have been able to consume all that they do. I do agree with Soroos to the extent that Òthe grass is always greenerÓ syndrome might occur and that all nations would want what the other has. At the same time, it is that desire for goods that has perpetuated the dependency of nations as well as the conflicts that have occurred over those same resources. I agree with Soroos to the extent that the LBE policy would have to be integrated since instantaneous implementation could cause Òsharp economic reverberations throughout the international economic system.Ó27 I think that there needs to be more thought as to how to adjust the market system in a gradual way to accomodate an LBE policy. With regard to the resource issue, I think that Soroos misunderstands HardinÕs intention in his LBE policy. Throughout his essay, he has the misconception that Hardin is intentionally targeting the poorer nations and the that developed world will recover from an LBE policy with no losses. This is not the case. LBE forces all nations to be self-sufficent not just the Third World. Soroos writes, ÒExtending the logic of intrinsic responsibility to nonrenewable resources reinforces the conclusion drawn in previous sections. First, population growth in the developing world should not be singled out as the only major ecological peril.Ó28 LBE doesnÕt see the popualion of the devloping world as the only ecological problem. In fact, Soroos supports LBE with this statement to the extent that LBE targets everything not just population. But since there is relatively low development in the Third World and population is the biggest problem there, of course, that would be the area most effected by a LBE policy whereas in the North it would be industry. The notion of intrinsic responsibility applies to all environmental problems. But Hardin, as do I, beleive that population is probably the most signifigant one and the easiset to relieve particularly in the developed world. Soroos, once again, makes an invalid assumption of HardinÕs principle behind the commons system. He writes, ÒAnother basic factor in the decision of the herdsman, however, is the extent to which the costs of grazing cattle are shared by the community.Ó29 He incorrectly assumes that the cost to the community is a factor in the decision making process. On the contrary, it is the lack of insight on the part of the herdsman or intrinsic responsibility, that makes LBE necessary. One of HardinÕs main goals is to force people to begin considering their community in their decision to use the commons. Once again, with HardinÕs LBE policy, one must deal with morality. The first issue that I would address in terms of morality, is the basic assumption of lifeboat critics that Hardin's policy is immoral while at the same time, implying that the alternative, being food or economic aid, is moral. The main difference that I see between the two poles is the personal value of the current human inhabitants of the planet. On the one hand, Hardin writes, "Every life saved this year in a poor country diminishes the quality of life for subsequent generations. To be generous with one's own possession is one thing; to be generous with posterity's is quite another."30 Daniel Callahan, an advocate for economic support of Third World countries, writes, "While we surly have obligations to future generations, our more immediate obligation is towards those now alive. There is no moral justification for making them the fodder for a higher quality of life of those yet to be born, or even for the maintenance of the present quality of life of those yet to be born, or even for the maintenance of the present quality of life."31 In short, the choice is either sacrificing future generations for the sake of the present ones, or sacrificing the present generations for the future ones. I believe that the motivation behind CallahanÕs solution is equally as immoral as HardinÕs. To sacrifice future generations to serve our own sense of greed and lack of responsibility for our actions and environment is also unethical. In this way, the moral distinction between LBE and other solutions that are perceived as Òmore humaneÓ is very blurry. Therefore, I do not think that we can discount LBE on the basis that it is immoral and that another solution is more moral and thereby more effective. A second moral question is posed in the way that LBE legitimizes the ÒunnecessaryÓ death of a person(s) which is how most people are going to initially look at it. LBE is a reality that most people are not willing to look at. Hardin introduced this idea decades ago and it has only remained on the periphery of population discussions. Hardin knew that morality would be the first problem that people would have with the LBE concept and he addresses it is the most simple way possible. Hardin writes, ÒThe last solution (speaking about the ultimate answer in LBE, meaning accepting no more into the boat) is abhorrent to many people. It is unjust, they say. ÔI feel guilty about my good luckÕ say some. The reply to this is simple: Get out and yield your place to others.Ó32 Different people have different conceptions about what is right and moral and in the real world people make their choices and have the obligation to respect each other in that decision. This would be the same in terms of LBE. Obviously one would argue, by making people succumb to the notion of the lifeboat in the first place we are compromising someoneÕs morals. Agreed. However, for example, my committing adultery, which many consider immoral, does not infringe upon the rights of others. Population and environmental degradation is unique in this manner. Individuals morality has repercussions on the survival of the whole. I believe that we need to approach this problem with a ÒglobalÓ perspective. We need to ask ourselves, what policy will give the highest quality of life to the most people? When looking at the sacrifice of some individual sense of morality, the ends justify the means. He writes, ÒSuch a selfless action might satisfy the conscience of those who are addicted to the guilt but it would not change the ethics of the lifeboat.Ó33 Therefore, the LBE policy is constructed to satisfy the people who do have a moral problem with the lifeboat as well as those who feel that an LBE policy is most appropriate. LBE depends on the administrators, or in this case, the developed nationsÕ, evaluation of what is considered ÒrightÓ or ÒjustÓ versus that of ÒwrongÓ or ÒamoralÓ (since they are the ones who are going to be deciding to not give aid). Michael D. Bayles outlines one of the fundamental moral dilemmas the LBE policy faces and that is the morality of Òrefusing to aidÓ and agreeing to allow people to die.Ó He cites to base reasons that refusing aid is morally right: 1) Western nations have a certain rights included in that is the right not to aid therefore, taking advantage of rights is not seen as wrong. 2) Aid could actually exacerbate the population problem. Thus, the action of aid is immoral within itself. 34 I think that what needs to happen is a rethinking of the morality behind the LBE policy. By letting people die, Hardin is insuring the survival of others as opposed to the apparent destruction of the entire race as a whole. Is that immoral? One of the conflicting views that directly relates to morality is the debate over cultural relativism and national sovereignty. How sacred is culture or social norms? Is the population problem the exception the independence of a nation? The World Population Plan of Action claims, ÒThe formulation and implementation of population policies is the sovereign right of each nation. This right is to be excised in accordance with national objectives and needs without external interference, taking into account universal solidarity in order to improve the quality of life of the peoples of the world.Ó35 However, at the same time, the developmental point of view, in short, believes that the best population policy for less developed countries is more economic aid thereby increasing their quality of life. I have a fundamental difficulty with this argument to the extent that although there is indication that in more educated and developed countries there tends to be a lower birth rate, I have still seen more evidence pointing toward cultural norms as being the main reason behind larger families in less developed countries. Meaning, even with the economic motivation, these societies have a certain respect and appreciation for a large family. Many supporters of the development view state that a nationÕs culture is something that population policy cannot and should not purposefully touch. But they do leave a little cushion in their argument. Gary S. Becker, 1992 Nobel Laureate, writes, ÒBut even poor parents have fewer children, however, when the have the right incentives.Ó36 To me, this form of cultural blackmail is just as immoral as an LBE policy is. On the one hand, culture has become the scared cow of many nations however, with the right amount of money, people will give it up. In addition, referring back to the original statement by the World Population Plan of Action, there is too much a discrepancy between what the ÒneedsÓ and Ònational objectivesÓ of nations are. In many ways, these needs and objectives are the same needs and objectives that have gotten the world into environmental crisis. I believe that nations must come to the bottom line and that is to limit population. Those needs and national objectives should be to limit population since things like GNP and national security are going to be even lower priorities if the population problems gets to a crisis level. If that is the case, I believe it more moral to end the apparent cycle of dependency and allow the lesser developed countries the economic independence that they so desire. Therefore, a LBE policy would be most appropriate. Assume that Soroos is right and Hardin is wrong. Soroos believes that mandatory birth control is the wrong course to take. He believes that, for example, through Òwidespread availability of health services and better nutritionÓ37 we could limit population. He continues, ÒIn time the gap between birth rates and mortality rates should narrow, a tendency that becomes more pronounced as a society undergoes modernization.Ó38 I would place a significant emphasis on three words in his last statement: ÒtimeÓ, ÒshouldÓ, Òtendency.Ó None of them indicate that population growth will stop. I donÕt think that we have time to wait for industrialization to manipulate a society and lower birth rates. I am not willing to gamble with the preservation of our environment on a ÒshouldÓ or a Òtendency.Ó I do think that Soroos has fallen into denying the immediacy of the situation and has resolved to taking minimal responsibility for human actions and looking at mild solutions to a major problem. Although I firmly believe that LBE is feasible, I do not feel that it is definitely reachable. There are many obstacle that LBE faces, but, at the same time, there are real advantages to the results of LBE that could provide some relief to the population problem. However, in my opinion, there is little chance for the implementation of a ÒpureÓ LBE policy, at least in the foreseeable future. At this point, each country, interest group and individual is involved in their own Òpet environmental project.Ó At the same time there are problems with the moral issues, the administrative questions... all of which contribute with the difficulties of feasibility. Support for environmental programs is so diffused; there is little unity in the world on what the environmental difficulties are. Section 1 indicates just 5 of the many arguments against a population policy, let alone LBE. It is this division that I think will prevent any substantive population control action, LBE or otherwise, from being taken. LBE would require an almost unreachable amount of cooperation and ÒglobalismÓ since LBE, although a regional policy, requires all nations to agree on the same solution and implement it. Human nature presents another, perhaps the largest, obstacle to a true LBE policy. Critics of the LBE policy, aside from economic problems, political repercussions, almost all agree that the morality of such a policy eliminates it from consideration. I think that people are too emotional to let a plan like LBE to be considered seriously. People give millions of dollars to funds that support children with a swollen belly and an underdeveloped nervous system who will most likely will never make a difference in their life. Nonetheless, the feel obliged to save him/her. I cannot see people stepping back and thinking that it might be better if that child died. Moreover, I cannot see them stepping back and discovering that an LBE policy could have prevented that child from starving to death. People are too human; they feel too much. In that manner, caring too much might be our fatal flaw. In this respect, LBE is a double edged sword. On the one hand, LBE asks that people being to care for the land that they use. On the other, its asks people to suspend that same care for the people around them. In order for a LBE policy to be accepted I believe that people must come to the realization that in order to save the whole we must sacrifice a part. This relates directly to a third problem that I have with LBE: the dilemma between coercion and education. Throughout this essay, I have evaluated the arguments against population control and conditionalized LBE in terms of the appropriate human perceptions of the environment needed to approach a LBE policy. But what happens, even in the midst of environmental crisis, people still do not have the sense of responsibility needed for LBE? Hardin has cited the problems with volunteerism which is one of the failures of the environmental policies now. Therefore, he would lean to the mandatory limitation of population which although education could work to convince people to have less children, coercion would be required to be effective. Although coercion certainly does achieve its goals if strict enough and consistent, I believe that LBE would more likely accepted and endorsed if people were educated about it. Not only should they practice LBE, but they should also understand why LBE is an appropriate solution. Education provides the foundation and justification. Coercion only works if it is consistent and people perceive the power and threat of the administrator. In addition, people are more likely to rebel against something that is forced on them. In the context of education and coercion, I think that coercion would certainly not be tolerated. However, education markedly lowers the effectiveness of LBE since it leaves a margin of disobedience and gives people the option to choose and it is this choice that has perpetuated the population problem is the first place. In addition, the time factor involved between the beginning of an education program and the effects of such a program are large which might not be a factor that we have to work with. I would like to see a LBE policy implemented with the intention that it will be enforced on a short term basis. In conjunction, I would begin an intensive education program within the school systems that we have now to being to educate to future generations about the benefits of good global stewardship, the effects of overpopulation and the necessity of responsibility. ÊOne of the problems that I see developing, one that Soroos does not mention, is the matter of trust. Why should I trust the people in my zone to act responsibly? This gets back to the commons argument. Although the notion of the commons has been eliminated, I have to trust the people in my zone to take care of my environment and I have to trust all of the people in the other zones since if they abuse their environment many of the effects are trans-boarder. I think that many people are going to find it difficult to leave their future in the hands of others. Although, now people place their future in the hands of everyone, the situation of trust becomes more apparent when you actually make people depend on each other. This concern also has relativity to today's society. We are seeing a substantial increase in the racial and ethnic strife within cities and between states. With Hardin's zones, what would happen if you put the Serbs and the Muslims in the same zone? If the latest conflict is any indication, I do think that cooperation is going to be a priority. I see the problems that such seemingly arbitrary boundaries have caused in Africa after the fall of European colonialism and I can only imagine what could happen with the zones of a LBE policy. Even though there is just cause behind the LBE policy, I am not convinced that environmental concern will overcome racial, political, religious or ethnic differences. In addition, although I agree with the notion of intrinsic responsibility, trust once again comes up with inter-zonal relations. Just as difficult as it is to trust the people within my zone, due to the nature of environmental problems which do not adhere to arbitrary boundaries like boarders, one zone could choose to be irresponsible however the effects of their irresponsibility could effect others who are in no way responsible for those actions, yet they must pay the price. To me, this poses a great problem for the unit/zone system itself. An additional problem that I have with the LBE policy is the fact that it would mean the virtual breakdown of the state system as we know it. Although states could remain states, there would be an obvious change with the implementation of the zone system. This makes the feasibility of the LBE policy that much lower. In addition, the degree of interdependence among todayÕs nations is so complex and so well developed that to sever all ties with other nations for environmental reasons is a very far fetched notion. LBE is constructed specifically for the purpose of easing the pressure on the environment and the population problem that the world has. There is little indication that it would also be sufficient in terms of managing the political, social and cultural needs of people. The Prospect of Lifeboat Ethics Although, I do not believe that, as I said before, a LBE policy is really reachable, I do see however, some minor indications of LBE in the current international system as well as some areas in which LBE could further develop. I would look at four areas: Russia, the current developments of NAFTA and the EC, the feasibility of food being used as a tool to justify a population policy and the role of the United Nations. Russia: Lifeboat EthicsÕ Test Run? The first nation in which I think that LBE might develop is in the former Soviet Republics. I believe that the Soviets have a unique opportunity to realize the intrinsic responsibility that has been lacking in other countries. Regardless, of the other environmental problems that the Soviets have had to deal with, such as the Chernobyl disaster in 1988 or the current debate over the logging industry in Siberia, the Soviets have never had to address the human pressure that other countries, mainly the Third World have had to deal with. The Soviets might no longer be the military superpower but there is significant evidence that they might rise to be a leader in population control. As the USSR makes the transition to democracy, many fear that the Soviets might fall into the same downward spiral that many democratic nations have fallen into with consumption, pollution and overpopulation. However, when one looks closely at the recent developments of the republics, the Soviets are moving towards one of the most environmentally safe situations: mainly the concept of intrinsic responsibility. I would suggest that with the recent developments in the former Soviet Union in terms of the decollectivization of farms, the Soviets will take responsibility for themselves and the environment around them. First and foremost, Boris Yeltsin has signed two decrees in December 1991 to initiate the privatization, of previously state-owned farms, process.39 The first simply obliged the state and collective farms to re-register by the beginning of 1993. The second decree stated that all members of collective farms were entitled to an equal share of the farms land and assets, which they are to be given if they choose to leave the farm. With this process, families are going to have to live off their own land since the state is no longer in the same support role that it was in pre-1989. Therefore, to the extent that each family has to deal with their own waste and production. Not only will the families be forced to be sensitive to their own consumption but also to the amount of people they can sustain thereby limiting the number of children that each family has. This new system that is developing is somewhat similar to the zones that Hardin advocates in his LBE policy. These new developers are going to not only have a special appreciation for the property that they have been deprived of for so long, I am hoping that there will be a unique sense of intrinsic responsibility among the people. Second, the former Soviet republics are having a difficult time in convincing the world that they are a stable economic market not only to invest in but to accept exports from. Thus, initially, the Russians and others are going to have to depend on their own collective farms for their sustenance. In the 1992 Russian harvest, the crop yield went from 107.3 million metric tons to 96.7 metric tons from the year before.40 They are currently no where near the stage to where they have the surplus capital needed to reinvest in its industry and grow. It is this economic isolation that is going to give the Russian little incentive to have their families grow if their financial future is as uncertain as their political future was under Stalin. Third, as I cited earlier in this essay, many consumers are not willing to give up a portion of the luxuries that they have for the benefit of the environment. If one looks at the supermarket shelves in American stores, most of the environmentally conscience products have been manufactured in a manner that attempts to equal the original product in terms of the packaging or the taste since most consumers will not buy it if there is a marked difference in the quality. In terms of Russia, some environmentalists were dreading the end of the Cold War since the lines of communication would be open and apparently the Russian would want to acquire the same lifestyle as their American neighbors. I think that this is an unsubstantiated argument. Currently, the Russian and other republics are concentrating on sustaining their citizens let alone providing them with a level of luxury anywhere near that of the West. The Russian people really have little to compare to. Agreed, though the media, most people have seen the Ògood lifeÓ of Dallas and Dynasty but to the same people it is still an unattainable goal. overconsumption is not an issue. Regardless of the reasons of why and how the USSR was able to escape the deadly grasp of the overpopulation problem, what I feel is most important is the fact that the new republics have gotten a second chance at development and a second chance and environmental preservation. Whether it be in terms of economics, through political maneuvering by Yeltsin or the Russian social perspective, these new nations can set an example of how environmental responsibility can be incorporated into the interests of a major international power such as Russia. The Paddock Plan: Aid as a Population Tool? Many argue that the North/South Gap between the developed and lesser developed countries is getting wider by the year and the demand for economic aid from the developed nations is getting greater. However, at the same time, nations are attaching more ÒpoliticalÓ strings to economic agreements. Eventhough Most Favored Nation Status was granted to China, the United States did try to connect the issue of human rights to the future of the economic aid package. Is this applicable to the population problem? Will a country like the U.S. adopt such a policy? As I wrote is section 1, William and Paul Paddock looked seriously at the construction of an aid plan with population control as a main motive. Although the book, Famine- 1975! was written in 1967, the principles behind such a policy, I think, are more applicable to the current economic and environmental conditions as opposed to those in the 1960Õs. The strain on the world in both areas has gotten severe enough to where, nations are looking to options that they might not have considered under different conditions. Although the Bush administration, for example, did adopt some economic incentive programs for countries with lowered birth rates, the American efforts were nowhere near the large scale operation that the Paddocks suggest. In light of the new economic pressures on the developed nations, I think that countries like the U.S. are going to be more willing to use aid as a tool to accomplish more than just humanitarian goals because aid is no longer, just aid. There are more pressures from more constituencies to get the same amount of help as before. The Paddock Plan is important in the context of LBE for three reasons. First, the Paddock Plan is selective as is LBE since it must choose who stays in the lifeboat. With the Paddock Plan, the developed nations agree to aid other lifeboats or as Soroos might call it, ÒstrengthenÓ them. Second, I think that there are many correlations between the feasibility problems of the Paddock Plan and LBE. And third, I think that the Paddock Plan could be seen as a compromise to LBE which would increase the possibility of an effective population policy. I do think that especially when looking at the Paddock Plan, one needs to separate the aid of an international organization such as the U.N. and the U.S. The U.S. can decide that it does not want to aid certain countries on whatever basis it chooses whether it be democracy or population control. The U.N. has a little less flexibility in who it cannot give aid to since many of the countries the Paddocks would put in the ÒcanÕt be savedÓ category are voting members of the General Assembly and members of the international aid organizations. In addition, I think that although the U.N. is not the most appropriate organization to adopt a Paddock or other population policy (which I examine in the next section), I do think that with the rise of regional organizations that there is a possibility that population control or environmental could be integrated into those policies. However, in most of the regional organizations, neither is a priority. For example, in both NAFTA and the EC, the organization could have an environmental component but neither was created for that purpose and environmental goals will be forced to take a back seat to economic cooperation. If nations decided that a regional or international organization is the most appropriate manner in which to approach a Paddock Plan or a LBE policy, it would have to be the priority and focus of the initial agreement. Population control is not a priority of the ÒAmerican agendaÓ at this time which I think is the main reason that a Paddock Plan would not be adopted. However, if environmental degradation was at the forefront of national security concerns, there is no doubt that the U.S. could certainly use its power to aid the countries who limit their population and in turn insure American national security. I think that the Paddock plan is one step ahead the LBE policy to the extent that American is moving closer to attaching other demands and interests to aid plans. So at least the main principle behind the aid component of the plan might be agreed upon. The manner and means in which America arrives at the criteria for granting and the list of countries that we aid is another story. The Paddock plan is based on the notion of triage; Òthe assigning of priority treatment to the wounded brought to battlefield hospitals in a time of mass casualties and limited medical facilities.Ó41 Patients were divided into three categories: the canÕt be saved, the walking wounded and the people who would obviously survive with a small amount of medical care. The Paddocks apply this methodology to the granting of aid specifically from the U.S. to where nations would be divided into the similar categories. This is unlike the LBE plan to the extent Hardin would favor no direct support between the nations. However, I think that the Paddock Plan is indeed a compromise to LBE which might be more acceptable since I think that people are more likely to be selective in granting aid rather than cutting off support all together. The Paddock Plan poses much the same problems as HardinÕs LBE in the area of feasibility. First, one could use the same arguments against a population plicy (e.g. technology etc.) to argue against the Paddock Plan. In addition, once again, the Paddock Plan, as does the LBE policy, accepts the death of a certain percentage of the population. The U.S. is faced with a dilemma: the painful division between idealism and realism. Ideally, the U.S. would like to be able to tell the world as well as the American people that they can and will support the starving countries. Realistically, Americans enjoy their standard of living, the U.S. had its own internal concerns that need attention and funding and the U.S. does have limited resources which assumes a certain level of discrimination. I believe that the U.S. and other developed countries are coming closer to openly admitting the realism of national interest. Therefore, in this manner, I think that there is an indication already, that the U.S. is leaning toward a Paddock-type of plan to where Americans are placing "contingencies" on their grants. I have mixed feelings about whether or not the Paddock Plan is more favorable than LBE. However, I would say that looking at the current dynamics of the international state system and the economic development of nations, that a Paddock Plan requires less change and has more of a chance at being accepted for the very reason that it would not require the same international overhaul as LBE. International Administration: The Failure of the United Nations With the development of interdependence and increased importance of international organizations, one might believe that an LBE policy would best be administered by an organization like the UN. Although there are many regional and international organizations that could perhaps address this concern, the United Nations is the one entity that I believe has the most powerful international recognition and financial support that is needed to have an effect on the population problem. No institution or group has more reason to be involved with population than the UN and its system of agencies and organizations. Population is truly a global problem; the UN is mankindÕs global agency. However, even in the midst of the UNÕs obvious power, it is a restricted organization particularly in the area of human rights and one that I believe is, in many ways, promoting the negligence of overpopulation. I do not feel that I can appropriately look at the UN in the context of a LBE policy when I think that there are fundamental problems with the organization and any population policy. Therefore, when looking at the feasibility of the UN and LBE, the argument must focus on the overall problem of the UN and population in general. The Secretary General founded the United Nations Population Fund in July, 1967. The organizationÕs charge is to address the issue of overpopulation and to offer solutions to nations to help them alleviate the problem. Dr. Nafis Sadik, the Executive Director of the UNPF, has said, "Fast population growth in poor countries has begun to make permanent changes to the environment. During the 1990's these changes will reach critical levels. At the start of the 1990's the choice much be to act decisively to stop population growth, attack poverty and protect the environment. The alternative is to hand on to our children a poisoned inheritance."42 Although the UN has made a significant effort to try to deal with overpopulation, at the same time, the UN has issued statements and documents, mainly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which fundamentally undermine the formation of a truly effective policy on overpopulation. The content of the UDHR contradicts itself with outdated statements of what basic human rights are. In addition, these contradictions are not only preventing certain policies but hindering other UN efforts. First and foremost, one must look at the original UDHR which was ratified by the General Assembly in 1948. The UN. has recognized human rights to certain freedoms which directly effect the possible success, or lack thereof, of a population policy. There are three clauses, outlined in the UDHR, that directly pertain to population: Article 16 sections 1 and 3 which state, ÒMen and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and found a family. The family is the fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.Ó43 In addition, Article 18 also has population repercussions. It states, ÒEveryone had the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.Ó44 Unfortunately, the UDHR is not applicable to all time periods. As stated earlier, the UDHR was ratified in 1948. At that point, environmental degradation let alone population was not of such critical concern to the international community as it is today. It was unclear at that time that the granting of these rights would eventually lead to the compromise of other human rights protected in the same document. For example, citing Article 3 of the UDHR, the Òright to life, liberty, and the security of personÓ and Article 25 section 1, ÒEveryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family...Ó45 With each additional person added to the whole comes the additional pressure placed on already scarce resources. Therefore, through this competition, the amount and quality of resources available to and needed to sustain an ÒadequateÓ quality of life for each individual goes down. In this manner, the UN is inadvertently endorsing the tragedy of the commons by granting the right to have children. Independent of the original UDHR, there have been further interpretations of what qualify as human rights. The most relevant one was incorporated in the World Population Conference in Bucharest (1974). The Conference decided, ÒAll couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so.Ó46 In addition, Dr. Sadik in response to questions regarding UN population policies, he responded, ÒImmediate action to widen options and improve the quality of life, especially for women, will do much to secure population goals. It will also widen the options and improve the quality of life for future generation.Ó These UN statements were meant to support voluntary family planning programs. I believe that volunteer family planning programs do not limit but increase individual freedom to the extent that they give women the freedom to decide what their reproductive plan of action is. I also agree that education and the strengthened role of women does in fact have an effect on the rate in which people have children however there are factors whether social or cultural that go beyond education which contribute to the population policy. The dilemma that the UN faces between human rights and environmental preservation fosters an important question: can the UN make an effective population policy without infringing on human rights? I would answer ÒnoÓ. With the realities of consumption, growth, and pollution, the United Nations must look at its policy and reevaluate the purpose of the UDHR. Is it there to protect the individual family and culture or to provide the basic rights and sufficient protection for the greatest number of people? I would hope the later. In many ways, many of the rights in the UDHR are a luxury, the world cannot afford at this time. We have come to the point where human rights are beginning to collide. I do not take issue with the general will behind social and cultural rights, however, when those rights begin, as they have, to infringe upon the basic rights of others, I do not support such a venture. For example, the Roman Catholics, under the protection of the UN have the right to practice their religion. Within the confines of their creed, the Roman Catholic lobby has become not only one of the biggest advocates of benefits of procreation but it has also denounced the birth control practices of family planning centers. Obviously, they have the right to exercise those beliefs however it is the actions and the children that result from those actions that have begun to compromise the well-being and health of the greater whole. Looking back to the declaration of rights at Bucharest, do people always act ÒresponsiblyÓ? No. In terms of universality of human rights, I believe that the UDHR should only outline what are basic individual human rights. At this time, the world is not in the position to give people unlimited freedom in terms of the size of their family. As Hardin writes, ÒTo couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone has an equal rights to the commons, is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.Ó47 The right to breed needs to be modified to meet the need of not only the carrying capacity of the land but also the quality of life for the rest of the population. Ironically, by limiting some rights, the UN will not only be insuring others, but also enhancing their success. For example, by limiting the number of children a family can have regardless of religion or culture, you are making available more food and income available to less people thereby raising the standard of living which is a fundamental human right. This human right to procreate is also effecting other UN goals. For example, ECOSOCÕs primary function is to promote economic and social development and to Òpromote social progress and better standards of life.Ó48 The UN is not in the position, in the context of population, to grant the comprehensive list of idealistic human rights. I believe that the organization should make every effort to grant as many fundamental freedoms for all even if it is at the cost of some specialized human rights. I am not calling for the complete prohibition of families or babies, rather, I would like to see a limitation of those births which in the long run will help the preservation of our society and our environment. When analyzing the conditionality of human rights, one needs to, once again, return to the original UDHR. Article 29, section 3 states, ÒThese rights and freedoms many in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.Ó49 In terms of population, I think that this provides a backdoor to the UN and gives the organization the ÒoverrideÓ jurisdiction to bypass the UDHR. The hallmark principle of the UN is Òto maintain international peace and security, and to that end: take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace...Ó50 Population growth threatens international stability. Overpopulation effects, the health, economic standard, migratory patterns and general security of nations. The UN needs to take action before the effects of this problem require additional UN action in the form of military action. Not only is overpopulation a threat to peace, it also can be considered as a violation of the domestic jurisdiction clause of the UN Charter which would allow the UN to take formal action against it. Overpopulation places pressure on the migratory patterns of nations which contribute to the refugee situations of many nations. In addition, the environmental effects of overpopulation do not isolated themselves to the nations that cause the problem itself. Therefore, overpopulation, is not just a global problem, it violates sovereignty. Hence, I believe that the overpopulation issue needs to be addressed by the UN Security Council. We have seen the UN take military action in Bosnia where civilian lives were being lost. Why should it be any different with the situation with the environment? Although the time in which people die is extended, the effect of the Bosnian conflict has the same result of an unmonitored population. Even in light of the concerns that I have, the UN has done little to pursue a policy of mandatory population control. The UN Population Fund will be hosting another conference on ÒPopulation and DevelopmentÓ this fall in Cairo. Unfortunately, population control persay is not on the agenda. Although most countries agree that population is the problem, most countries continue to be attached to many of the concepts that I cited at the opening of this paper. The conference will concentrate on education and womenÕs rights. While those areas need attention, the UN is too deeply entrenched in its idealism to properly realize what measures need to be taken to insure the future of international peace and security. Therefore, I cannot see the United Nations take on the responsibility of a LBE policy or even a policy that begins to control population. Conclusion There are some solid solutions to global resource problems and pressures and LBE is certainly one, that under the appropriate conditions, could be feasible and effective. But these problems cannot be solved at media opportunities in Rio nor by simply dedicating one day in late April to the future of the planet. LBE is often seen as a horrible, unemotional and frightening resolution to our environmental problems. Regardless of the arguments against the population as a whole, there is a fundamental lack of intrinsic responsibility and humans are not getting a new planet. We need to come to grips with our own recklessness and take the initiative to somehow dig ourselves out of the grave we have created. LBE is the one policy that changes the way in which people see and interact with the environment around them and there are smaller indications whether it be in the former Soviet republics or the American aid policies. To me, LBE is more than a concept, it is a chance. Population is a problem. It has been ignored, dismissed and criticized. The world must realize the dire need for an effective population policy. Population is a no win situation: it will happen inevitably. The only remaining question is whether it will be halted through the humane method of mandatory birth control, a LBE policy, or by nature wiping out the surplus. The international community has a choice: either it could compromise its various cultural rights and opt for a more gentle future or nature will enforce a policy of its own. If they choose the later, people have committed themselves to a future of more frequent droughts, famines, dying forests, smog, conflict, epidemics, sewage... among other extreme unpleasantries. I feel that the situation of poverty, mass starvation and conflict in the Third World is a relatively small indication of what will happen on a global scale id the population problem is not addressed and acted upon. If the world, not just the Third World, does not limit the global population, it will enter a battle with nature in which humans are not likely to be victorious. Bibliography World Population: A Challenge to the United Nations and Its System of Agencies. United Nations Association of the United States of America, 1969. In Search of Population Policy. Office of Foreign Secretary, Commission on International Relations, National Academy of Sciences, 1973. Population Perspectives: Statements by World Leaders. United Nations Fund for Population Activities, 1985. ÒReproductive Health and Family Planning Are Human Rights.Ó In International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, United Nations, ICPD Secretariat Bayles, Michael D. Morality and Population Policy. University: The University of Alabama Press, 1980. Berg, Alan. ÒThe Trouble with Triage.Ó New York Times Magazine, January 5 1975, Brown, Lester R. In The Human Interest. New York: W.W Norton & Company, 1974. Brown, Lester R. The Twenty Ninth Day. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1978. Ehrlich, Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich. The Population Explosion. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990. Green, Wade. ÒTriage: Who Shall Be Fed? Who Shall Starve?Ó New York Times Magazine, June 15, 1975 Hardin, Garrett, ed. Population, Evolution and Birth Control. Second ed., San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1964. Hardin, Garrett. Living Within Limits; Ecology, Economics and Population Taboos. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Hardin, Garrett and John Baden. Managing the Commons. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1977. Knippers Black, Jan. Development in Theory and Practice. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. LappŽ, France Moore and Joseph Collins. World Hunger: Twelve Myths. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1986. Mazur, Laurie Ann, ed. Beyond the Numbers. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1994. Myers, Norman. Ultimate Security. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1993. Ophuls, William. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revisited. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1992. Paddock, William and Paul Paddock. Famine- 1975! Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967. Riggs, Robert E. and Jack C. Plano. The United Nations: International Organizations and World Politics. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1994. Sadik, Dr. Nafis. The State of the World Population 1990. United Nations Population Fund, 1990. Soroos, Marvin S. ÒThe Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological Policy.Ó International Studies Quarterly XXI (December 647-674 1977): Stevens, William K. ÒFeeding a Booming Population Without Destroying the Planet.Ó The New York Times, 1994, Tessitore, John and Susan Woolfson, ed. A Global Agenda: Issues Before the 48th General Assembly of the United Nations. Lanham: University Press of America Inc., 1993. 1Lester Brown, The Twenty Ninth Day (W.W. Norton &Company Inc., New York, 1978) 2 Garrett Hardin, Managing The Commons, (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1977) pg.67 3 Donella H. Meadows, ÒSeeing the Population Issue WholeÓ, Beyond The Numbers (Island Press, Washington, 1994) pg. 23 4 Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Touchstone, New York, 1991) pg. 159 5 Douglas Dawd, Of, By and For Which People? (M.E. Sharpe, New York, 1993) pg.392 6 Wyeth-Ayerst Labratories 1994, Vogue Magazine, advertisement, April 1994 pg 272 7 Garrett Hardin and John Baden, Managing the Commons (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1977) pg.66 8 Frances Moore LappŽ and Joseph Collins, World Hunger: Twelve Myths (Grove Weidenfeld, New York, 1986) pg.9 9 Douglas Dawd, Of, By and For Which People? (M.E. Sharpe, New York, 1993) pg.392 10 Jan Knippers Black, Development in Theory and Practice (Westview Press, Boulder, 1991) pg. 64 11 Ibid pg. 185 12 Paul R. Ehrlich, ÒPaying the PiperÓ, comp. Garrett Hardin (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1964) pg. 236 13 George Bush, "Proclamation 6501- World Population Awareness Week, 1992: October 31, 1992", Weekly Complilation of Presidential Documents, Nov. 9, 1992 v.28 n.45 14 I have worked in three restaurants, two of which refused to use Simple Green because of its ineffectiveness. The third, Ben & JerryÕs used it but we had to work twice as hard to get the floor clean. 15 Peter Holway, "Can We Afford to be Affluent?", New Scientist, (Oct 10, 1992 v136 n1842 pg.47 16 Lester Brown, The Twenty Ninth Day (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1978) 17 Marvin S. Soroos, "The Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological Policy", International Studies Quartely, XXI, December 1977, pg 655 18 Garrett Hardin and John Baden, Managing the Commons, (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977) pg. 415 19 Ibid pg. 339 20 Alvah W. Sulloway, ÒBirth Control and Catholic DoctrineÓ, comp. Garrett Hardin (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1967) pg. 236 21 Garrett Hardin, Managing the Commons (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977) pg.25 22 Marvin Sorros, ÒThe Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological PolicyÓ, International Studies Quarterly, XXI, December 1977, pg. 661 23 Ibid pg 656 24 Jan Knippers Black, Development In Theory and Practice:Briding The Gap (Westview Press, Boulder, 1991) pg 185 25 Michael D. Bayles, Morality and Population Policy (University of Alabama Press, University, 1980) pg. 68 26 Marvin Sorros, ÒThe Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological PolicyÓ, International Studies Quartely, XXI, December 1977, pg 656 27 Ibid pg 664 28 Ibid pg.662 29 Ibid pg. 657 30 Michael D. Bayles, Morality and Population Policy (University of Alabama Press, University, 1980) pg. 67 31Ibid pg. 70 32 Garrett Hardin, Managing the Commons (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977) pg. 263 33 Ibid pg. 263 34 Michael Bayes, Morality and Popualtion Poliicy (University of Alabama Press, Univeristy, 1980) pg. 67 35 Ibid pg. 77 36 Gary S. Becker, ÒLetÕs Defuse the Population Bomb- With Free MarketsÓ Business Week, May 23, 1994 pg. 16 37 Marvin Sorros, ÒThe Commons and Lifeboat as Guides for International Ecological PolicyÓ, International Studies Quartely, XXI, December 1977, pg.658 38 Ibid pg. 658 39 ÒThe Least Likely Agricultural Miracle: Russian FarmingÓ, The Economist, April 11, 1992 40 ÒRussian Harvest DropsÓ, The New York Times, November 4, 1993 41 William and Paul Paddock, Famine- 1975! (Little, Brown & Company, T oronto, 1967) pg.206 42 Dr. Nafis Sadik, The State of the World Population. The United Nations Population Fund, 1990. 43 Riggs, Robert E. and Jack C. Plano, The United Nations: International Organization and World Politics (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, 1994) pg. 339 44 Ibid pg.339 45 Ibid pg. 340 46 Michael Bayles, Morality and Population Policy (The University of Alabama Press, University, 1980) pg. 37 47 Garrett Hardin, Managing The Commons, (W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 1977) 36 World Population: A Challenge to the United Nations and Its Systems of Agencies. United Nations Association of the United States of America, 1969 37 Robert E. Riggs and Jack Plano, The United Nations: International Organization and World Politics (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, 1994) pg. 356 49 Robert E. Riggs and Jack C. Plano, The United Nations: International Organization and World Politics (Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, 1994) pg. 341 50 Ibid pg. 314