# Thought Piece:  "Spaceship" vs. "Lifeboat"



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2013)

For those of you who haven't seen this before, from time to time here on the site we have a structured debate on a certain topic.  When the topic is announced, site members volunteer to take a specific position for or against a certain topic, and then vigorously support their point of view in the ensuing debate.

The major twist?  Oh yeah, you don't know what the debate topic is until you're assigned a point of view.

So, we're going to do it again.  I'm not going to announce the specific topic just yet, but there is a major clue in the thread title.

The rules for this thread are these:
1) if you want to participate, respond to this thread and let me know if you want the "pro" side or the "against" side
2) after a couple of days, I'll compile a list of people who want to participate and let them know what side their on (sometimes I have to assign people to a point of view other than the one they requested in order to even the teams, or for other reasons I assign them to something different than what they ask for) 
3) then I reveal the debate topic, and the debate starts
4) during the debate, only members of the site staff and people who volunteered to participate in the debate can post in this thread, I'll delete all other posts
5) after the debate is over, the thread is open for comment by anyone
6) during the debate, no matter how you feel about a certain topic, you are to make the best argument you can for the point of view to which you have been assigned; caveats like "I don't really believe this but..." undermine your position so don't do it
7) if there's not enough interest in this topic, no big deal; we'll close it and move on to something else.

These things are a lot of fun, and are usually quite educational.  Personally, I love seeing someone who I know has a strong point of view on a certain subject, come on here and make a great case for the complete opposite point of view.  These threads are great critical analysis exercises and help people practice research, writing, critical thinking, presentation, and considering multiple points of view on topics of major interest to our community.

So if you want to participate, let me know and we'll get started.


----------



## mac21 (Dec 11, 2013)

I'm up for it. I'll volunteer for the "pro" side.


----------



## reed11b (Dec 11, 2013)

My debate skills are mostly limited to punching people, but I'll jump in for "against"
Reed


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 11, 2013)

I don't want to put myself in the same position as the last time I participated, in that work reared its ugly head before I was able to complete my second argument.  I'm going to make sure that I will have the time at my disposal before I commit.  

Excellent choice in subject matter, though.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> I don't want to put myself in the same position as the last time I participated, in that work reared its ugly head before I was able to complete my second argument.  I'm going to make sure that I will have the time at my disposal before I commit.
> 
> Excellent choice in subject matter, though.



"Blah blah blah, I'm in for the 'pro' side."

Got it.


----------



## pardus (Dec 11, 2013)

I take a crack at it. I'll take pro.


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm off overseas on a junket early Jan, do you think it would all be over by then?


----------



## dirtmover (Dec 12, 2013)

I'm in ......don't care what side...you are just going to change it anyways.......lol


----------



## x SF med (Dec 12, 2013)

I'll play...  whichever side needs intellectual reinforcement... just don't put me on a team with either Reed or Pardus


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 12, 2013)

I'll play, whichever side needs another person.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 12, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> "Blah blah blah, I'm in for the 'pro' side."
> 
> Got it.



Guess I have my answer, then!


----------



## medicchick (Dec 12, 2013)

x SF med said:


> I'll play...  whichever side needs intellectual reinforcement... just don't put me on a team with either Reed or Pardus


That's a contraindication if I ever saw one.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 12, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm off overseas on a junket early Jan, do you think it would all be over by then?



What do you think this is, a case study??   Yeah it'll be over in just a couple of days.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 12, 2013)

Last call for participants.  We'll get going with this tomorrow.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 13, 2013)

OK, this thread is closed for comments until further notice, unless you're a member of the staff or one of the people listed below.

*The Argument*:


> "The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world."



*The Instructions*:
Using Peter Singer's "Famine, Affluence and Morality" and Garrett Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" as primary sources (see links below). construct an argument either for or against the argument presented above.

*The Sides*:
For: ("Spaceship Earth")
@mac21
@racing_kitty
@pardus
@JAB

Against: ("Lifeboat Ethics")
@reed11b
@x SF med
@dirtmover
@medicchick

*Background information*:
*Peter Singer* is an Australian philosopher and moralist, who is famous for, among other things, the "*drowning child*" allusion in his work "*Famine, Affluence and Morality*."  Singer's position might be represented by the concept of "Spaceship Earth;" that we are all in this together, that resources are ample enough for all of us, and that we have a duty to share what we have with the people who need it most (which, usually, isn't us).

In contrast, American ecologist *Garrett Hardin* makes a "*Case Against Helping the Poor*."  He uses the allusion of "*lifeboat ethics*" to describe what we should, and should not do for the world's poor.

*Suggestions*:
Using the Singer and Harden pieces, and any other research or original thoughts of your own, craft an argument to support your assigned point of view on this topic.  It is not a requirement to cite sources, but I find it usually makes a better argument when you do.  No one expects you to read all of both articles in their entirety (they're much shorter in the textbook versions, but I can only find links to the full versions online).  Skim the readings, and then make your arguments.  This isn't intended to be a time-consuming, research-based exercise, the readings are merely to help jumpstart the debate.



Game on!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 13, 2013)

I know nothing of the topic, so I'll be reading for the next few hours. How long do we have to make our initial statement/argument?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 13, 2013)

Take as long as you want, bro.  Remember that I'm not envisioning this as some big research project for anyone, the two readings are just to provide some context for what you kind of already know/feel.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 13, 2013)

I'll have to re-read Spaceship Earth, as I haven't read it in a very long time.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 14, 2013)

Oh great, so I get to be the first one who has his “opinion” picked apart…:blkeye::-"

"The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world." Because the United States has some of the richest agricultural lands, the most advanced farming and ranching techniques and possess the unique ability to produce and transport foods globally, beyond any other nation in the world. We are one of the leading countries in basic health research, development and implementation. We also hold the world’s currency reserve and are undoubtedly the wealthiest nation in the world today.

As the wealthiest nation and unarguably the world’s strongest super power, we spend trillions on influencing the world through foreign policy’s, wars and foreign aid in geographical areas where we want to maintain influences over the population and or region. We will provide
financial, medical, food and military aid (I will use simply “aid” to describe this from now on) to nations who will assist us in maintaining influence, who assist us in development of resources we need, and who will fight proxy wars, that assist us in maintaining our power/influence throughout the world.

As a nation, we have proven our ability to provide disaster relief at an unprecedented level to nations we deem friendly and our allies. In the past decade, we have systematically fought two wars, while providing aid throughout the world at a level unseen in history.


> Hardin compares the lifeboat metaphor to the Spaceship Earth model of resource distribution, which he criticizes by asserting that a spaceship would be directed by a single leader — a captain — which the Earth lacks.


 
When assuming disagreement with Hardin’s assertion of earth lacking a “captain” and asserting that the United States is that Captain, it becomes a moral obligation to assume the role of “captain” of this “Spaceship Earth”. As the assumed captain, it requires us morally to develop its crew of other nations, to become more efficient in growing their own food, developing their own economies and bringing them to a level of acceptable health. Not only in development of resources and population sustainability, but also in leadership of their specific section of the ship (or nation).

Inevitably this will require us to take a different approach from molding the world as we want it, in order to gain/maintain our power and influence. It will require us to stop using the carrot or the stick approach, and view that we are part of this ship we are calling earth. Not just part of it, but the leader of it, the captain of the ship, the nation who must demonstrate leadership, and not dictatorship. We must also understand, that over time, just like with any other good crew and crew leaders, new leaders will develop and take over the role of captain. At which point we must assume the role of a good crew, and support the ship and its captain in maintaining good order and prosperity of the ship.

Of course this will take time; it will take understanding and cooperation. Not just from our part as the leader, but also from the many other nations of the world. However, the end result will be one non-cooperative nation watching several cooperative nations develop and progress, while the non-cooperative nations remain in a prosperity negated environment. Sooner or later populations will catch on to what is going on, and will demand their governments change, and when governments fail to change, the Spaceship’s crew of nations can react as needed.

We did not become the world super power over night, we did not develop the medical, economical and agricultural methods we have over night. First we must stabilize the other nations by providing the resources they need to keep their populations alive and healthy, and than we must develop/train/educate them so that they can stabilize themselves and become a productive member of the crew.

In the theory of sharing resources, although we have plenty of physical resources to share, our two best resources we can ever share, is our leadership and knowledge.


----------



## pardus (Dec 15, 2013)

"The United States has a moral obligation to do more than it is currently doing to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world."

I will present this with a different angle. One of security and the survival of the free world.
The USA as the so called Leader of the Free World has a firm moral obligation to ensure the continued existence of freedom in the western world and the future expansion of that freedom to the rest of the world.
One very easy way to make inroads of this notion is for the USA to lead the way in humanitarian efforts throughout the world. The winning of Hearts and Minds.  
This is not a handout of resources, more an investment for future gain.

If for example, the USA leads the way in humanitarian efforts with resources such as food, personal and logistics, to a country undergoing a humanitarian crisis.
The people of that country see US personal flying and driving US govt vehicles, handing out food from the USA. Good will is generated and those people through favorable contact will view the USA in a favorable light. This in turn could reap significant rewards in terms of regional stability, exploitation of natural resources, trade etc...

I will India as an example here. Cyclone 05B, a super-cyclone that struck the Indian state of Orissa on 29 October 1999, was the worst in more than a quarter-century. With peak winds of 160 miles per hour (257 km/h), it was the equivalent of a category 5 hurricane. Almost two million people were left homeless, another 20 million people lives were disrupted by the cyclone. Officially, 9,803 people died from the storm.
To quote a BBC article "Many died from starvation and water-borne diseases in the weeks immediately after the cyclone, as the rescue workers could not reach them quickly enough."
The USA with it's vast civil and Military resources could have and should have deployed shipping, aircraft, vehicles, personal, food, water purification equipment, medical aid and what ever else they could to avert or at least limited the loss of life after this storm. The goodwill this would've generated from the the people and govt of India could have been significant indeed for the United States.

USAID spent just 77.4 million dollars in India in 2011. Now to put this is perspective of the investment I spoke of earlier, India has placed an order with Russia for new fighter aircraft for over US 30 Billion dollars.
That is 30 Billion dollars that could be going to industry in the United States.
India with it's strategically vital location should be a country we are heavily investing in.

By taking the moral high ground the USA is not only doing the right thing morally, but is making meaningful investments in the continued safety and security of  not only the United States and the western world, but is in a softer manner than military intervention, promulgating freedom and security to the rest of the world.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 15, 2013)

Good job JAB and Pardus!  Looks like the "against" team is running scared  :-"


----------



## reed11b (Dec 15, 2013)

Nah, just have lives. I have my retort done in my head, I'll have it typed out by tomorrow.
Reed


----------



## x SF med (Dec 16, 2013)

Mine's in progress...  work has gotten in the way.


----------



## reed11b (Dec 18, 2013)

All right, let’s do this, let’s punch some virtual faces.


First of all @pardus , and @JAB , disaster response is a BS example for the question. The concept of spaceship earth is really about creating standing systems on a Global level. For example, a global transportation net, a global energy grid and a global food distribution chain. Do I think there is enough resources globally to do this? Yes. Do I think the US has a role as a world role model? Yes. Do I think that creating a global community is possible? Sadly, since I would love to see the world create interstellar starships so that I can fight hostile aliens while wearing power armor before I retire (and bang hot alien green chicks), I do NOT think it is possible. Why, the resources are there, so why not? Because of human F*cking nature.  The mish-mash of corruption, greed, and alien ideologies would turn any such effort into a global tower of Babel very quickly. The examples of this are legion, do your own googling.


Where most “lifeboat” proponents get it wrong, is that they advocate for international relationships based on short term gain and influence. This has bit us in the butt multiple times. I propose that there are two types of nations for us to cooperate or aid. One is countries that has goals, ideals, and culture SIMILAR to ours. Helping Nations that have opposite goals and culture to ours for short term influence (PAKISTAN, I’m looking at you!) or natural resources (Saudi, you are on the list) does not provide us with long term return for our $$, no mater how we justify it. The other type of nation are the “failed” nations. An example of why this is important, I work for the VA in a Homeless prevention/rapid rehousing program. When I first started I was excited, helping my fellow combat Vet’s through rough times (See nation example type 1) that had earned support through their support of the country. I quickly discovered that this was not the majority of my clients. Most of my clients were chaptered out, drug users, dealers, sex offenders, wife beaters and scam artists. Scum. So how am I able to go to work and advocate for these clients? It is not for the clients per se, but that this population eats up over 90% of the regions emergency and social services available. By housing them, I free up EMT’s and firefighters and police and emergency food grants for the type Veterans that I DO care about. Failed nations are very much the same way on the global scale. We help, to free up other nations resources to take care of there own populations, and to prevent safe haven to the worst forms of human predators.


“But Reed, are you not saying then that the US needs to help the impoverished, the starving, and the ill peoples of the world?” No, there are plenty of starving impoverished people in China, India, Pakistan, etc, that I am not advocating for. These countries have the resources to contain the global impact that their poor and starving create.


That’s it for now. Let’s go get beer. 

Reed


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 18, 2013)

As I was reading this post by @reed11b I was imagining him doing this.....







Love ya buddy! :)


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 18, 2013)

Some good thoughts so far.  Tomorrow we'll open it up for general comments.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 20, 2013)

7 days and no response from the rest, and with Reed's post, I declare Pardus and myself awesome, and the rest of you....well, back to your one-liners around the forum. 

Do I get to tear my original position apart now?


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 20, 2013)

Yes, participants (such that there were) and anyone else who wants feel free to post whatever you like about this topic.


----------



## reed11b (Dec 20, 2013)

I'm still waiting for my beer.....
Reed


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 20, 2013)

Okay two old sayings that I have personally found to be true no matter what geographical toilet bowl I found myself visiting.

“You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force the horse to drink”

“Give a man a fish and you will feed him for a day, teach that man how to fish and you will feed him for life”

The Spaceship Earth concept although noble in theory, is flawed in the aspects that in order for the ship to function, everyone needs to willing be pushed into a hierarchy system of global government. Someone would have to make the call for which of the haves, will be giving to the have-not’s. Each independent nation would have to willingly give up their sovereign control to a “global gov” and do so with the trust and good faith that not only that the global gov will make the right decisions, but also that the lobbying nations will not become greedy and or ask for more than their fair share, etc.

Looking at the United States federal gov as an example of “centralized control” over the 50 different states. We can see that historically, a one government option is not always optimal for redistribution of resources, aid and or finances. We can see this with states like California, that have indebted themselves so much, that they require federal financial assistance. Or we can look at how during Katrina, Louisiana was completely devastated, where other states such as Mississippi and Alabama, were not effected as much, but received assistance sooner than Louisiana (mainly b/c their state governments requested federal aid sooner/hints the lobbying comments). Also we can look at the constant deviation of laws and or policies that heavily affect some states (economically), while other states benefit and or prosper from the same laws/policy. But the overall point is that the United States still has not gotten it right yet.

The life-boat concept although more logical in theory, leaves a morality question of when and who gets to make such decisions. When discussing the theory of picking and choosing what nations (peoples) have more to offer and or might offer more promising return for the investment, we fail to address the humanity of these decisions. For a business model, it makes perfect sense to not invest in everything, but to only invest in areas where you will gain the most return for your investment. However, we are not talking about business profits; we are talking about human life and the quality of those lives. Can we rightfully pick and choose who gets to eat, who gets proper medical care, etc? Well if it as a nation offering assistance or aid, yes we can. However, on a global scale, where someone is heading the ship, or say a group of large nations are setting a counsel to make these decisions, you now have to be able to quantify fairness and reasoning, otherwise the groups not being properly supported (perceived or actual), will than go against the system in place. This is what we are commonly seeing around the world today.

From a personal standpoint, I do not like either concept, nor do I like the theory of “required to act”. Do I think we as the worlds super power, have a moral obligation to help other nations in need, to provide aid and our knowledge/leadership to the nations who need and want it? Absolutely, without a doubt, it is a moral obligation. However, as a united nation of states, I believe we must take care of our own, before offering assistance of any kind to other nations. We must stabilize our own life-boat/spaceship, before we start showing/helping others get their boat/ship in order. Once we have stabilized our own, we than must make our ability and understanding to do so, readily available to those who need/want the same from us. However, we should never do so at the risk of becoming less stable in our own boat/ship.

Lastly, we have to understand the human factor in all of this, going back to the old sayings that remain true to this very modern day. We can only help those who are willing to be helped, and when we help them, we cannot turn that help into a dependency, but an empowerment. We can show them the way, we can give them the tools and knowledge, but at the end of the day, they must be willing to put it all to work.

Any-who, good discussion, I’ve enjoyed it @pardus and @reed11b…


----------



## dirtmover (Dec 23, 2013)

Sorry I wasn't able to post earlier due to a black out and being on mission...get ready to eat your hearts out. 

To help out countries in times of need is cool and earns us brownie points.  We did it for Paris when they had that massive blackout during one of the hottest summers for them.  We helped out with the landslide/ flood that happened in Pakistan, there are so many numerous times that we have helped out when disaters have happened.  Other than Canada very few countries have sent us help during an "act of God".  We currently have our own problems with the economy, health care reform and many other issues.  We could use a portion of the the 42BILLION dollars in international aid to actually fund healthcare reform and not take more money out of the pockets of our citizen.

When do we call it quits on supporting other nations....is it when we are have no money for our own citizens and the US fall.  Last time I checked we are not the only country that has money when will the rest of the international commnuity step up and provide equal support.  I will tell you this as long as the US is willing to provide the bulk of aid they won't.

Real support has to include teaching and mentoring these countries on how to support themselves.  As long as we keep giving them food and aid they will keep reporducing which then requires more aid to support the new people which there government can't support with out our help.  

We owe it to our citizens to take care of them not neglect them in favor of other countries


----------



## mac21 (Jan 8, 2014)

Sorry for such a late response. But better late than never.

My argument is the United States should do more.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are three things that every American is entitled to. Extend these rights to every citizen of Earth like they were Americans and see what can happen.

In this case, I'm going to put less responsibility on the government and put it more on the people that expect so much from that same government. The Gun Control Thread is a great example of what I mean. Too many people expect the government to do what the constituent wants, without the individual letting anyone know. But the community here writes letters and gets their word out.

The United States can do more by getting more individuals to do more. Volunteer to pack supplies to send to refugees. Send letters to Congressmen. Fund raise for respective charities and follow up to ensure the money is going in the right direction.

Sometimes people have to actually do something in order to see what they want get done.

I tried to keep it short and sweet, but hopefully not too short.


----------



## x SF med (Jan 8, 2014)

Until the US gets its own house in order, it should be focused on maintaining the external status quo, and spending the time and money on fixing its own economic, social and poverty woes.   We are exporting cash, jobs, and technology to other countries, but getting terrorists and illegal immigrants in return for the most part.  We have bolstered the economies and governments of other countries since the end of WWI, first in support of communist/socialist governments, and now for terrorist states...  We are currently financing our own destruction and calling it humanitarian aid...  How much of the money and how many of the resources we send to disaster stricken areas, 3rd world countries, and war torn areas do you think actually ends up in the hands of the needy?  Corrupt governments and gangs pilfer the greatest majority of the aid and cash...  and use it to finance genocides, jihads, and terrorism...  and want more... and get it. 

We need to police, and protect, and fix ourselves before we bankrupt this country helping others.   The political capital is too highly priced to endanger our sovereignty and freedoms to hand cash and resources and jobs and healthcare to the ungrateful, jealous and anti American states that keep requesting our help to survive their own internal coups...  el Salvador? Cameroon? Liberia? Nigeria? Chad? Pakistan? Kashmir?  Sri Lanka?  Brunei? Kampuchea? Laos? Lagos? any of those ring bells?  What about Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan?  Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia? 

How many friends do we have in those areas...  who got the money, who got the food, who got the aid?

The PURSUIT of happiness for others should not be financed nor given to them by the citizens of the US, it should be fought for by the individuals of those soverign nations, with assistance from the US if requested, and paid back in some fashion...  Not the currently free lunch we are handing out with no political, economic, or military return.

Yes, you could say I am a hard hearted jingoistic isolationist bastard with no compassion...  not 100% true but close...   I hate the lack of ambition caused by entitlements here at home, and it galls me further to know that we are using that same methodology to try to bolster public opinion overseas...  our government is buying opinion and votes here at home... and buying opinion (or attempting to, and failing) overseas...

why aren't the other 1st World countries giving as much a percentage of their GDP's  as America?   Why is the private donation percentage from the US higher than the Public donation of many other 1st World Nations?...  It's time for the countries we have helped (since WWI) to pay that back to others what we gave them...


----------



## x SF med (Jan 9, 2014)

I apologize for the lateness of my response, life got in the way.


----------

