It is alleged in the essay written by Garrett Hardin that helping the poor would pose menace to the rich, given that the earth can be compared to be a lifeboat which possesses limited resources. At first glance, the viewpoint seems to be plausible and logical. However, close scrutiny reveals that it suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

Aiding the poor, it is contended, is far from advisable on the grounds that it will lead to a tragedy of mutual ruin and the dramatically growing population will hamper the reservation of food and development in the poor region. The author underestimates the ability and adaptability of the poor. The poor are not the ones who do not work and just wait for the aiding of the rich. Instead, they try their best to produce more to satisfy their needs. What is more, as it is known to all, the demand of the poor is considerably less than the rich and therefore easy to satisfy.

The author unfairly assumes that the poor region and the rich one are two totally isolated worlds and there are few problems in the rich region. Consequently, their not lifting a hand to the poor will definitely ensure the quality of life for the people and their subsequent generations. However, the author fails to take into account other aspects that equally contribute to the quality of people’s life. Firstly, breaking out of infectious disease and irremediable disease would decrease the life quality. Secondly, it is entirely possible that contradiction in the region of the rich would exert a negative effect on the quality of life. Thirdly, the productivity may hardly meet the criteria of being of high quality, in that such criterion is higher in the rich region than in poor region and increasing day after day. In addiction, the author overlooks the problems resulting from failing to aid the poor, which would probably incur the enmity of the poor due to the enormous wealth and significant nonchalance of the rich. Out of the instinct of pursuing survival, the poor may go to extremes and do something negative to the society.

In the last second paragraph of the essay, the author doubts that the rich are not likely to be understood by the poor. However, no survey or data indicate that the future generations of the poor region seldom appreciate their aiding. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the offspring of the poor give thanks to the rich and share an intimate friendship and cooperate in an effective way to solve the problems in and between different regions.

Another flaw is the assumption that the poor will persistently be the poor, while the rich will unchangeably be the rich, who perhaps turn impoverish one day and swim in the ocean outside. The poor who ever were the rich would be in need of help of the people who used to be poor and afterward become rich and stay in the lifeboat. 

In sum, it is groundless to conclude that it is not wise to aid the poor. It is not to deny that there are still plenty of problems in respect of aiding the poor. Nevertheless, it does not inevitably come to the conclusion of not helping the poor, considering that more problems will emerge. The resources provided to help the poor, which are the extra ones of the rich, account for only a small proportion of the rich rather than a great amount of that, therefore it will not pose threat to the development of the rich. Helping the poor is likely to ease the contradiction between the poor and the rich..