Hardin's Rhetorical Analysis: Should The United States Help Poor Countries?

Hardin strongly appeals to logos to show his readers that rich countries like the United States shouldn’t help poor countries because it would continue the growth rate of poor countries and will leave future generations with a poor quality of life. One way he does this is by using statistics. While discussing at the beginning the metaphor of lifeboats and explaining the gap between the population of rich countries compared to poor countries Hardin says, “On average poor countries undergo a population a 2.5 increase in population each year; rich countries about 0.8 percent” (par. 28). This is effective because it is makes the reader realize that poor countries are taking over population wise; therefore, are in need of more resources than we are. That means that if we want to help poor countries we have to share with them, but

When he is discussing that overpopulating a rich country would just bring ruin to their environment he includes an observation of what occurred in India after having a population of “600 million” (par.33) and says, “The country’s forests are now only a small fraction of what they were three centuries ago and floods and erosion continually destroy the farmland that remains” (par. 33). This is convincing to the audience because it shows something that is truly happening and shows that people are just caring for the food and place to live, but when it comes to thinking how nature will get affected by overpopulation they don’t consider it. It makes the reader, like me think if it happened in India, who says it can’t happen in the United States. It proves that the more rich countries help the poor, the more they will depend on it, instead of taking care of their own land and using the resources it provides. Hardin throughout his article just uses facts and this is seen when he writes, “Though all taxpayers were forced to the cost of P.L.480, certain special groups gained handsomely” (par.