It's really a very great honor to dialogue tonight with a man is distinguished as Professor Harden and I want to thank him personally for his numerous contributions to our understanding and also say how much I agree with many many of the things that he has written and said, he's surely correct in insisting that we must ask the law the hard stuff long-term environmental question. If we do this what then he's right in demanding that we face the fact that there is a dangerous population explosion on a little planet then it must be quickly. He's right and underlining the fact that on a finite planet. We cannot continue indefinitely.At the current rate of use of non-renewable natural resources. He's certainly right in insisting that responsibility goes with privilege and thank you to Professor Harden for insisting that the Blind Faith and unending technological progress and the desperate hope that will always find the technological fix is really foolish and very dangerous. We agree that many points relax. However, there will be debate. I don't agree with everything that he says, in fact, I need to say respectfully, but clearly at the beginning that I think my Anis honored colleague is very wrong at some crucial points. Professor Harden's writings give you the impression that world hunger today is largely due to overpopulation. That's an extremely simplistic approach to a problem, which has many complex causes overpopulation is one important cost. But there are other very important causes including natural disaster the history of colonialism unjust practices of social Elites and multinational corporations and religio philosophical systems that do not promote a proper attitude toward creation work and economic creativity. Professor Harden's writings have tended to focus the question on whether Rich Nations ought to give large quantities of food to poor Nations as the leading thinkers and virtually all of the Christian and non-Christian development agencies. I know and other organizations like bread for the world have been saying for decades. That is the wrong question. The real question is, how can we help empower the poor turn their own way and stand on their own feet. How can new agricultural techniques there are patterns of international trade and modest amounts of outside Capital help the poor become self-reliant Professor Harden tells us that if a nation's population is beyond its realistic carrying capacity, then we should let them starve. If we don't they will live to overpopulate then more will die eventually. I want to argue that such a position is not only politically naive and ethically immoral it also ignores the current datum. And it's not nearly so easily set aside as he just did tonight but ignores the current data on the best way to slow down the population explosion Professor Harding offers us the image of a rich America has a tiny Lifeboat in danger of capsizing if we do much at all to help years for such an image is fundamentally misleading. We are we are more like one room full of incredibly affluent person traveling in an interdependent spaceship with other rooms full of angry desperately hungry malnourished book. Funny Professor hard and tells us at the historic judeo Christian belief in the sanctity of human life is a shibboleth that we must hastily discard. I disagree totally to stand at the end of a century filled with Hitler's Stalin's Paul Potts an idiom means and Humanity to abandon the notion that every human being is exceedingly precious is an astonishing mistake of the highest order Professor Harden is free if he chooses to promote a Neil Diamond darwinian ethic based on the survival of the fittest, which equates the good with what exists I'll take my stand on the historic judeo Christian belief that since every human being is created in the image of God. Every person is almost infinitely precious to God and therefore be treated that way by you and me, but at bottom Detroit's tonight is between the judeo-christian ethic which has been at the heart of Western Society for almost two Millennia and on the other hand and naturalistic ethic that denies the sanctity of human life and every part of the scriptures. The Bible constantly and consistently asserts that the central is Central to the very nature of God to have a special concern for the poor and the oppressed. He was kind to the poor lends to the Lord does Proverbs the Lord executes Justice for the needy said the psalmist Jesus preaching to the poor is Central to his Messianic Mission and evidence. The text says that he is the Messiah God warns the rich to weep and howl because of impending Divine punishment for their neglect and mistreatment of the poor in some very basic sense. God is on the side of the poor in a way. He is not on the side of the rich. God sides with the poor precisely in the sense that he demands economic justice for all. Why are people poor? Some people offer the simplistic answer that all poverty results from economic oppression by the rich that's nonsense. The Bible is realistic some poverty results from laziness something from simple choices some poverty results from religious systems that don't encourage initiative work and creativity. Obviously the answer that kind of poverty among other things is really just transformation many and fluent powerful folk on the other hand rationalize their own affluence in the face of widespread poverty by blaming the poor for their own situation laziness simple choices overpopulation or failure to take advantage of available technology. Allegedly explains most poverty. Now that's not the biblical perspective. although the scriptures occasionally blame the poor for their own poverty and that's right because that's descriptively accurate in some cases more often the scriptures a tribute poverty to oppression by the rich and the powerful the Lord enters into judgment with the elders and princes of his people it is you who have devoured The Vineyard the spoil of the poor is in your houses. Jeremiah but this way like a basket full of birds their houses are full of treachery. Therefore they have become grapes and Rich. They have grown fat and Sleep. God attitude towards such Rich folk is very clear. Got a horse there oppression and he pulls down their houses and their societies. Even hates their worship the scriptures also raises the most serious doubt about whether such people even though or love got it on. Precisely because God cares for all he punishes individuals and societies that oppress the poor. Any approach to the whole area of poverty in economics that fails to begin with God's overwhelming concern for justice for the poor is unfaithful to the judeo-christian ethic. One important element of economic Justice is the absence of extremes of wealth and poverty. I think the doctrine of sin underlines this point. Your wealth is power and power is not wrong, but it's dangerous. Because of sin power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely sinful selfish. People cannot be trusted to use great economic power for the common good rather than for themselves. And therefore if economic Justice is a goal. We will structure Society. How to prevent and overcome extremes of wealth and poverty although the Bible does a from the validity of private property totally rejects any notion of absolute private ownership God is the only absolute honour as Lord of all God possesses unconditional property rights to everything whatever is under the whole Heaven is mine says Joe says God enjoy because God Alone is absolute honor God can insist that the right of everyone to have land to earn a living is a hireright and some notion of unlimited absolute private ownership. If the Bible challenge is any person or assistant devoted to Absolute sizing property rights or maximizing profit. It also rejects any notion of State ownership of the basic means of production Leviticus 25 does not suggest either of vast permit at welfare system, which one's the great danger of promoting dependency or state ownership decentralized limited private ownership rather than State ownership as in Socialism or communism is important for both a positive and a negative positive the biblical doctrine of creation summons each person to be a co-worker with God exercising dominion over the Earth shaping history and genuinely influencing the decisions and shaping the decisions that affect one's life if economic power is centralized and stayed ownership persons and families become cogs and complex economic machines unable to effect the crucial decisions. The cheapest airline negatively is I've already noted power corrupts and absolute power corrupts. Absolutely and therefore the centralization of economic power and political power in the same hands is very dangerous in a selfish World. It almost guarantees to tell turn ism is the highly repressive Society of Eastern Europe demonstrate. It's astonishing however to me that some people today understand the danger of centralized economic power in the case of totalitarian, society and then failed to apply the same principle to Western Society where huge multinational corporations exercise immense economic and therefore political influence and where land in some cases In this part of the country tends to be more and more centralized and ownership. So vast is the economic power of the 500 largest corporations in our society that genuine democracy is significantly undermined. the judeo-christian ethic summons us to love not just ourselves not just our nation, but rather all people since every person is created in the image of God the narrow nationalism wants to reserve the abundance of America only for its own citizens finds no defense whatsoever in biblical thought The developed Nations need a new attitude toward economic growth and use of natural resources and second. We need to develop a mix of policies and the area trade economic assistance and food Aid that will truly help to empower the poor to stand on their own feet. Let me know when passing. But I'm not going to focus narrowly on us agricultural policy. And I think there's a important reason for that the specific role of us agriculture in solving the problem of world hunger is important but limited as US citizens located in American Agricultural sectors think about world hunger. They must have a broad perspective that deals with Farm or the narrowly-defined agricultural policies. My first point was that we need a new attitude toward economic growth and resource use Professor. Harden is surely correct, when he insist that if current trends continue, we will quickly exceed the Earth's finite carrying capacity. But it's not just third world or population that endangers our Global ecological system. It has been estimated that the ecologically impact impact of the average American is approximately 25 times as great as that of the typical residents of the third world. Each American consumes five times as much green probably 50 times as much energy is the average Indian in terms of echo logical impact on the environment. 240 million Americans are the equivalent of approximately 5 billion Indians. an Indian leader concludes that we must turn professors heart Professor Harden proposal on its head and I want to quote that Paul varghese noticed the reference to the tragedy of the Commons Dr. Ricky says in the present case the commons is the world and some of the sheep which Grey's that are more voracious than others American sheep are consuming annually some 30 times as much per capita is the African or Asian sheet the real dangers to the commons comes from the former who consume too much elbow the others aside and just destroy the commons if there is to be Equitable population control. The American rate of growth should be about 1 30th of what it is in Asia and Africa. The only way to save the commons is to starve the fat sheet and stop them from multiplying at all. How is an American I wouldn't go that far. But surely we must we think the widespread assumption that happiness comes from a constantly growing abundance of material Goods Christian faces. Such a view is radical ecology says it will be faithful as developed societies. We need to demand less goods and services that require non-renewable natural resources the damage the environment and we must switch instead of goods and services such as the Arts that place less Demand on the other limited carrying capacity. My second point will take longer to develop. With reference to developing nations, I believe that American foreign policy not to be fundamentally different about to have two basic goals the promotion of Freedom political and religious and the empowerment of the poor to earn their own way. How could American policies in the areas of tree economic assistance in food Aid in power the poor? first trade Under colonialism mother countries often discourage Industrial Development in the colonies encouraging extend instead the export of agricultural products to the mother country since the colonial. That adult Nations have continued to manipulate international trade relations to their economic Advantage. The most frequently used strategy, of course has been the erection of tariffs and other trade restrictions that have successfully kept many goods manufactured in poor nations from entering the markets of the developed Nations as a result to become overly dependent on one or just a few primary Commodities and the prices of those primary Commodities have fluctuated greatly and probably deteriorated relative to the manufactured products. They buy from us. The long-standing Western policy of increasing import duties in proportion to the amount of processing and Manufacturing. The product has undergone has hindered industrial growth in the third world. Of course, we see why would we want to import cheap raw materials and profit from manufacturing them here, but it means vastly fewer jobs in third world Nations. And ironic aspect of trade barriers. Is it economic Siri suggested both the poor Nations and the industrialized nations would be better off if they were removed velop nations would benefit because we could buy a sporting goods more cheaply than before someone is estimated that in 1971 that cost the average family 200 to $300 to have those tariffs there. Still it's obviously not easy politically to remove such trade restrictions because the people employed in the business is protected by them would suffer of all the numbers would be relatively small when compared with are totally kind of me still there would be a problem but there's a remedy it's adjustment assistance adjustments adjustment assistance facilitates, the movement of unemployed workers from one area to a new area of employment IT compensates workers for the. When they don't have employment. It helps them find new jobs in the long-term Economist expect that no jobs would be lost as the poor countries returned to the United States to spend their new income the businesses. They patronized would need to hire the displaced workers to meet the new demand. The branch report emphasizes that both the reduction and protective trade barriers and Improvement of the currently feeble programs of adjustment assistance are important. Now we have made some attempts to reduce trade barriers on products from poor nations in 76. For instance. We took one step forward but the program remains limited bread for the world is noted recently that only 25% of developing country Imports into the United States are eligible products for this changed and lowered tariffs structure. today their own lands people are insisting more and more vigorous that we protect ourselves by more Terrace. I think that by saying no to short-term selfishness American voters can promote trading patterns that might help reduce that would help reduce hunger bra and in the long run, it would be a benefit to us to nearly removing restrictions on Imports. However, does not guarantee that the poor masses in the third world will enjoy the benefits if local governing Elite sees the land peasants so that they and multinational corporations can grow crops for export only the rich benefit if local governing Elite suppress labor unions so that the workers who manufactured the goods for export receive low wages. Only the rich benefit. How then can we remove our trade barriers in such a way that the poorest actually benefit? All the generalized system of preferences governs all us trade incentives to other nations. It's important that that long be designed that only to open American markets to third-world good the law must also promote Justice within those countries. By the way. We allow those good then we could write two very important Provisions into that law. We could require that countries that export products under this long have a stable food production plan such a plan would be designed to make sure that production of food for export does not undercut the need to grow food for domestic consumption. We could have a second provision which demanded that countries exporting Goods to us under the GSP have Fair Labor practices and respect human rights, these stipulations would encourage labor unions and other movements which would enable the workers to benefit from the economic growth stimulated by our trade preferences. Trade Fair Trade could help reduce hunger and starvation brought. Second what about foreign aid how many critics want to reduce or eliminate foreign aid? I won't go into all the reasons and certainly we need changes, but why is liter Matt targeted economic foreign aid can make a difference in 67 smallpox killed two million people in the world by 81 smallpox had totally disappeared. Now if one sits back and then academic armchair and reasons about that one may question it was a parent of one of those children. You would be glad how did it happen a massive program to eradicate. This killer had been undertaken partly funded by millions of US foreign aid dollars. If we are to give economic foreign assistance effectively that I think several points are crucial. I want to mention five. First of all, we need to have a focus on the most economic foreign aid should be designed to enable the poorest people in the poorest Nations to meet their own basic needs since most poor people are rural the focus must be an integrated rural development that will usually mean Land Reform Agricultural Extension services including credit improve seeds fertilizer pesticides. It will be in rural Public Works programs such as the irrigation products agricultural research introduction of appropriate technology and the development of Light Industry located in rural areas to complement the Agricultural Development. It's particularly important at basic minimal Healthcare education and a secure food supply be available for the room Asus only then will the population explosion slow down the World Bank has studied this and completed and I quote in all developing countries policies which succeed and improving the conditions of life for the poor and providing education and employment opportunities for women are likely to reduce fertility and Improvement in the welfare of the poor appears to be essential before fertility can feel before fertility can fall in developed countries. Such a conclusion should not surprise the Christian if it's the Bible teaches God's work in history liberating the poor and the oppressed. Then we should expect that an effective development strategy would be one that brings Justice to the poor masses. At the same time this approach to development focused on the poorest provides a decisive answer to life unless of course, you can dismiss the studies. We cannot foreign aid to promote rural development is not a foolish gesture which sustains Millions. Now only to doing them later rather foreign aid, which encourages agricultural development and Healthcare among the rouxpour is probably the only way to check the population explosion in time to avoid Global disaster Justice and Effectiveness coincide. some genuine progress in targeting us Aid on the port occurred in 73 in December 1982 Congress tried to go further. It passed legislation that require that 40% of usaid development assistance go to finance needs Services Goods programs for those classified by the World Bank as absolutely Poor Unfortunate the present Administration opposed that and succeeded in getting it limited to only the budget we need to have that kind of measure and the percentage needs to be hired. We need to focus on the poorest if economic assistance is to be effective second. We need to focus on empowerment. Development assistance should have a primary focus on empowering the powerless much poverty and hunger result from the fact that the poor have no economic or political power to change the oppressive structures, which keep them for tragically a great deal of us. Aid goes to some of the world's very repressive governments. Obviously empowering the poor will threaten some oppressive corruptive eats currently in power in the local Village the state the nation and even the globe but only if development assistance and Powers the force of bacon shape their own destiny. Will it really Foster Justice rather than dependents empowerment of the poor will off of me land reform as I've said and an end to political corruption. Which maintains the oppressive system it also will mean an end to the violation of Human Rights. It'll mean the promotion of unions and other organizations that empower the poor. 1979 the inter religious task force and us food policy did a study of all the nations that received us bilateral assistance all 66 nations were needy but only to add any long-standing governmental commitment to Equitable development human rights and a growing reforms that we could alter the situation we could offer development assistance only two countries that agreed to a basic needs agreement that is countries, which agreed to an overall development strategies to empower the absolutely poor buy a measures such as Land Reform secure human rights and someone we could offer such countries trade preferences and reduce tariffs on the exports to us. We could even consider forgiving a portion of their crippling foreign debts. If they signed such a basic human needs agreement. I focus on empowering the poor is essential. We need a long-range approach short-term economic and political considerations have hindered the effectiveness of our foreign aid, too often. We have given Aid to Nations because they are currently of geopolitical interest to us instead of that. We need to give to a multilateral channels and give with less concern to immediate short-term political considerations ecological sustainability is crucial. We dare not further deteriorate the world's resources of soil water in for Western capital-intensive Energy intensive farming for instance is not a model to promote in underdeveloped nations are a Jew to promote appropriate technology and labor-intensive approaches that are sensitive to preserving sound Global ecosystem. And finally, we need to separate economic assistance for military assistance. If we improve the way we give foreign aid, it can help reduce poverty and hunger and Injustice and finally food 8 I believe that we should in the short run try to make sure that hungry people. Do not start in the long run. Of course. The goal is to help poor Nations develop to the point where their peoples are capable of producing or trading for their own food. The short-term will require food and the long-run will require some me but it needs eight of the type that promotes basic needs development. How many developing a viable food policy it's important to distinguish between physical and economic availability of food food is physically available. If it's physically possible to produce enough food for everyone who does economically available if everyone can buy the food they need or grow it. When one deals with the first the physical availability of food the future, the foreseeable future is reasonably optimistic. All regions, except Africa have had per capita increase food production in the past 20 years and most specialist believe that population. Rose will continue to slow down and that we can in fact feed the people. Of course, they'll be temporary emergencies and we need grain reserves for those. But the difficult the more difficult problem is the problem of economic availability of food people who don't have any land to grow food people have no jobs to earn an income and buy food simply start even when there's lots of food around us today. Many of the schemes for modernizing agriculture use high technology and consequently stroll real people out of work. That's not what we need in the third world a successful long-term food a policy must therefore include things like creating jobs and redistributing use resources, like skills and knowledge and land so that real folk can grow their own food. In the short run in times of emergency as in the present in Africa, we should give food aid but that food Aid should and must be given in a way that encourages the recipients to take the tough political decisions necessary for change great care must be given and taken that food. Aid does not discourage grain production in the poor Nations to avoid creating dependency buy food. Aid donators donors can tie the grain to food for work projects where food is used to pay the workers in food for work projects. For example, you can promote rural Agricultural Development. So you're contributing to a long-term solution. adequate green Reserves at one part of a total picture Both the Emergency Drain reserves and the Market stabilisation Reserves the farmer own reserves that you all know about they're both important. They both contribute in the wrong way to food security. I conclude. That is a great deal that Americans can and should do to reduce Global suffering, but it will require genuine change. We need to return to base judeo-christian values and live out the belief in the sanctity of human life the true that people matter more than profit for property and the wisdom that genuine happiness comes not through more and more mature gadgets, but you right relationship with God neighbor and yours. We also need a new foreign policy. Whose first concern is Justice and liberty for the poorest on Earth and we need a national resolve to reshape International Trade economic foreign aid and food assistance in such a way that didn't truly empowers the poorest in the short run that will be costly for us in the long run. It will benefit all because this is God's good creation Justice and long-term self-interest coincide. But the means to that future is Jesus costly call to love our neighbors as ourselves.