THERE SEEM TO BE two opposing views on the question of supplying people with food. The first cites the example of Bangladesh and other countries where starvation seems inevitable, and states that it is useless or even counterproductive to prevent people in such countries from starving. One of the most eloquent spokesmen for this viewpoint is Garrett Hardin, who summarized his position in a BioScience article (Hardin 1974). He metaphorically places the rich nations in a lifeboat from which the poor must be excluded or everyone will drown. Another spokesman is Dillon Ripley, who predicts that "morality will increasingly lose its traditional foundation and questions of the sanctity of human lives will have to be judged on a long-term strategic basis" (Ripley 1971). Lamont Cole has been quoted as saying "to feed a starving child is to exacerbate the overpopulation problem (Yannacone 1970). The contrasting viewpoint, which I hold, is that such attitudes are ethically repugnant, of questionable authenticity, and, perhaps most significant of all, are a threat to world peace. In addition, my conditioning has been much shaped by my professional activities which, for about 45 years, have been directed towards solving agricultural problems, remedying nutritional deficiencies, and promoting public health. All these objectives contribute to the population explosion.