Hardin states that a well-run country ought to budget for the certain, if periodical threat of crop failure and famine. However, it is only the rich nations that have any sort of food stores set aside; poor countries have none. If these countries receive no external aid then their swollen populations will be intermittently reduced by crop failures and famines, and the numbers will eventually stabilize. However, with a source of food from which these countries can always draw, they will never seek to improve their situation so their populations, and consequently their need for aid will grow ad infinitum and the problem will never be resolved.
The problem with Hardin's thesis is that it is too simplistic, as Murdoch and Oaten suggest, the metaphor of a lifeboat does not reflect the true state of the relationships each nation has with its neighbours. The rich western states have, in the past and present encouraged developing countries to grow cash crops and have favoured regimes which are pro-western and repressive. They also point out that there is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone adequately and that distributive and economical problems contribute to food shortages, not limitations on agriculture. .
Hardin only considers food shortages in the developing countries as worthy of his consideration; in the months and years after these countries have received food aid he only predicts a rise in population until the next famine arrives. However, this is not the only factor that leads to overpopulation and poverty and the ways of combating and overcoming this situation are complex and varied. .
When the population of a country is starving the only concern of its inhabitants is to acquire food. If this concern can be met with the provision of aid, so much the better but it is counter-productive to provide food alone as this only alleviates a symptom and does not help to solve any of the problems which caused the famines in the first instance.