I was initially going to argue against Singer’s point that it is in our power to prevent suffering, because while there may be individuals who are willing to contribute, I don’t believe that our entire society as a whole would adopt this kind of behavior. However, he astutely points out that the chance of this undertaking bringing about the breakdown of our moral behavior is slight, and if it could culminate in the end of worldwide starvation it is worth the risk. This is a very strong argument that I agree with. Ending world starvation is worth the risk. Every person on the planet should be given an equal shot at peace and comfort. I am also inclined to admit that any attempt to refute this statement is just cognitive dissonance kicking in to work out the guilt complex most of us would have from refusing to help those around us. However, that being said I will set up an argument of my own. As the world stands, there is a minority of elite and a majority of poor. While I don’t think this is fair, if everyone in the world suddenly had the same amount of money I think we would run into issues. There are projects underway currently in the space exploration field that will revolutionize the way we live on earth. The exploration of Mars, asteroid mining, and a space elevator to name a few. I am not an expert on any of these projects but like the mission to the moon I believe their outcome will revolutionize the way people live their lives and ultimately better the way we all live on this earth, and perhaps other planets. If the funding for projects like these were diverted, we may never leave the surface of the earth as a species. This is my only argument against Singer.