In truth, the answer the the articles question is "usually," but this article is so absurd, so full of the most destructive kind of arm-chair theorizing--the simple stripped-down kind of reasoning the average person can argue vehemently over some Bud Lights. That kind of folk are usually as un-influential and inept as they are uninformed. But it bothers me to see this in a major paper. Read please. There are hundreds of thousands of pages written by experts in their field which appreciate the impossible complexity of these problems. If everyone so enthusiastically sure of themselves would read just ten of them...

How irresponsible and naive to present the problem as such: "We can save them from starvation, at the cost of encouraging overpopulation." Really? Are there no other angles to work from?

To conclude that any aid would exacerbate the problems could be a compelling argument if better posed, especially economically speaking, but still an argument with stronger, more sound opposition.