The manifestations of poverty (e.g. nutritional deprivation and ill-health) and the attendant serious obstacle posed by rapid population growth in developing countries are a problematic and serious concern for policy makers responsible for formulating policies and programs that would alleviate such conditions. In many developing countries reduction of poverty is interrelated with other goals (promoting a self-sustaining cumulative economic growth improving health and public services slowing down populating growth rate) bringing about problems related to the multiplicity of options for effective action. Some of these problems involve the limited application of cost-benefit analysis and other conventional investment criteria in measuring benefits derived from health and education programs the influence of political decisions on economic policies and the extent upon which technology and organization affect the success or failure of development goals. Scarce resources limited options and disparate requirements of competing groups also affect the types of programs implemented (especially nutrition and family planning programs with its numerous intervention schemes that have mostly proved disappointing). To improve the health and nutrition of the population and to slow down population growth rates of developing countries it is imperative that economists nutrition and health experts demographers and political scientists collaborate on a multidisciplinary research scheme that would identify and provide guidelines in formulating effective and feasible policies and programs for the well-being of the population.

THE St. Petersburg paradox constitutes a fascinating chapter in the history of ideas. What other subject can link together Edward Gibbon and the father-inlaw of Thomas Mann? Or can, in the conceit of Maynard Keynes, link together the Bernoullis and Darwin?' Substantively, the Petersburg paradox served as a dramatic paradigm, alerting people to the fact that their utility of gain exceeded their utility of equivalent money lost. As a byproduct, the discussion generated an interest of its own: the idiocies it evoked from various writers are scarcely less fascinating than the lasting insights. Yet when I came recently to review the matter, I found to my surprise that no one seems to have provided anything like a complete survey of the subject. The standard sources provide us with tantalizing glimpses: the useful 1954 English translation of the classic Latin work of Daniel Bernoulli [4, 1738]; the references and discussion in histories of probability, such as those of Isaac Todhunter [39, 1865] and Leonid Maistrov [17, 1966]; the selective but perspicacious accounts in the work of Keynes [15, 1921] and George Stigler [37, 1950]; the new lease on life given to the subject by Karl Menger [19, 1934] with the discussion there of SuperPetersburg paradoxes creatable when the utility function is unbounded; the recent observation by Kenneth Arrow [2, 1971] that not all stochastic processes can be ordered by the expected value of their utility outcomes when such Mengerian super-paradoxes are allowed to exist. The number of post-Mengerian writers is large, including L. S. Shapley [36, 1972], D. L. Brito [6, 1975], Samuelson [28, 1960], Robert J. Aumann [3, 1975], and many others. Given my own limited linguistic abilities and leisure time, I have not been able to provide anything like a definitive survey, one that checks back on and quotes copiously from the original sources. After all, the list of writers connected with the St. Petersburg paradox reads like a veritable who's who in probability and the social sciences. Here is but a sample: Nicholas Bernoulli (1687-1759), Montmort (1678-1719), Gabriel Cramer (1704IThe continuity and oneness of modern European thought may be illustrated, if such things amuse the reader, by the reflection that Condorcet derived from Bernoulli, that Godwin was inspired by Condorcet, that Malthus was stimulated by Godwin's folly into stating his famous doctrine, and that from the reading of Malthus on Population Darwin received his earliest impulse [15, Keynes, 1921, p. 83, n. 1