The world consists of different people, civilizations, and ways of life. There are many situations that call for different ways of handling them, like poverty, overpopulation, resources, and famine aid. Two very different points of view about these issues are espoused in two very different essays written decades apart, “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor” by Garrett Hardin and “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift. Hardin’s view of civilization and the world, although harsh, has facts that could help improve the issues. Even though Swift’s opinion has personal perspective, it isn’t very realistic.…
In December of 2003 Sarah Holt interviewed Lester Brown, a population expert considered to be ‘one of the world’s most influential thinkers’ (by the Washington Post). When confronted with the idea that between now and 2050 the population will increase by 3 billion, in addition to the 6 billion now, Brown seems to be no stranger to the subject, offering up clear predictions in what’s to come. He addresses developing trends in countries like India and Africa, the ‘grain drain’ that becomes more and more prevalent with each year, and the big picture, Brown predicts, leaders will have to look at when making serious decisions concerning the future of the Earth.…
In Garrett Hardin’s “Lifeboat Ethics” he explains that the world we live in is unequal and becoming increasingly poor. He tries to explain that if the poor isn’t controlled then the Earth will become overpopulated and unrestrained. I believe that Hardin’s writing of “Lifeboat Ethics” is effective and persuasive. His writing is persuasive because with every action to fix the poorness of our world he has a counter, Hardin uses numbers and percentages to show how the population increases of poor countries versus rich ones, and he also paints pictures in people’s heads very well.…
The philosophical tragedy of the commons occurs when individuals overuse (for their personal benefit) the commons to the point where it impedes on the use and future use of others and future generations. This overuse also leads to devaluation. Hardin proposed an analogy of a field “open to all,” in which common ownership leads to environmental degradation. In terms of pollution, the problem of the commons deals with adding to the commons rather than taking from the commons.…
3. The word “ethics” in the title of Hardin’s essay refers to the reality of the threatening consequences of overpopulation. Hardin reasons that the results of overusing natural resources to provide for the world causes the population to increase at a rapid rate. The ethical principle that Hardin believes should guide the passenger’s conduct in lifeboat Earth is limiting the provisions to helpless countries to control their population.…
Aristotle, a famous Greek philosopher, had a theory of trying to simplify the task of arguing by dividing and classifying arguments into three types. The three types are called Logos or logic-base, Pathos or emotion based, and Ethos or credibility based. The two classic essays, “Life Boat Ethics” by Garrett Hardin and “A Modest Proposal” by Johnathan Swift, the writers make good suggestions with these types of arguments over world population and world famine.…
Svetlana Feldman Professor Crowder SFELD5157@HOSTOS.CUNY.EDU March 26, 2012 Are We Selfish Or Can We Help? In “The Island of Plenty”, Montgomery emphasizes his article on social Darwinism. The United States should not share their resources with other parties to reduce the amount of hunger games going on. Other countries are in this difficult position because they are not capable of reproducing their products. The larger the population becomes, the more products are wasted. Once the population can be controlled then the resources would not become so scarce. “[s]ome of us have polluted the planet by reproducing too many of us” (399 Montgomery). The United States should help others in need because once the help stops serving others then there would be no help from others when needed. The Garden of Eden is known to be an imagery place of the Utopian world. The United States cannot be relatively compared to the Garden of Eden. Being a resident of The United States, it is not such a happy and free place. The United States is overpopulated with minorities from every place of the world. Other countries are over populated as well but with the citizens of their homeland. Once there might have been a theory that The United States was a pure place but now it is not so harmonious and peaceful as others preserve it to be. There might be enough products to support the individuals that live here but not enough power to stand alone. The United States us consuming a large amount of resources from other places. In order for The United States to receive general resources from other places, sharing theirs will help…
Overpopulation is an issue which is constantly being debated upon, as the very aspect of humanity is at stake here. Paul R Ehrlich, Anne H Ehrlich, Frank Furedi and Vanessa Baird bring each of their unique perspectives to the table. Ehrlich and Ehrlich, in the abstract from “The Population Bomb Revisited”, believe that overpopulation is a problem that needs to be constantly addressed for humanity to survive in the long run. On the other hand, Furedi shares his views, in the article “Really Bad Ideas: Population Control”, about how he thinks the people that perceive overpopulation as a hindrance are the real problem here rather than overpopulation itself. Baird, from “Population Panic”, takes a neutral stand…
After reading the above reading by Mr. Hardin, I had come to the conclusion that in life there are many choices that must be made. In correlation to my Environmental Science class I can understand more of what his thought process is. In comparison, he could be talking about world hunger.…
Increasing the size of the population is generally held to be a good thing, but an even larger proportion of the world’s people is becoming convinced that the world is already overpopulated” (Hardin, 42). Increasing the population not only limits resources, it also increases the amount of misunderstanding to people “never do[ing] one thing”, which can potentially lead to a larger ecological crisis. There are many problems when it comes to population. Technology is expensive and with population growing, the price of natural resources is increasing as well. There are solutions to this issue though, but cannot be implemented right away. Hardin looks “toward voluntarism and persuasion to help create a climate of opinion that can some day support stronger measures” (Hardin, 45). By “doing the right thing”, Hardin rhetorically persuades the readers to engage in thoughtful actions that decreases the population. The first step to this solution is to create a 100% effective birth control. Society knows that contraception is not completely effective, but because of this, Hardin suggests we create a system for acceptability towards abortions if necessary. If birth control fails, abortions should be included as a “back up plan” with the cost of being preferably free. The problem with this proposal is that abortions are frowned upon in other countries. To avoid the abortion issue, young girls need to be taught to become…
The overpopulation problem is a hot topic in the world. The population growth brings us tremendous pressure because it grows too fast. Also the developing countries and underdeveloped counties have higher population growth rate; for example, India, China, and Indonesia. The daily news updates the information about how people help the poor countries. Are we really helping poor countries? I think no one can exactly answer this question. Garrett Hardin had an unequal opinion comparing with others in 1974. He made the analogy of the rich countries and poor countries. “Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth.” Garrett Hardin argues for a very harsh thesis: we simply should not provide aid to people in poor countries. His argument is consequentiality: he claims that the net result of doing so would be negative. I do not agree with his opinion because of three main points.…
One particular piece of assumptive data that jumped out of me was Hardin’s prediction that India’s population would increase from what it was in his time, “600 million”, to “1.2 billion in a mere 28 years.” Today, 37 years later, India’s population is estimated around that number. This gave me pause because, while it didn’t increase quite as fast Hardin claimed, it was close enough that it proves the population numbers he was working with and the predictions he made were fairly accurate. I do not know the extent to which Hardin was right, and how much we should trust his solution to overpopulation, but I do know based on this evidence along with the clarity of his logic and the completeness of his argument that it certainly should not be dismissed without giving what it proposes careful consideration. The reaction of my class, then, in rejecting it immediately was ill advised, and if that is at all an indicator of the habits of people in general, it can be a very dangerous thing; what Hardin claims will be a result of ignoring his advice is the suffering of our posterity and, eventually, the demise of our race and ruin of our environment. As a concerned member of an overly sensitive society, I want to urge with this essay that we consider all proposal given from every source with any sort of…
In 1974, Harden’s “Lifeboat Ethics” came with a really harsh and serious question – “does we have a responsibility for people from third world?”. Hardin argues that the planet is like a lifeboat with such a great number of people desiring entry that if we adopt, for example, Kantian ethics, which value each person as an end-in-themselves, the boat will sink due to weight and everyone will die. Although many may argue that the sanctity of life warrants attempting to save everyone, the reality is that the lifeboat possesses a carrying capacity that dictates the number of people that can logically enter. The environment is actually such a lifeboat, and when resources are stretched while the carrying capacity is exceeded, someone has to die. When…
Since 1991, the southern half of Somalia, a poverty stricken African nation, has seen various tribal militias battle for dominance and power over individual regions of the country. Violence has plagued Mogadishu, the capital, since warlords ousted the former president. Mere months after the collapse of the government, men, women and children in torn clothes ran helplessly towards packages dropped from military planes towards the hot sand of their tiny village. This action was one of many attempts to help underdeveloped nations receive food by the United Nations' World Food Programme. Within his article titled "Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor", Garret Hardin, a well-known philosopher of ecology, analyzes the difficulty and ultimate ruin associated with providing aid to these nations. Hardin's argument for the preservation of well-to-do societies is embodied by his extended metaphor of each society as a lifeboat, with the citizens of developed nations riding calmly amongst a sea of drowning poverty-stricken individuals. Ultimately, Hardin argues for a very harsh thesis: regardless of the current situation, privileged nations simply should not provide aid to those individuals trapped within the vortex of underdeveloped nations. His argument is consequentialist: he claims that the net result of doing so would be negative and would, in the long run, court large-scale disaster. Although Hardin's argument appears logic-based, his excessive metaphors fail when applied to real-life scenarios, for oftentimes he misconstrues facts to create a claim that may be perceived as more accurate than reality illustrates. Furthermore, any counter-arguments Hardin feels may refute his claim are pushed aside, avoiding factual evidence that may prove his argument inaccurate or misleading. Much like a lifeboat, Hardin leaves the assertions of the "humanitarian apologists" to drown so as to avoid the overturn of his claim.…
Every second, minute, hours, weeks... There are babies that are born. Meaning, another person to be taken care of. Another person that will use our land resources. The problem is, there are too many people that compete for the wealth of our land has. Lucky for those people who has the money to buy the things that they need. But, how about those unfortunate people? It’s very hard to live life empty-handed. But that’s the reality. They should sacrifice everything or else, they die. How could they have a happy life if they don’t have something? Overpopulation is the reason why most of the people suffer not only in the rural but also in the urban. Children cry because they starve. Why? It’s because of poverty. Whether they like it or not, they should be satisfied in anything that is available. People even do immoral things because they think that it is the easiest yet effective way of earning. I can’t imagine how these things are happening when our country has rich natural resources! Words like, poverty, unfortunate, hardship and cruelty would have not come to life if it were not because of the overpopulation.…