Table of ContentsThe Lifeboat AnalogyTragedy of the CommonsAnalysis and Critique of Hardin's Lifeboat ConceptConclusionWorks CitedIn his article "Living on a lifeboat,” population biologist Garrett Hardin made an influential, if controversial, argument. concerning the process of distribution of wealth and resources (Hardin 1974). This article will explore his main arguments, that providing aid to poor countries would result in uncontrolled population growth beyond the "carrying capacity" of their environment, ultimately acting as a catalyst for more serious environmental and social problems and leading to " the fundamental error of the ethics of sharing", that is to say the tragedy of the common goods. Next, I offer some critiques of Hardin's lifeboat analogy to demonstrate how the errors he describes are wrongly attributed to poor countries and should be directed toward the rich, developed countries of the North that consume more resources than what their population needs. I conclude by revisiting the concept of the lifeboat analogy and offering ethical suggestions for reducing poverty. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay The lifeboat analogy Hardin ignores the environmentalist analogy of the “spaceship” and introduces a new concept, that of “living on a lifeboat” (Hardin 1974, p.778 ). He begins by asking, “What should rich passengers in a rich lifeboat do?” ”, asserting that this is the central question of lifeboat ethics. The main difference between the two is that, in the spaceship analogy, everyone on Earth has equal access to limited resources. Yet in the lifeboat analogy, people in poorer countries are at a disadvantage, while richer countries have an advantage in terms of resources and quality of life (Hardin 1974, pp. 778-79). . However, his lifeboat analogy has flaws. He does not realize that no country contains all the poor, or conversely, all the rich; on the contrary, every country has wealth inequality and more countries are economically in the middle income range. Additionally, while Hardin compares countries with transportation capabilities to lifeboats, where a lifeboat has a fixed transportation capacity before sinking, the transportation capabilities of real-world nations are constantly changing and vary in depending on the region, environment and population. Furthermore, Hardin fails to recognize the ways in which rich countries actually hinder the economic development of poor countries, for example through neoliberalism, mining, unfair development loans and, historically speaking, colonization processes . “tragedy of the commons” as the fundamental error of the ethics of sharing, of the lifeboat analogy, with the ethics of sharing loosely based on Christianity and Marxism (Hardin 1974, p. 781). Essentially, the concept follows this line of thinking: a lack of ownership of shared resources results in a lack of responsibility for those resources. As a result, resources are used and depleted by everyone, and the environment is ultimately destroyed and completely degraded. This concept also implies that acting for self-interest and for profit are the root causes of tragedy. Common goods include natural resources such as air, water, fishrivers and oceans, as well as other natural and wild entities that may not have rights or cannot be privatized. He also sees that each individual has needs that must be met and that these needs are met by the environment. Therefore, a growing population would have an increased burden on the environment. In contrast, Hardin's argument is an altruistic fallacy, because not all humans treat the environment this way: damaging the commons is a cultural, not an economic, problem. Furthermore, I argue that Hardin's tragedy is a naturalistic fallacy, because the majority of human societies have not polluted the environment as we do today. This “tragedy of the commons is therefore avoidable, and indigenous societies have lived successfully and sustainably in the past for thousands of years with community responsibility and no private ownership over natural resources (Trawick 2003, p. 977 ). For this to happen, individuals must make the decision to act in a way that does not result in the collective destruction of shared resources. Additionally, a group may also choose to enter into a collective bargaining agreement or settlements with inherent repercussions for those who choose to act in a manner that destroys collective resources. Finally, Hardin believes that the commons could also be privatized and owned to prevent anyone from using, exploiting and polluting them for free. Analysis and Critique of Hardin's Lifeboat Concept Another problem with Hardin's lifeboat analogy is his stance on "natural controls" on poor countries. Essentially, Hardin believes that poor countries should adjust their policies and practices and learn to budget for infrequent natural emergencies, believing that these countries can learn from their experience (Hardin 1974, pp. 783-784). Furthermore, he asserts that if poor or developing countries did not receive any aid or food from the outside world (developed countries), famines and crop failures would periodically serve as natural brakes on population growth. He justifies this claim by saying that increasing population in developing countries equates to an increase in the need and use of the world's resources, which we cannot afford, as it would overburden the environment. However, this is a racist and elitist position; Hardin fails to realize that we live in an interconnected society and that developed countries rely heavily on poorer countries to produce much of the world's food. It propagates economic isolation, believing in the lie of “everyone fights for themselves,” and denies the reality of globalization. Furthermore, developed countries have used poor countries as their personal dumping grounds during their development while continuing to extract natural resources from their lands, thereby depriving developing countries of the ability to fully progress while locking them in debt . One might also ask why proper help and awareness is needed. or couldn't education on birth control measures be implemented simultaneously in areas where the population is growing exponentially and the environment is degrading? Furthermore, there is an error in Hardin's reasoning which suggests that not all people have a right to life, but that those who live in rich, developed countries with low population growth are those who are able to thrive in the face of climate change (Hardin 1974, p. 785-86). Furthermore, how can one deny the right to life of nations.