In the argument essay “Lifeboat ethics, the case against Aid that does harm”, Garrett Hardin presents his opinions on world population and world food. The article starts off with the analogy of the Earth as a spaceship, but then advances to the Earth as a lifeboat. The reason for the move away from the spaceship analogy and onto the lifeboat analogy, is that a true spaceship would have to be under the control of a Captain, and no Captain could possibly survive if his course were to be determined by committee. Because there is no real United Nations, with any real power, then we cannot consider this to be a spaceship commanded by a Captain. Moreover, there is not a deciding authority to make the hard decisions, to enforce the rules
…show more content…
With this idea of a tragedy of commons, the author gives an example as the world food bank. Hardin believes, and I agree, that the World Food Bank perpetuates the problem by supplying the poorest nations with more food, and that the poorest nations are multiplying their populations faster than the rich nations. Another angle, on the tragedy of commons theme, is the environmental damage done by mega farming and overharvesting. I contend that this reduces the quality of life for everyone. Land is stripped for Factory farms and forest are raped of trees; water is polluted. According to this logic every person from a poor country who is helped by a rich nation is helping to cause everyone else environmental damage. We are all in this boat together or dumped into the shark infested vast oceans together. A significant percent of the worldwide immigration problems are because these countries can't feed themselves. Hungry people will go to where the food is. The immigrants are going to the developed nations and this drives down the standard of living/ wages in those countries. As we have seen with our own debate about immigration in the United States, all of these aspects are a contributing factor. There is a big question about whether the immigrants help or hurt the overall population. It is true that the United States is a country of immigrants, but at what point do we have to say enough is enough, and at what point are we further adding to the problem by taking them
With this idea of a tragedy of commons, the author gives an example as the world food bank. Hardin believes, and I agree, that the World Food Bank perpetuates the problem by supplying the poorest nations with more food, and that the poorest nations are multiplying their populations faster than the rich nations. Another angle, on the tragedy of commons theme, is the environmental damage done by mega farming and overharvesting. I contend that this reduces the quality of life for everyone. Land is stripped for Factory farms and forest are raped of trees; water is polluted. According to this logic every person from a poor country who is helped by a rich nation is helping to cause everyone else environmental damage. We are all in this boat together or dumped into the shark infested vast oceans together. A significant percent of the worldwide immigration problems are because these countries can't feed themselves. Hungry people will go to where the food is. The immigrants are going to the developed nations and this drives down the standard of living/ wages in those countries. As we have seen with our own debate about immigration in the United States, all of these aspects are a contributing factor. There is a big question about whether the immigrants help or hurt the overall population. It is true that the United States is a country of immigrants, but at what point do we have to say enough is enough, and at what point are we further adding to the problem by taking them