In this essay, Garrett Hardin exposes and problem the world is enduring without many humans even realizing. He first mentions the relationship between the world population and resources and concluded that the population must be brought under control. In his essay he formulated solutions to the problem at hand. Hardin rejected the hope that improved food production technology will allow an infinite increase in population. The world cannot provide progression in both the population and quality of life. Hardin mentions that we as a whole have a difficulty choosing the limit of the population and deciding which goods to produce in a world that cannot produce everything. He formulated the metaphor “Tragedy of the Commons.” When a resource is held
…show more content…
The more people there are in this world the less each person’s share of things must be. Even with the progression of technology such as agriculture and food production can’t alter this. With no cap to the number of people allowed on earth everyone’s desires or good can’t be provided for. There just wouldn’t be enough resources for everyone. Due to the biophysical limits of the world the solution would be to stabilize the population and people would need to choose on what goods they want to be sought.
Next Hardin says that over-population is an example of the tragedy of the Commons. Hardin describes commons as “un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.” He believes that individuals are “short term, self-interested, rational actors seeking to maximize their own gains.” These “actors” will take advantage of the commons such as reproducing if the cost of doing so is less than the benefits. He says that our welfare system protects individuals from bearing the full cost of over reproducing. There isn’t a negative to it.
Hardin mentions that the “commons” way of reproducing needs to go. He says, there needs to be a way to restrict reproduction. There needs to be a mutual agreement that everyone can agree
The more people there are in this world the less each person’s share of things must be. Even with the progression of technology such as agriculture and food production can’t alter this. With no cap to the number of people allowed on earth everyone’s desires or good can’t be provided for. There just wouldn’t be enough resources for everyone. Due to the biophysical limits of the world the solution would be to stabilize the population and people would need to choose on what goods they want to be sought.
Next Hardin says that over-population is an example of the tragedy of the Commons. Hardin describes commons as “un-owned or commonly-held "pool" resources that are "free," or not allocated by markets.” He believes that individuals are “short term, self-interested, rational actors seeking to maximize their own gains.” These “actors” will take advantage of the commons such as reproducing if the cost of doing so is less than the benefits. He says that our welfare system protects individuals from bearing the full cost of over reproducing. There isn’t a negative to it.
Hardin mentions that the “commons” way of reproducing needs to go. He says, there needs to be a way to restrict reproduction. There needs to be a mutual agreement that everyone can agree