Table of Contents

The Lifeboat Concept

Original: The idea is that there are only so many spots in the boat and it cannot take everyone.

Paraphrased: The notion is that the boat has limited capacity and can’t accommodate everyone.

The Tragedy of Commons

Analysis and criticism of Hardin’s Lifeboat Concept

In conclusion

Garrett Hardin (population biologist) made an influential and controversial argument in “Living on a Lifeboat” regarding resource distribution and wealth. We will examine his main arguments. He argued that providing aid for poor countries would result not in controlled population growth above the “carrying capability” of their environments. This would ultimately lead to greater environmental, social, and economic problems. Following, I criticize Hardin’s lifeboat analogy. It is wrongly assumed that these errors are due to poor countries. I end my discussion by revisiting the lifeboat analogy.

The concept of a lifeboat is often used as a metaphor to represent the idea of limited resources and choices.

Hardin dismisses the environmentalist spaceship’ analogy in favor of a new concept called ‘living on lifeboats’ (Hardin 1974 p. 778). He starts with the question, “What should wealthy passengers do on a rich boat?” This is the main issue in lifeboat ethics. There is a major difference between these two: everyone on Earth has equal rights to the limited resources. However, the lifeboat analogy shows that the poorer nations are at disadvantage while the wealthier countries have a better quality of life and resources (Hardin 1974). 778-79). His lifeboat analogy is flawed. He doesn’t realize that there are no poor countries, nor all rich nations. Instead, wealth inequality exists in every country, and more countries fall within the middle income range. Hardin compares countries carrying capacities with lifeboats. This is because a lifeboat’s carrying capacity is a fixed capacity that can be used to sink. But the carrying capacities of real world nations are constantly in flux and depend on where they live and what their population is. Hardin also fails to see the ways rich countries can hinder economic development in poor countries. This includes neoliberalism and extraction. Tragedy on the CommonsHardin coined “tragedy on the commons” to refer to the fundamental error in sharing the lifeboat analogy. It was loosely based primarily upon Marxism, Christianism, and Marxism. The idea is simple: If resources are not owned, they can be taken away from the owner. The environment suffers as a result. This idea also suggests that the main causes of tragedy are those who act for their own interests or for profit. Commons are natural resources like our water, air, rivers, oceans, and fish, which may not be protected or able to be privatized. The environment is able to meet each person’s needs. The environment would be more affected by a growing population.

Hardin’s argument, in contrast, is an altruistic fallacy. Humans do not treat the environment the way they should. Hardin’s tragedy is also naturalistic. Most human societies didn’t pollute the environment the way we do. This ‘tragedy for the commons’ could be avoided. Indigenous societies have survived thousands of year without private ownership or communal responsibility. This is possible only if individuals make the conscious decision to not cause the collective destruction of shared resources. You can also create a collective agreement that includes repercussions for any group who destructs the shared resources. Hardin believes the commons should be privatized and made private to prevent anyone from exploiting or polluting them.

Analysis and Criticism on Hardin’s Lifeboat Concept

Hardin believes, in essence, that poor countries must adjust their policies to account for natural emergencies and budget accordingly. 783-784). Furthermore, he asserts that if countries in need of food and aid were not to be received from outside (developed nations), then natural restraints on population growth would occur. This claim is supported by the assertion that an increase in population in developing countries means an increase in global resource demand and consumption, which is beyond our ability to afford.

Hardin’s racist and elitist views are a result of his inability to understand that we live together as a society. The developed nations heavily depend on the food produced by the poorer countries. He promotes economic isolation and believes that everyone fights for their rights. This negates the reality behind globalization. The developed nations have also used poor countries as garbage dumps throughout development and continue to extract natural resources. This has resulted in developing countries being deprived of their potential to grow fully while enslaving them in debt.

You might also wonder why proper aid and education regarding birth control measures cannot be implemented simultaneously in areas with high population growth and a degrading environment. Hardin’s logic also suggests an error. It is not true that all people have the right to live. Rather, those who live in developed countries with low population growth are more likely to be able to adapt to climate change. 785-86). Furthermore, it is difficult to deny the rights of nations other than those on the lifeboat, even though we (the industrialized countries) were in this exact same position a few hundred ago — growing uncontrollably and destroying resources without regard for the natural environment.

Hardin also places the developed nations on the pedestal and then blames poorer countries for the problems in the world’s environment. If you look at the historical colonization processes that were led in part by the Global North, you will see the reasons why many countries from the Global South have struggled to develop. Today, global inequality and wealth are still being driven by the effects of colonization. Hardin speaks about the needs of people and how they differ. He also discusses responsible consumption. He fails to mention, however, that people in rich and developed countries like the United States consume more resources than they need to meet their needs.

In conclusion

Hardin’s arguments ultimately argue against the need to help the poor and in favor of humanism. Hardin argues that the world will be free of poverty if it removes the poor. This is morally wrong, unjust, and inherently unethical. I recommend instead that one work to eliminate poverty. This will encourage more equitable consumption patterns. Resource distribution will be more equitable.