In the article Lifeboat Ethics: The Case against Helping the Poor Garret Hardin argues that each nation should be responsible for its provisions. Hardin describes the world as a lifeboat, with a limited capacity and enough room for the people inside. However, outside the lifeboat, there are people begging to come onboard. This situation brings forth an array of choices that may threaten the life of the people in the lifeboat. The lifeboat is a metaphor that demonstrates how policies made in different countries affect the lives of its citizens. Hardin believes that first world countries should not help poor countries. Assisting underprivileged countries is a prompt way of depleting resources adequate for the population of the wealthy countries. Garret Hardin asserts that each country should conserve their resources thus compelling needy countries to work and provide for their facilities. A congested lifeboat is a metaphor for the hardships that exist in the world today. Hardin concludes the article by stating that human survival depends on the lifeboat ethics "if we cannot save ourselves no one will".
Critique
Lifeboat ethics is a prominent article written in 1974 by a human ecologist, Garret Hardin. Garret posits that approximately two-thirds of the world is poor while a third of the world is rich and the United States tops the list of the wealthiest. In this essay, Garret argues that nations are a like a lifeboat designed to carry a specific number of people. If a lifeboat exceeds the recommended number of passengers, it capsizes. Garret presumes that the world wealthiest countries operate, as lifeboats hence should only accommodate the exact number of people. All nations have the resources to cater for a specific number of its citizens. Increasing the number of populates in the country results in rapid depletion of the resources in the world.
Summary
Garret assumes that a lifeboat has 50 people on board with room for ten extra people. Conversely, in the water, there are 100 more people swimming around begging for a chance to come in the lifeboat. The lifeboat as Garret asserts provides people with several choices. First, the people in the boat could risk their lives to accommodate all the people swimming around it and perish. The second option is to choose ten individuals to fill the 10 extra spaces and lose the safety element of the boat. The third option is to preserve the safety factor and deny anyone else a chance to be in the lifeboat. Garret uses the lifeboat to appeal to the audience logic and emotions. A lifeboat is a small object that cannot accommodate 150 people and sail to safety. The comparison is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of the excess population on a nation’s resources and survival. Using the lifeboat expression, Garret positions his audience in the lifeboat and his case. The reader finds safety in the lifeboat but develops uncertainty about the people swimming around the boat begging for assistance.
Assessment
Garret specifically incorporates population data in his argument to prove the hard decisions that nations have to make. After every 87 years, the population of the rich nation doubles in size while that of the poor nation’s doubles twice after every 37 years hence straining the limited resources available. Hardin offers another insight of the United States sharing its resources with seven additional nations. These seven nations growth rate is two and a half percent bigger than that of the United States. Hardin posits that after eighty-seven years the population of America will double but that of the seven nations will grow twice. As a result, the United States citizens will share their resources in a ratio of one to eight. Garret lays possible options that address the rapid population growth and assistance. The alternative he provides is a strong government that will control reproduction in the society and the use of available resources. The author offers multiple insights and points of view in regards to the problem. Garret’s main argument is giving assistance to poor countries results in depletion of resources for the rich countries. For example, he states that when humanitarian unions like the world food bank continue to deposit food; indigent nations will continue to withdraw food without fear. Continuous financial and relief support makes the impoverished nations incapable of preparing for disasters and instead rely on help from other nations.
Response
Garrett’s logic is not relevant to the United States because most of the immigrants in the United States play a big role in the expansion of the resources through working and doing odd jobs. On the other hand, this premise is relevant to the economy since most of the poor counties depend on the wealthiest nations for assistance. The population growth in the world is rising at an alarming rate raising concern for more pressing matters. For instance, population growth is one factor contributing to global warming and climate changes in different nations. As more people continue to occupy the world, there is demand for more space for food and living spaces, leading to depletion of natural resources and interference with the environmental balance. Hardin’s rationalization holds water since the world has limited resources. Thus, governments should strive to maintain the safety net than to threaten the survival of the human through depletion of the already limited resources. On the contrary, the assistance to poor nations is not a complete catastrophe as it has had a great impact on their economy. For instance, insolvent states benefit from education, infrastructure development that allows them to reduce poverty and devise ways to increase their resources.
Conclusion
Garret Hardin successfully presents his ideas to the audience. He uses statistics and relevant examples of humanitarian aid to support his claims. The use of the lifeboat allegory allows the reader to have a clear picture of the scenarios in the lifeboat. Imagery allows the reader to see the urgency in the matter as that of life and death. The metaphor shows that the argument is completely for survival for the humans although; Garret’s argument is not a suitable way of poverty alleviation in the world. Most articles disagree with Garret's point of view and propose other ways like empowering the destitute republics in terms of building infrastructure, giving monetary loans and partnerships aimed at development. Garret’s fails to provide more information about the relevance of his lifeboat ethics. He maintains that denying assistance to indigent societies is the appropriate method to conserve resources and eliminate poverty. He fails to explore other solutions that might help in solving the problem thus limiting his argument. Garret employs an array of convincing logistics and statistics to persuade the readers.
