In 1833, Victorian economist William Forster Lloyd used the suppositional example of unregulated grazing on common land (the land referred to at that time as "commons" in the British Isles) as a platform for the discussion on- what seems profitable for one individual may hurt the whole community.
In 1968, the term "commons" was adapted and popularized by Ecologist Garret Hardin in his work, "Tragedy of the Commons". Hardin emphasized the concept that individual commons wealth attained through unregulated resource allocation and consumption is detrimental to the whole. This in turn would lead to instability for the individual as well.
Hardin has some interesting ideas and rationalization in his essay. It is important to note that this was written over 45 years ago. Hardin at times is very direct in his explanations and justification for certain perspectives, especially when it comes to reproduction and what measures must be taken with those that do not fall in line.
Please read "The Tragedy of the Commons" and answer the questions at the bottom of this post. Make sure that you support your reasoning. We will also use your responses as a platform for class discussion next week.
You will need to comment your response no later than Tuesday 11:59 p.m.
Questions
1) Hardin argues that an unenforced appeal to conscience is an unworkable solution to the population problem. What do you think of this argument? Does this argument rule out the general effectiveness of shifts in attitude or ideology?
2) Hardin writes that “natural selection favors the psychological forces of denial”. What does this mean? Do you agree with Hardin?
3) What do you think of Hardin's argument that the freedom to breed is intolerable?
1. The ideal family has long been a large part of the American dream. However, overtime the ideal family has been interpreted many different ways, and many times it conflicts with someone else's vision. Those who have chosen to not have children judge those who have, and those who have judge those who haven’t. Which is why I believe that Garrett Hardin is correct in his assertion that to guilt a person, will never truly make them stop having children. People of the Mormon religion for example, would make Hardin roll his eyes, for he sees no point in creating so many unmanageable human beings-with the expectation that society will take care of them. However, as it is a faith had by an entire population the concept will continue to grow, not matter who disagrees. Therefore, the environmental epidemic we are facing must not become a tool used to shame people for their decisions, because it will only be refuted and met with defensiveness.
ReplyDelete2.While his perspective may be pessimistic, I cannot help but agree with Garrett Hardin’s opinion. Hardin’s reference to natural selection is made in order to emphasize how easily our environment could overpower us if we are not aware of our surroundings. As we are a society with unlimited wants and limited resources we run into the issue of scarcity, and unlike many problems, scarcity does not fade overtime. Instead, without recognition, it could easily destroy us all. The option to be naive is not a viable one anymore, because at this point in time it affects too many people. Which is why the point Hardin is trying to make, is that until society decides to stop being so ignorant, natural selection will be the death of us all.
3. I feel as though Hardin is quite narrow-minded in his assumption that the action of bringing another animal to the herd is always a choice. Statistics prove that the chances of a woman being raped in the United States is 1 in 5, and the number of those women impregnated against their will each year is: 32,000. Hardin also fails to account for any religious or moral conflicts these women may have. Which is why the chances that a raped woman conceives compared to one engaging in consensual sex is two times as likely. Therefore, I do agree that the freedom to breed is in fact intolerable, as Hardin has stated. However, I refuse to believe that procreation is always a selfish and prospective decision. In fact, in our society and those even more corrupt than ours, it can be a huge burden. Furthermore, the issue with overpopulation is due to many factors and I do not believe Hardin had that kind of consideration in mind when writing this piece. If he had, I don’t believe his tone would be so cold.
1. I believe that it is impossible to change the way an entire population thinks, which means that there is no way to slow population growth to the point that it makes a significant difference on the environmental impact that the human race has. I don't believe that this argument rules out the change in attitude that people have about this issue either. While some people will adjust how they want to live in order to help the population growth, most people will have as many kids as they want. I believe that so long as people have the mindset that what they do won't affect them in the long run because "they will be long gone," the population problem will only get worse as time goes on. Even though this new ideology of trying to help the environment is spreading, it will at best slow the problem, but never stop it.
ReplyDelete2. What I believe Hardin means by this is that people will survive longer and live a healthier life if they abuse the resources around them and not think about what they are changing in the long run. While of course this would harm the population because we would be using up the resources too quick, in the moment that we are using a large amount of them, we would be living well for a short amount of time. Based off this definition, I agree with him to an extent. I believe that while there is an abundance of resources, if you were to use more than you have to, chances are you would be living a better life than those who don't, but if everyone lived like that, then we would all be worse off very quickly.
3. While I understand the point that he is making, it is very difficult to get people to simply stop having kids. For a lot of people, they have a set mindset on how many kids they want to have, and it seems as though no amount of convincing would change certain people's minds. In the piece, Hardin makes the idea of having kids come off as an act with a sole purpose of increasing the population and make the problem worse. He comes off as some what close minded about people's situation, and seems as though he is only looking at the big picture and not at people as individuals. He seems to overlook people's personal preferences or views on having child, and doesn't even seem to consider the fact that some births aren't necessarily a choice. Instead, he seems to say that if you are having a kid, then you are part of the problem.
1.) An unenforced attempt to control the population is less likely to yield dramatic results in a short span of time. It is also unlikely to have a global effect. In these senses Hardin's argument is successful. A polite nudge to stop having children or limit the number of children in a family would resonate with some and repeal others, essentially canceling out the desired reaction. Hardin's essay is too outdated to reflect on how population growth has become steadier in the past decades. This has happened largely on its own, although the growing cost of having children as well as access to birth control do play a role in the slowing rates. The statistics on birthrates in developed countries disproves Hardin's theory that population management cannot happen on its own. I didn't fact check but as far as I know developing countries birthrates are largely unchanged in the past 40 or so years. This could be due to different lifestyles in different parts of the world or due to inadequate access to birth control. These different examples both help and hinder Hardin's argument, it is neither completely true nor completely false.
ReplyDelete2.) For the past hundred years or so western culture has been living in excess. We pollute without checking ourselves, consume resources without check ourselves and in general have lived unsustainable lives. Not only have humans polluted and stripped the earth but we're very resilient. Other species may be challenged by food shortages or weather conditions but the technologies of the times allow humans to keep chugging when conditions are adverse. We live through events that keep other species in control like diseases without much struggle. By surviving despite all odds we have a sense of over confidence that allows us to justify our behaviors that have a negative impact on the world around us. This way of thinking is unsustainable because it means we refuse to really see or take accountability of the way human actions impact the earth. Hardin is correct that our ability to survive puts us on a path towards self destruction.
3.) I think that Hardin's argument that the freedom to breed is intolerable is incomplete because it does not say how this "freedom" would be controlled as Hardin wishes it was. It is easy to see how controlling reproduction can easily become very eugenics-y with intended or unintended classiest or racist effects. If he desired to control the population with methods similar to China's one (two) child policies it would be easier to support. He also ignored the changes that countries would need to make in order to to support restrictions on the right to reproduce, for example, the access to birth control and abortion. I think that certain factors of Hardin's argument are outdated and other factors are insensitive.
Maddy, I was thinking the same exact thing in regard to the 'One Child' policy China has attempted to enforce. I believe that it seems much more practical than his idea to stop any and all breeding combined. (Not that the 'One Child' policy is at all an ethically sound option. The government should not truly have that kind of power. However, in a real world sense it is more practical than Hardin's idea as you said.)
Delete1.) I agree with Hardin in that an unenforced appeal will not do anything to help the population problem. I think in order to make a difference, the entire population must make a change which is simply unrealistic for human beings, who commonly put their own good before the good of the greater population. People know that what they do now will affect the lives of generations to come, but since it’s unlikely that there will be a noticeable change in the remainder of their lifetime, they brush it off because it won’t affect them. I don’t think there is any way that an entire population of people will shift their attitudes or ideologies. I think that everyone will always have different views or opinions on certain subjects, and while one couple may decide not to have children in order to slow population growth, another will have four, which basically makes the other couples decision useless.
ReplyDelete2.) With over population comes the use of resources at rates faster than we can replace them, not to mention massive amounts of pollution in the air from the growing production of material good that humans “need” to live. With this unsustainable lifestyle that humans live, we are running out of resources-and fast. I think what Hardin means is that our denial is what’s going to end up killing us. Humans are in denial that we could eventually actually run out of things necessary to live, and in the end, that’s what is going to wipe out the human race. Our need to live lavishly and consume, consume, consume is far more important to us than the idea that we only have a finite amount of resources available to us, and they’ll eventually run out.
3.) I don’t agree with Hardin’s argument that the freedom to breed is intolerable. I believe and always have believed that it is a family's own decision how many kids they want or do not want to have. Hardin suggests that factors such as race, religion and class are all factors that must be “dealt with” in respects to the freedom to bread, which I think is quite offensive. Everyone has their own beliefs when it comes to procreation, and I think it is important to respect those beliefs, even if they aren’t coherent with your own. Furthermore, he only states what he believes is the problem, and offers no real solution to putting a limit on the amount of children a family may have, which further invalidates his argument to me.
1. I believe Hardin's argument proves succesful in stating that an unenforced appeal to conscious, or guilting people into a smaller family size, is an implausible idea in a modern working world like todays society. It is impossible to change an entire nation's thinking which is built from generations and generations of successful or unsuccessful families. Most people have a preconceived idea of their ideal family which would unlikely change with a push of standards for society. Although some of Hardin's arguments are outdated in that population is currently beginning to stabilize with increased access to birth control, education, and affordable health care.
ReplyDelete2. This statement made by Hardin, I believe, is correct in illustrating that humans are in the midst of a downward spiral because of our ability to avoid any kind of natural pressures or disturbances in our society that live in complete avoidance of any natural selection methods. By constantly exhausting all of our resources with no real consequence thus far, we become blind to the permanent harm we have posed on the natural environment. Just now are we beginning to see the extent of the damage done to the environment. Places where the environmental damage does not affect the people as intensely as other places will continue to exhaust resources because this environmental calamity does not impose a change of lifestyle to these people.
3. I believe that Hardin's idea that the freedom to breed is intolerable, is in fact narrow-minded and outdated. I do not agree with Hardin's theory that factors including race, religion, and class are vital to the freedom to breed. Hardin insists that people that choose to have children are detrimental to the environment and social progression pf population control. By ignoring the fact that more than a third of babies are unintended, Hardin's ideas come off as dated and improvident.
1. I agree with Hardin's argument that an unenforced appeal to conscience doesn't work because everyone has different set of morals and ethics. While a country as a whole mat have a set of ethics that they have deemed as right, not every citizen in that country will agree with those ethics or ideals. Putting an emphasis on conscience to help regulate population will not fix our over population problem. Different groups of people, whether it be different generations, religions, ethnicity, etc, have different ideas of how big the perfect family is. It would be impossible to create a standard of what this family size should be that everyone would agree on and if people don't agree with that standard, they will not feel morally obligated to follow that standard and create whatever sized family they wanted.
ReplyDelete2. I believe the point Hardin is trying tot make is that we, as humans, live in excess. Our society have gotten to a point of living where we no longer use our resources just to survive but also live a luxurious life. We overuse the resources of our ecosystem but deny the fact we are doing it because we don't want to change our ways. People want to live their life comfortable and leave the worrying over decreasing resources for the next generation. Humans will continue living in denial that we are overusing our resources until our lifestyles are greatly impacted by having limited exists to life necessities.
3. While I believe we are overpopulating the earth, I don't agree that we should see the freedom to breed as intolerable. People should have the choice in if they want to create a family or not. If people don't have the freedom to breed how would the human race survive? If not everyone had the freedom to breed, who would decide who would get to breed or not to keep the human race going? While each human born depletes environmental resources more, they also add to society through employment and new inventions. If we put a restriction on breeding, we could find ourselves in a political war over birthing rights.
1.Hardin talks about population growth as something that is unable to be fixed internally. I agree with this statement, not only because a large majority of the general public is not fully educated on the severity of the matter, but also because many humans will put the well being of themselves and those closest to them above all else. Unenforced appeal will always only be practiced in minority no matter the results
ReplyDelete2. I think this dude was talking about the ignorance of excessiveness. The transitional period between when a life source has plenty of consumable energy and when that energy becomes very finite, is often unnoticeable. resulting in unforeseen consequences. 'natural selection favors the psychological forces of denial” means that humans ignorance about the resources of there everyday life, is often what gets them killed
3.obviously i believe that every human should and does have the right to produce life, and i believe it will continue in that manner until humans as a race die off. because the want for children has and will always reside among people. however in certain circumstances when people bring life into the world with no plan of how to provide and care for the child it can be seen as irresponsible. If every human gave and created equally what they take from the environment then hardin would be a lot more ok with the freedom of reproduction , but in the situation where u are not, you are actively supporting overpopulation by creating excess life
1. I agree with Hardin on this statement because people are all different and they all have different opinions on conscience. What may be seen as too many children from one person may be just enough for another. If the system relies on peoples' own judgement to determine the right amount of children, the problem still persists only it's now more justified for someone to have more children because it's what they believe is the right thing to do. Also there will always be people who just disregard the unenforced rule of conscience because it's their "right" to have as many children as they want.
ReplyDelete2. I completely agree with Hardin on this statement. Over years and generations it is clear to see how those who have more kids without regard to population control will instill that ignorance in their children. Thus making conscious people with few conscious children slowly become less prevalent.
3. It may be difficult to imagine a world where people can only have a certain number of kids but it may be the only way to survive as a species. If the above two statements are correct, then our race is headed towards self-destruction. We need some regulations in place to reduce our population. People should be allowed to choose whether or not they want to have children, but there really should be a maximum number of children that a couple is allowed to have legally.
1. I agree with Hardin's argument regarding the role conscience plays in the overpopulation problem. An unenforced approach, although "moral" in the eyes of most, is not a viable option to solve this problem as a whole. This could be a possible solution for certain communities which would accept this ideology, but I believe, for the general population, this would not make a big enough impact. Since every individual, every community has a different view on the situation, there is no clear and workable solution that will leave us at the ideal population. Even if all communities are relayed this "moral obligation" to control our growing population, very few will adopt this ideology whole-heatedly, leaving us with little result and worldwide impact. I do not think that this argument rules out shifts in our attitude as communities and as nations because of the way those communities react to drastic or even minor changes. The shifts in the thinking of millions required to take on this task is so far away from what is realistic in this current global society simply due to the way communities and nations have formed throughout the world.
ReplyDelete2. I think what Hardin is trying to say is that our mentality and goals as humans is to live the "best" possible lives. This reflects in our materialistic society and the way people look at the world. A lot of people base their opinion of a person or a culture on their monetary status. This relates to how an individual will always act in a way to benefit themselves, while the society as a whole may suffer. This also relates to how many of us, even as young adults, are taught to be individuals and work toward our future, rather than the future of humanity. I agree with Hardin in the sense that the overwhelming majority of people would put themselves ahead of society. I also believe that humans are almost "programmed" to seek out their own benefit, rather than that of the group. Although this is not always the case, I think that any individual will always have an idea of how any situation will benefit them, no matter their situation.
3. I believe that Hardin's argument is, although based in truth, is an outdated and somewhat ignorant view on the situation. He is telling the truth when he states that "our society is deeply committed to the welfare state", meaning that we allow this overpopulation to happen because of the way communities support those who cannot support themselves. However, the idea of letting those who are born into a situation that they themselves cannot sustain to die is unethical and inhumane. Our society is widely based on the benefit of the individual, but we still have this moral obligation to help those in immediate danger. Hardin is conveying the situation in a way that dehumanizes the overpopulation problem. He is making it seem like his harsh suggestions are directed at population that does not hold the potential of the collective human race.
1.I agree with Hardin’s argument that an unenforced appeal to conscience is unable to function because everyone in the world is not going to be able to work as one and be on the same page. Everyone has different ideas and beliefs on their family size, and to have everyone break those and believe in new ideas is just not feasible. The whole population would have to change and we all know that people might want to make a difference but they will always put themselves, their well-being, beliefs and ideas before the well being and beliefs of the whole population.
ReplyDelete2.What Hardin means by “natural selection favors the psychological forces of denial” is that we all are in denial. We don't want to worry about the problems that we have right in front of us, we just assume that someone else will take care of them. Our resources are becoming more and more limited, but we don't want to think that we might not have any some day so we just think about the present and how much we can get out of what we have now and not about how it can impact us in the future. This is where denial kicks in and we soon then just run out of the resources.
The earth is overpopulated as we speak, but I not agree with Hardin and that we should see the freedom to breed as intolerable. People have the rights and always should to how many children they desire. It would be very inconceivable to give the population a children limit. Hardin pretty much stated that people have children just to increase the population yet he didn't even enclose any ideas or thoughts on how to fix this issue that he thinks is so big. His overall argument was contradictable and insensitive
1. Overpopulation is a problem that can't be fixed in the short run. People gaining consciousness on this subject would help in the long run. As of now, only certain people view the growth of our population as a pertinent problem because it doesn't affect us yet. However, people won't change their ways suddenly because they won't think that having less kids in their one certain family can have an impact on the world population. Hardin's argument that we aren't conscious of the overpopulation is correct, but unless we change our ideologies, we can't make a change.
ReplyDelete2. By this, I think that Hardin is saying that the being that uses the most resources is favored by natural selection. This being is not necessarily conscious of their denial, however their denial is still prevalent. The denial is that while the being uses the resources, nothing bad happens to it, but it does not know of the consequences of using too much. The ideology of this denial is "me" only and no one else. However, natural selection does favor this ideology. The being that has the most resources is the most powerful, and therefore has a higher likelihood to survive. I do agree on Hardin's stance on the issue because many of us are unaware of the amount of resources we use.
3. I disagree with Hardin's view, but understand his argument. While this may be the best way to control our population, it is against many ideals of humans. Lots of people want kids, and lots of these people want lots of kids. It should be our freedom to choose how many kids we have. However, we must be aware of how our choice affects the rest of the world. Having a large a family may not affect anything in one's lifetime, but the future may be affected. The problem is giving up what is right for what is ethical, and right now not many are willing to do that.
1.People are naturally inclined to want immediate gratification, even if it may effect other people down the road. It is impossible to change the way a population thinks about something especially if it isn't directly affecting them. Sure, the idea is "moral" but only a few people will take initiative and act upon those morals. This plan could slow down the rapid population growth, but not enough to notice. As long as people aren't visibly affected they wont have any reason or desire to make a change.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with Hardins statement, it is quite pessimistic view but it is true. People that take advantage of the lucrative natural resources that are at their disposal will end up on top. Everyone has a desire to live in excess, we all want to be the best. Some of the population may put humanity in front of there own wants and desires but those people are few and far between. As long as the majority of earths population put there own benefits first the, seemingly, never ending cycle of resources will eventually come to an end.
3. I can understand Hardins basis for the argument, but it is extremely shallow and outdated. Nothing is as easy as it sounds. You can't just tell people what to do, especially when it comes to there basic rights as people. Hardin completely ignores the fact that having a child is sometimes not the persons choice. Hardin dehumanizess the act having a child and acts like it is solely to populate our planet.
1. Hardin makes a good point in noting that an appeal to consciousness will not fix the problem of overpopulation. I agree that we cannot fix the problem that is overpopulation by appealing to the morality of human race. As a species, humans hold vastly different opinions, many of which conflict with one another. If we attempted to fix overpopulation with an appeal to consciousness, we would see far too many conflicting opinions on the matter to truly make any progress.
ReplyDelete2. Hardin is saying that those who have the most self-centered lifestyles have fared better then those who live in hopes of creating a better tomorrow, and this is very true. It is very difficult for humans to fix a problem that is not directly affecting them right now. Global warming is a great example of this, as is overpopulation. Without seeing the consequences, we fail to see how our actions in the now, will affect us as a species going forward. This makes it extremely difficult for progress to be made, if people are not willing to put aside current lifestyles, in exchange for creating a better lifestyle going forward.
3. Hardin's view of breeding being intolerable is very narrow minded. While it would likely be extremely effective in curbing overpopulation, it ignores basic human desire for family and children. Despite its likely effectiveness, it would create problems, with many people resisting to such a change on moral and idealogical grounds. We could not implement such a big change without first gradually implementing birth regulations, and even then a large amount of people would strongly oppose such a freedom infringing rule.
1. I believe Harden's argument that an unenforced appeal to conscience is an unworkable solution because of the variety in human culture. I believe if an appeal to conscience was enforced, it would be extremely effective in population control, but if its just a suggestion the government puts out, people wont take it seriously. Some families MIGHT have less kids because of it, but there are too many uneducated people and people that frankly don't care about population control to stop having children. This idea might raise awareness a little bit but in the end life will go on exactly as it is now and the population will continue to rise as people have 3+ kids.
ReplyDelete2. Hardin is basically saying that we are very ignorant when it comes to our resources. As resources diminish, people are going to deny the fact they need to cut back on their use of resources because "everyone else will so it's alright if I don't." I actually mainly disagree with Hardin on this. I think 110% there would be people who wouldn't cut down on their usage of resources, but most people, I assume, would make some cutbacks. I don't necessarily think it would be enough to save the planet in that state of diminishing resources, but I believe the majority of people would try their best to cut back.
3. I think Hardin's argument needs to be edited, but possibly could be headed in the right direction. I think that the freedom to breed is something that should be taken a little more seriously. People should be assessed in some way in order to legally be allowed to have children. It's harsh and unrealistic but would be a step in the right direction and I think that's what Hardin is alluding to here. So I don't agree with his argument completely but I see where he's coming from.
Hey guys ;)
1. I believe that Hardin’s approach to conscience is somewhat true because he states that there is no technical solution to population growth because people don’t really think about or can predict the rigor of this population issue because it does not currently affect them or the people closest to them. Some people decide to have children and some people don’t which is normal and everyone has different ideas about how their future will be and their families which is an aspect that the government can’t necessarily control, so in my eyes there is really no specific way of slowing down population growth that is realistic. Hardin’s statement on the other hand is not quite relevant to modern times, not there are more types of birth control and most people tend to live different lifestyles than they did when he wrote this article over 45 years ago. This ideology could bring some attention to this issue but I don't believe that it will persuade enough people to change their mindsets, to be able to make changes in society.
ReplyDelete2.I think that Hardin’s statement is accurate and that people are in a way selfish, we excessively use natures resources without thinking about the consequences and how future generations most likely will have to live differently because of how we are quickly destroying all of the natural resources we have. Hardin also writes about pollution and how our population has been so ignorant about how we dispose of our garbage and waste. We are not only damaging the earth but the air and oceans as well, the bad thing is that we are just starting to notice and makes slight changes, when it is almost too late.
3.Hardin states that our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, which plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the social and economic well-being of citizens. I agree with Hardin, because this affects the population's well being as well as influencing how the citizens consume and how they spend their time. But on the other hand he is completely ignoring our ideals and our rights. He believes that it is possible to control such a large aspect of population growth but I disagree, and think that it would unimaginable if he/someone was to restrict the freedom to breed.
1. Hardin's claim is correct, the human race as a whole are self interested thinkers focused on personal gain over the population as a whole, and while I do think measures should be taken to limit the growth of our population I don't believe it is possible. The human race holds firm ideals about life, culture, and religion that often asks for many factors about size of family and communities that are unchangeable. Hardin states, "We are locked into a system of “fouling our own nest,” so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free- enterprisers." While a major shift in Ideology will most likely ensue towards facing the issue, it will only be brought about in two scenarios: a present crisis is evoked from this issue, or a long gradual change once resources and space becomes limited.
ReplyDelete2. Well, natural selection is the act of stamping out the negative traits in favor of ones that are more successfull and malleable with the environment, however now that human's are at the top of the food chain and have such things as medicine, healthcare and no natural predators, this process has, in my opinion, transferred to more of an economically successful process instead of an environmentally successful one. The people that deny that global warming and overpopulations an issue, become successful through taking advantage of this even though the society as a whole suffers.
3. The ability to breed is the foundation of life, it is not only a basic human right but a fundamental necessity. However i am with Hardin in that we must check the validity of the universal declaration of human's rights, and revise it's views on this matter. The choice should not be completely in the hands of the family, i believe there should be some kind of legal limit. China has already done this with the bar set at one, (later dropped to two) and while sparking outrage also led to a decrease in population.
3rd answer is great Beck. Exactly what I was thinking.
Delete
ReplyDelete1. Even though Hardin has a negative opinion regarding the population problem, I can’t help but agree with his opinion that suggesting an idea to the population won’t make a difference. The reality is, the majority of people are going to continue doing what is comfortable for them. Without strict laws and specific prohibitions, people will most likely continue to live their lives, ignoring the “unenforced appeal” and go about their lives in the way that they want.I think that when it a suggestion is given on how people should live their lives, and when not everyone is abiding by the same suggestion, it is more difficult for there to be an overwhelming shift in ideology or attitude.
ReplyDelete2. Hardin touches on the idea that most people aren’t going to change their destructive behavior if it doesn’t affect them directly. It’s easy to deny that a serious problem exists when the negative effects don’t personally affect your life. People will continue to consume resources, most of the time more than they need, and not think twice about it because they aren’t the ones experiencing the consequences. I agree with Hardin in that people have a tendency to naturally self-destruct. With everyone in denial about serious environmental and social issues, they aren’t able to prevent their own deathbed. Ignorance is bliss until it bites you in the butt.
3. I think it’s a pretty messed up idea that any given person has the right or authority to tell someone else that they have or don’t have permission to reproduce. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that a limit on children might be a sustainable and productive idea. I don’t think people would ever allow, at least in the United States, a government institution to control how many kids they are allowed to have. It’s a complicated situation because in order to control population, laws on how many children allowed would be a good idea but it’s a morally conflicting solution.
1. People are always concerned about what directly affects them in the present, and not nearly as much for the future of themselves or the place they live and take resources from. This is a huge problem when it comes to overpopulation, and I completely agree with what Hardin says about it. The entire population of the human race will not simply change there mind because of an attempt to change the morals of a problem which does not directly influence them at the time being. Changing our ideologies and making it well known that over population is a huge issue is a start, but there will always be opposition an resistance, and I believe the issue of over population will not get better unless a high majority of society is on board.
ReplyDelete2. The natural selection that Hardin is talking about in this statement are the consequences that will happen to everyone if we do not do something quickly about problems such as overpopulation. Of coarse when tackling a problem that is this huge, people make excuses and hide the fact of the problem. This is a big part of problem, because i guarantee there are plenty of people who say, "yeah it's a huge problem, but there's nothing I can do about it." Then they will say something like, "And it's not like it will affect me in my lifetime." I completely agree with Hardin, because sooner than we know overpopulation will be directly effecting us and we will not be ready for it.
3. Regarding his statement that freedom to breed is intolerable, I think that is not shallow or narrow minded at all, but simply unrealistic. It is a perfectly understandable statement in my opinion based on where we are as human race and how big an issue overpopulation is, but no one thinks that way because of what they want to accomplish in there personal life. I will totally admit that I would like to have children when I am older, as it is one of the main things humans want. At the same time I definitely think that there needs to be a limit on how many kids you can be allowed to have, to at least help the issue of overpopulation a little without destroying peoples rights and goals. So I agree with the idea of where he is coming from in that statement, it is just far too extreme and unrealistic for me to agree with the statement right out.
1)I agree with Hardin, I feel like in our society people are havin kids at a rate that won't be sustainable. People don't really think about over population while getting news that your about to have a kid, like who would? Having a kid should be a happy time, not a time to think about the overpopulation of the earth. Except there is a problem of overpopulation that needs to be addressed. Our society isn't just going to change over night. There would have to be some serious movements to change the way we think. Imposing laws on child birth would have too much backlash from the people. The best way to change this and not starting a revolution is by changing the culture.
ReplyDelete2) I feel like the point that Hardin is trying to make is that we use to much without thinking long term. If we thought long term, that would most likely deter people from living crazy lavishing lifestyles. But, we do not. We take and take until there is nothing left, not thinking about the effects on the environment. Modern society is only thinking about the short term, when we should be focusing on long term.
3) In a sense Hardin is correct, but there are a lot of variables that he does not account for. This is a very narrow minded way to veiw this topic. It shouldn't end up where you can only have a certain amount of kids and if you exceed that limit you receive consequences. I don't believe that there should be laws, I feel like people should be educated though. People know about overpopulation, they just don't know the harm it is causing the environment.
1). Hardin’s argument seems reasonable and I agree with it. I find it reasonable mainly, because people don’t just change how they live immediately. Yeah, maybe some would because they know it’s for the greater good and it could help the world. But most people I believe would put their themselves and their wants first before the well being of others in the population.
ReplyDelete2). I think what Hardin means by this is that people can constantly use and abuse the resources they have around them to live a better and more happier life than the people who cannot. If everyone did this, this would definitely hurt the population but they may not be able to realize this. This is because they are in a mindset where they think that if they don’t have any problems, no one else will. But they are just actually hoping that others will take action to help the world, but with so many people putting themselves in front of others, resources will soon deplete.
3). Hardin’s argument may be intolerable is because it isn’t including the factor that people have desires and wants for family and children. I do think it is a good idea but many people would resist this change and people could not be able to put it right into action. Hardin’s view will create problems due to the fact that the population cannot have birth restrictions with a large amount of the population against it.
1) Hardin’s argument surrounding the population problem in my opinion is true. Looking at our civilization in general we don’t give each other enough credit for how selfish we are. People are unwilling to adapt and change their lives to the population problem and I find no fault in that. Having a child is a huge part of human life and something many people want to do. The inability for people to see the long term consequences over their short term desires lead us down an inescapable path. His argument does leave out changes in attitudes and ideology over time, but I can not see a majority change in attitude to have a serious impact on population control
ReplyDelete2) Hardin’s opinion on natural selection describes how those who deny the consequences of their actions and only focus on the things in their life that will derive the greatest utility and prosperity will be the one’s to survive. Hardin’s opinion saddens me, because when I analyze it I see that he is right. Those who look after themselves before anyone else will survive. This is very unsettling for me, because this is not the type of world I want to live in. I agree with Hardin on his opinion, because in reality it is true, however in my hypothetical human civilization this would not be true. I stand behind the idea that putting the needs of others in front of yourself will create the best not only for yourself, but for all.
3) At first I thought that his argument that the freedom to breed is intolerable was completely incorrect. I believe that every human should be able to breed if they want to. It is very difficult for me to visualize a world where something as basic as having offspring could be regulated and controlled. However looking at the reasoning behind his argument I don’t necessarily believe that the freedom to breed is intolerable, but I do think it may become impractical at some point in the future. If we allocate the freedom to breed to everyone people will keep making babies. As Hardin pointed out people will always look to their self interests over the best interest of the entire population. This non-stop population growth will not stop even when we have reached our optimal global population. In order to sustain healthy and prosperous human life and civilization, it may be necessary at some point to set limits on how many kids a family can have.
Sorry for turning this in late. I simply thought the due date was on the 14th. Won't happen again.