Dr. Garrett Hardin: Overpopulation, Survival and Morality

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

PLOWBOY: In recent years many ecologists have tried to explain the earth's limited energy resources by comparing the planet to a spaceship, using Kenneth Boulding's ''Spaceship Earth" metaphor. In your writing, however, you've developed the image of a group of lifeboats ... as opposed to a single spaceship. Would you explain the significance of these two different metaphors?

HARDIN: My intention, when I wrote ''Living on a Lifeboat", was to subdivide the world again, so to speak. It seemed to me that the phrase "spaceship earth" was dangerous, as it implied that we were all passengers on one ship and had an equal right to the ship's resources ... which, of course, sets up a picture of a worldwide Commons. By adopting the metaphor of a number of lifeboats—one for each nation—I was able to imply that the people on each of these small crafts are responsible for themselves and should not expect handouts—even if those donations mean survival itself—from the other boats around them.

PLOWBOY: In his review of The Limits of Altruism Paul Ehrlich proposed an alternate image ... with the rich countries on luxury liners and the poor nations in lifeboats that may soon be equipped with nuclear torpedoes.

HARDIN: I'd have to disagree with the value of that metaphor because it is, I think, misleading. For one thing, We threat in that image—posed by the torpedoes—seems to imply a danger of war or terrorism ... and these two possibilties are not the most significant hazards that we face.

It is virtually impossible, today, for a poor nation to afford an invasive war ... which is, I assume, the danger that Paul's metaphor alludes to. After all, the United States got clobbered when it tried to fight within the territory of the impoverished country of Vietnam ... so how is a poor nation to successfully attack the shores of a wealthy land? We don't, in fact, have to worry about the possibility of attack from the poorer countries ... nuclear torpedoes" or not.

Terrorism, however, is another kettle of fish. An act of terror only requires a few people with limited funds, and it can do great harm ... as we've all too often seen. The only answer to this sort of attack is police action. In other words, you cannot buy a terrorist off any more than you can pay a blackmailer, because he or she will come back again and again.

Instead, you must simply institute whatever safety measures are necessary ... like the inspections that are held at airports today. And, if the problem continues, the passenger checks will have to be made more stringent. These are po lice measures: They're all objectionable and none of them works perfectly ... but they do function well enough to allow us to survive the threat of terrorism.

No, the dangers ahead are not primarily those of either war or terrorist attack. The greatest risk we face lies in not making each lifeboat responsible for its own occupants.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print