According to Hardin’s article, his opinion is right in relation tothe lifeboat. However, he is not so right when it comes to the needof discarding ideas that are connected to what he refers to as“common” (Hardin, 1974). Within the article, it predicts almost911 uses of the Internet that have their own faults, but operates aspart of shared community. Hardens addresses some separation betweenthe rich and poor marked by the aspect of communication technology(Hardin, 1974).
Thesis: according to Hardens, he describes the wealthy nation as thepeople in the lifeboat who are expected to maintain a higher level of“lifeboat ethics.” These ethics are significant but they mayrequire updates (Hardin, 1974). He states stress experienced in theplanet, rules to deal with the wider gap between the rich and thepoor and the realities behind immigration in terms of the economy.Generally, he expresses it that, “lifeboat ethics are set in placeand are required to be set in place to cater for the foreseeablefuture,” (Hardin, 1974). Hardens descriptions appears clear andcorrect, but his opinion about common ideas and the shared technologyare expected to be updated and include the aspect of The Internet(Hardin, 1974).
It is evident that the harsh ethics in the lifeboat are becomingharsher after accounting for the reproductive differences among therich and poor nations. There is significant error related to thespaceship ethics and share it requires where it leads to what isreferred to as “the tragedy of the commons,” (Hardin, 1974).Finally, according to the article, the crowded world that has lessperfect humans, the mutual ruin tends to be inevitable in case thereare no controls. This is what is referred to as the “tragedy ofcommons.”
Hardin, G., (1974 Sept). Lifeboat Ethics: the Case against Helpingthe Poor. Psychology Today.