Garrett Hardin’s lifeboat argument against helping poor nations states that rich nations are lifeboats full of rich people and poor nations are more crowded lifeboats full of poor people (Class Lecture 10/18/18). This argument is a metaphor of how people in the poor lifeboats fall underwater because of overcrowding and hope to find a rich lifeboat to stay above water. For example, a rich lifeboat has 50 people aboard but can hold 60. If there are 100 poor people underwater, how should the people on the rich lifeboat deal with the situation? There are three options that can be considered in this scenario, unlimited sharing, selective sharing, and no sharing at all. Unlimited sharing would allow all 100 people on the boat resulting in 150 passengers total with a carrying capacity of 60 people (Class Lecture 10/18/18). This leads to a complete disaster because the boat sinks causing the people to drown. Another option is to have selective sharing where only 10 of the 100 are allowed on to meet the 60-person carrying capacity. The problem with this philosophy is finding out how the 10 people would be selected. Should they be selected by first served, those who are neediest, or the best people? What would be told to the other 90 people who don’t make the cut? The decision that is made would be arbitrary because of the randomness of the selection. The last option would be to not allow any additional passengers so those on the lifeboat will survive because allowing everyone on would result in a disaster (Hardin, Ch.14, p.643). This is the option that Hardin argues for with issues that occur in the real world.
Two objections of Hardin’s argument state that an increased understanding of technology can be used to transcend the carrying capacity of a country and even if someone is a part of the carrying capacity there is a chance he or she won’t survive. In this paper, I will explain why I believe Hardin’s Lifeboat argument is convincing and state the two best objections and give a response for why they are not convincing.
The first objection to Hardin’s Lifeboat argument deals with how humans might be able to transcend restrictions on carrying capacity with technology. The scientific advancements of mankind should be able to solve the majority, if not all of the problems damaging society (Altland). Hardin compares the poor and rich nations to lifeboats, but with a positive outlook, each country doesn’t have a set number for their carrying capacities. There should be no limit set on overpopulation because of the psychology of humans. The ability to create a larger boat or have a new strategy to fit everyone on one boat should not be underestimated. Even if each country on Earth had a carrying capacity, there is no evidence to prove that the people either on a lifeboat or in a country would survive if they were onboard (Altland). Planes could only fit one person at one point, but that didn’t stop anyone from pushing the limits and making it possible to fit more people. As people become smarter and learn more about innovative technology, they will learn different ways to combat overpopulation in these poor countries.
The second objection states that even if someone is a part of the carrying capacity on a lifeboat or in a country, there is a chance he or she won’t survive. If a natural disaster such as a tsunami hit a lifeboat while rich people were on it, not only would the rich people not make it out alive, but the poor people also would not survive. Hardin believes it’s in the best interest of those on who are on the lifeboat to not allow anyone else on (Class Lecture 10/18/18). Although, it doesn’t matter if there’s 100 people or 5 people on the boat because it would be destroyed regardless. The Black Plague was “unlikely” and resulted in about a third of Europe’s population being killed, but it did happen (Altland). All it takes is one small virus to spread for something that dangerous to happen in a country. In this case, there would be no point in Hardin not letting anyone else on the lifeboat because the rich and poor people all end up in an unfortunate situation.
The response to the first objection is there is no guarantee that technological advancements can save the people in poor countries. It is too dangerous to put the lives of humans in the hands of technology that hasn’t even been invented. If a nation’s carrying capacity isn’t calculated on time, it might be too late for a carrying capacity to be calculated (Altland). This would make it extremely difficult to keep track of all the people in a country because they are already overpopulated and at risk. New technology might not even be able to solve problems regarding carrying capacity because of how difficult it is to accommodate millions of people in each country.
The second objection is not convincing because the odds of a tsunami hitting a lifeboat that had to be deployed after the ship sunk are not high. This situation is most likely not going to occur because it would be very random, and no one can anticipate an event like this to happen. If something that devastating happened to someone twice in one day, then there is not much they can do to stop it. This example will probably never happen to anyone so there is little reason to worry about an issue like a tsunami hitting a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean. It would take an even more improbable situation for the majority of the population in a whole nation to be wiped.
The lifeboat argument that Hardin employs is convincing because the poor nations will flood the rich boats and not be good for the rich nations. I argued that an increased understanding of technology can be used to transcend the carrying capacity of a country and even if someone is a part of the carrying capacity of a country there is a chance he or she won’t survive. Thus, Hardin’s argument succeeds to provide suitable reasons to trust his lifeboat argument.