Garrett Hardin discusses that we only focuses on the
technical solution of a problem even if these technical solutions make
situation worst and no one never demands any change in human’s values or ideas
of morality. A change in these is more important than the one brought through science,
strategies or even by economics. He did an argument on the freedom to “breed”
on the basis of morality though it is always regarded as a very paradoxical
argument. A very realistic and truthful premise has been taken that the
population is growing exponentially but on the other hand the resources are
very limited and finite. This deduces that how much a person is dependent on
the motherland for its survival and the augmentation of generations here on
planet earth. The application of the rule of common argues that the use of the
breeding rights is a common good and those who are overusing it are propelling us
towards the extinction. If people
recognize and understand about the conscience of gene pool and also the
morality about the responsibility of not to use the commons as a consequence of
it only large breeder families will be left on the motherland. Therefore, the solution
to this enigma is to acknowledge and accept that “breeding” is not to be
considered as a freedom or a right. It is similar to the case if a society
decides that robbery is not a right, we all become more free; similarly, using
the powers of government administration, it will be easy to regulate individual
family decisions and it will make us all more free.
Taking it into account from economic point of view leaving
morality grounds aside, the most glaring error he made was that laissez faire
economics does not apply to this situation and also does not give the incentive
towards smaller families. By 1970s, urban families started bearing less number
of children as compare to rural areas. The reason behind it was that parents in
developed areas and countries chose fewer kids because for them kids are a very
expensive investment whereas for rural children are a very beneficial
investment in terms of work and running a family. So does it mean Hardin is
wrong in the perspective of overpopulation with respect to economics?
1 comment:
What needs to be brought into people's attention is that one of the principle economic issues for any nation with an overpopulation issue is the deficiency of food, minerals, fuel and different resources. This applies especially to underdeveloped nations where harvest disappointment and famine are successive. Populations which make due on subsistence farming are especially seriously hit, as without their products and creatures they will starve. Such individuals are just ready to bolster themselves in the most fundamental way, and don't have extra cash to pay charges with. The consequence of this kind of overpopulation is that there is no cash in the nation's kitty or treasury to give social security, pensions or a fundamental health administration for a blossoming population.
Post a Comment