LIFEBOAT ETHICS

(demanded by considerations of “carrying capacity”)

Neo-Malthusian assumption: utilitarianism and all practical ethics and sound public policy must be sensitive to limitations on possibilities of happiness imposed by the environment.

[See P. Singer, p. 35, “the best means of preventing famine, in the long run, is population control.”]

G. Hardin: Over the long run, happiness is reduced by aid.

Fact: It does seem most probable that there is a limit of “carrying capacity” for the earth. See Bill McKibben, “Reaching the Limit.”

“Carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals that can be supported without degrading the natural, cultural, and social environment, i.e., without reducing the ability of the environment to sustain the desired quality of life over the long term.” (The Carrying Capacity Briefing Book, quoted by McKibben, p. 2.)

Historical note: The economist Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) predicted periodic famine on the basis of human fertility outpacing production of food.

Key factual question, McKibben, p. 2: “How many of us, living at what level, can the planet support?”

G. Hardin’s arguments

First learn the logic of the puzzle known as:

Prisoner’s Dilemma

	B confesses	B does not confess
A confesses	15 yrs each	A 5 yrs, B 30
A does not confess	A 30 yrs, B 5	Both walk: 0

This is parleyed by Hardin (and others) into the notion of the:

Tragedy of the Commons

	A acting alone	A cooperating
B acting alone	environmental depletion	advantage to B ® depletion
B cooperating	advantage to A ® depletion	conservation

Hardin (p. 8) ® system of the commons to be replaced by a responsible system of control

Consider “public goods” such as air and water.

Next a different argument, with a different conclusion (Hardin, pp. 8-9): the inefficiency of government bureaucracies as opposed to markets.

Example: Grain sales through U.S public law 480 (P.L. 480).

Hardin (p. 9): “The implementation of P.L. 480 required the creation of a vast Government bureaucracy, which then acquired its own vested interests in continuing the program regardless of merits.”

The economic argument: markets (with an “invisible hand”) allocate resources better (maximizing total production) than central planners.

QUESTION FOR REFLECTION: Does the economic argument apply to education, basic health care, and what economists sometimes call “infrastructure” (roads, airports, etc.)?

Now for something still different.

Lifeboat ethics:

If a boat’s carrying capacity is exceeded, everyone dies.

What policies should the people on board adopt towards people wanting to board?

What towards people drowning?

Hardin ® To help threatens the people on board (and, furthermore, does not aid in the long run the drowning). Therefore, beneficence towards people in the overpopulated countries of the “Third World” is not morally permissible.

“. . . poor countries will not learn to mend their ways and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow [if food is given to relieve famine]” (p. 10).

See the reconstruction of the argument by W. Aiken, WHM, p. 17.

Challenge by W. Aiken: “To what extent do the models or analogies hold with respect to nations?”

QUESTION: How does Aiken’s position differ from Singer’s?

Political boundaries ≠ ecological boundaries

Possible counter by Hardin and co. à consider continents and natural boundaries (mountains, etc.) along the “fault lines of civilizations”

A vehicle’s “carrying capacity” ≠ biological “carrying capacity”

There is nevertheless a limit (see the quotation from McKibben above).

Socioeconomic facts ≠ biological facts

There are biological and other natural limits to human prosperity.

etc.