<p>Of course it’s “outdated”! Hardin died in 2003 at 81! He wrote this way back. In the 70s I believe.</p>
<p>Please tell me you guys have studied Hardin at one point or another. Human Geo? TOK? Literature? Philosophy???</p>
<p>The basic metaphor is false. The United States is riding on a giant luxury lifeboat that could easily accomodate more people–thousands upon thousands more. But it would mean giving up some measure of comfort and space to help them, and we don’t want to do that.</p>
<p>If anybody should die, it should be that dude.</p>
<p>Or we should just stop outbreeding dead people and let everyone naturally die off.</p>
<p>Umm we(the u.s) actually DON’T have room for ‘‘thousands and thousands more’’ our economy is in a major slump and a global recession is almost certain in the near future.I totally agree with Hardin.If we bring in more people,they need a way to suppost themselves(jobs) well as it is now millions are being laid off because their jobs are being sent elsewhere or being eliminated all together.since febuary alone over 63,000 jobs have been lost.and with our ‘open door policy’ more immigrants are willing to work for less money,further eliminating more jobs. When we enter recession its going to the worst since ww2.</p>
<p>And for the poster(I forgot) who said the poor stay poor.your right our govt is more of a capitalist govt than a socialist or communist.the ones in power(usually born into it) want to stay in power.</p>
<p>
And do you think this is okay? “Life isn’t fair”? That’s arguable – I’m not saying either answer is wrong; I just want to know what you think. Do you think that in an ideal situation the number of people below the poverty line would be fewest, or do you think that things are okay how they are?</p>
<p>^^ I don’t think it’s fair.i think it’s BS.I think in an idea situation ,people below the poverty line would be few.things are def not ok how they are obv. But our government is so corrupt and worried about other countries and not what’s happening here. However I also do not think TRUE communism would work either.even though True communist never has/will be in existance.I think you need an equal balnce but in the past few decades capitalism has taken over.I think as a country we should help each other and use our right to overthrow a govt when they fail you.and no im not sayiing ‘its all bush’s falt’ a lot of the things happening now have been in a rolling effect since the late 80’s(although he didn’t help & is a quack lol)…sorry so long hehe</p>
<p>“Umm we(the u.s) actually DON’T have room for ‘‘thousands and thousands more’’ our economy is in a major slump and a global recession is almost certain in the near future.I totally agree with Hardin.If we bring in more people,they need a way to suppost themselves(jobs) well as it is now millions are being laid off because their jobs are being sent elsewhere or being eliminated all together.since febuary alone over 63,000 jobs have been lost.and with our ‘open door policy’ more immigrants are willing to work for less money,further eliminating more jobs. When we enter recession its going to the worst since ww2.”</p>
<p>I don’t mean ACTUALLY letting them into the country, I mean letting them into the figurative lifeboat of privilege. Like, maybe stop spending upwards of a trillion dollars on a worthless war and giving the help and resources to people–in our country and outside of it–who need it.</p>
<p>I agree. When my friend challenged the feasibility of large-scale social reform aimed at eliminating poverty, he asked me where the government would get the money. I said that I wouldn’t mind taking a couple billion out of our armament funds, to which he replied: “True… I wouldn’t mind cutting it in half.”</p>
<p>I think the author should be deprived of food for two weeks.</p>
<p>The planet will balance itself soon enough, just like it has for the past 3 or so billion years there’s been life on it. Too many people on it? Hang tight, some epic disaster will sort everything out in due time.</p>
<p>I think it’s pathetic that we give our high-ranking politicians and athletes tens of millions of dollars and then they go and spend it on drugs and vices, while we let our poor starve. </p>
<p>Do I believe in pure communism? No, but there is something wrong with this picture.</p>
<p>this reminds me remarkably of ebeneezer scrooge. “then let them die, and decrease the potential mugger population.” (the christmas carol will always be one of my favorite stories)</p>
<p>don’t kill the poor people. kill the fat ones, and use their carcasses as substitution for animal fertilizer. we may also consider burning the rich stored fat as a substitution for fossil fuels. and its practically a plentiful (if not unlimited) resource! i mean, america has the highest rate of population for fat people, right? fat people are also bad for our economy. they force designers to make plus size clothing, they require bigger bathtubs (taft), toilets, car seats, and to spend lots of revenue on useless dieting crazes. kill the fat people, and maybe the healthy ones will have incentive not to become fat, and maybe america will become a healthier nation.</p>
<p>The problem is, it would be best for their numbers to be…decreased, but saying this causes everyone to go in an uproar. Usually, it’s the most self-important humanitarians who are the loudest. I’d say more, but there’s a time for that…</p>
<p><em>awaits flames</em></p>
<p>People are so eager to say that the poor do not deserve their lot, and yet I doubt anyone would be happy were the poor suddenly paid four times what they currently make, and the costs were passed directly on to the consumers. We like being able to buy things, including food, at low prices, and those low prices are directly attributable to the low wages paid to the people who produce our consumer items. </p>
<p>I just have to say, were there free abortion clinics and free birth control available to everyone in the world, a great deal of the human suffering caused by overpopulation could be dramatically decreased.</p>
<p>Once you’re born into this world, you’re entitled to just as many rights and resources as the smug suburbanite who feels you should be extinguished. </p>
<p>Though, I do agree that abortions/birth-control need to be utilized much, much more.</p>
<p>Without poor, you don’t have rich.</p>
<p>I live in an overpopulated country. About 80 million people in about 1% of the total area. I’d say the thread title is a good idea.
The main reason there are so many people is because people just don’t bother to use protection. So each married couple has at least 16 kids.
So I say, if you can’t educate them (which people have tried and failed to do for the past 20 years or so) then just wait till they die out. (which is also unrealistic if each guy has 16 kids in a lifetime)</p>
<p>lulz I always assumed social darwinism was like santa and nobody actually believed in it :D</p>
<p>you were obviously mistaken.</p>
<p>The author I think doesn’t know real economics.</p>
<p>Wealth isn’t zero-sum, guys. The lifeboat analogy is flawed because the lifeboat is always getting bigger.</p>
<p>Usually what is happening is that you have factors that are contributing to inefficient production.</p>
<p>India hasn’t outlived its carrying capacity – with adequate technology (of today!) you can feed hundreds of millions using land the size of Rhode Island. High-density farming – fish farms, high-density hydroponics, high-density live poultry warehouses … in Singapore we produce 35-45% of our own food supply (without import) even though we’re nearly 100% urban – quite good for a city-state. Give us a 100 more square kilometres we could be self-sufficient (but of course it wouldn’t be in our comparative advantage).</p>
<p>If for example world food prices shot up such that imports became less attractive, we could easily produce our own food.</p>