In Garrett Hardin's essay he mainly talks about preserving the resources of the world as a whole, and deciding on whether or not we as American (because we are the richest population in the world) at an extreme point in time should share our wealth or just divide the world into rich and poor sections.
He uses the metaphor of a life boat filled with 50 people and room for 10 more, but surrounding them is the entire population of the poor society of Columbia, Ecuador, Morocco, and so on. The 50 people on the boat are all rich Americans, and Hardin asks the reader if they should multiply with the poor people in 3rd world countries or let them die in sea so the rich will primarily prosper.
In addition, he speaks of the different types of people, the ones who feel guilty for taking up space, and the ones who are selfish and only wish to save people like them. In other words, the inconsiderate beat the considerate, and the considerate jump off the boat and put more self-centered people on the boat.
Hardin uses the phrase, "tragedy of commons", giving the example with that concept that if one person owns something, such as a pasture, they care and accept responsibility for it. They know their limitations and if they exceed them they know the consequences will be dire. This metaphor spreads to the life boat example as well. If we allow the poor and the diseased into our boat, what's to stop the boat from sinking and losing our "safety factor" as the higher up rank of society?But with an increased sense of security coming from not taking on all the excess people, it forces the people of higher power to stay on guard against the outnumbering poor people. They could swarm the boat and eventually overwhelm the wealthy, unwilling; Americans and sink the boat, taking not just the suffering, but it would take down everyone. It’s either, save the few, or drown them all. Unfortunately, this may become all too real in the not-to-far away future.
I completely agree with Hardin's points about keeping the riches to themselves. The majority of rich people have worked extremely hard for their wealth and for that they should be allowed to keep for themselves. Besides, they may donate money to charities and are respected and admired for their generosity and their achievements. They give enough, why should we defile their lives because of the lack of work and good deeds the poverty-filled society has been unable to accomplish? The answer is that we should not; it is unfair, unless they are completely willing to sacrifice their entire way of life just to allow 8 or more people to live among them. Although resources are not just money, and so wealth should not always be the ultimate deciding factor in every situation. It definitely guarantees an excellent position if the situation were to arise and the choices from the wealthy will be most considered
