But not all countries have such reluctant leadership. Most educated Hawaiians, 40 for example, are keenly aware of the limits of their environment, particularly in terms of population growth. There is only so much room on the islands, and the islanders know it. To Hawaiians, immigrants from the other 49 states present as great a threat as those from other nations. At a recent meeting of Hawaiian government officials in Honolulu, I had the ironic delight of hearing a speaker, who like most of his audience was of Japanese ancestry, ask how the country might practically and constitutionally close its doors to further immigration. One member of the audience countered: "How can we shut the doors now? We have many friends and relatives in Japan that we'd like to bring here some day so that they can enjoy Hawaii too." The Japanese-American speaker smiled sympathetically and answered: "Yes, but we have children now, and someday we'll have grandchildren too. We can bring more people here from Japan only by giving away some of the land that we hope to pass on to our grandchildren some day. What right do we have to do that?"
At this point, I can hear U.S. liberals asking: "How can you justify slamming the door once you're inside? You say that immigrants should be kept out. But aren't we all immigrants, or the descendants of immigrants? If we insist on staying, must we not admit all others?" Our craving for intellectual order leads us to seek and prefer symmetrical rules and morals: a single rule for me and everybody else; the same rule yesterday, today and tomorrow. Justice, we feel, should not change with time and place.
We Americans of non-Indian ancestry can look upon ourselves as the descendants of thieves who are guilty morally, if not legally, of stealing this land from its Indian owners. Should we then give back the land to the now living American descendants of those Indians? However morally or logically sound this proposal may be, I, for one, am unwilling to live by it and I know no one else who is. Besides, the logical consequence would be absurd. Suppose that, intoxicated with a sense of pure justice, we should decide to turn our land over to the Indians. Since all our other wealth has also been derived from the land, wouldn't we be morally obliged to give that back to the Indians too?
Pure Justice vs. Reality
Clearly, the concept of pure justice produces an infinite regression to absurdity. Centuries ago, wise men invented statutes of limitations to justify the rejection of such pure justice, in the interest of preventing continual disorder. The law zealously defends property rights, but only relatively recent property rights. Drawing a line after an arbitrary time has elapsed may be unjust, but the alternatives are worse.
We are all the descendants of thieves, and the world's resources are inequitably distributed. But we must begin the journey to tomorrow from the point where we are today. We cannot remake the past. We cannot safely divide the wealth equitably among all peoples so long as people reproduce at different rates. To do so would guarantee that our grandchildren and everyone else's grandchildren would have only a ruined world to inhabit.
To be generous with one's own possessions is quite different from being generous 45 with those of posterity. We should call this point to the attention of those who,
from a commendable love of justice and equality, would institute a system of the commons, either in the form of a world food bank, or of unrestricted immigration. We must convince them if we wish to save at least some parts of the world from environmental ruin.
Without a true world government to control reproduction and the use of available resources, the sharing ethic of the spaceship is impossible. For the foreseeable future, our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be. Posterity will be satisfied with nothing less.
UNDERSTANDING THE TEXT
Why does Garrett Hardin use the lifeboat as his principal metaphor for the earth? How do "lifeboat ethics" differ from "spaceship ethics"? Does limited carrying capacity really make the earth comparable to a lifeboat? What might the global equivalent of a capsized lifeboat be?
Why does Hardin reject both the Christian and the Marxist formulations for helping the poor? (See the selection from the New Testament, p. 541). Is his argument entirely contrary to Christian principles?
How does Hardin's concept of "the tragedy of the commons" inform this essay? What kinds of "common resources" are compromised by population increases? In what way is the proposed World Food Bank a "commons"?
Why does Hardin believe that increasing food production by genetically altering plants and animals is not a good idea? What does he believe will be the result of increasing the world's food supply to support the current population at a subsistence level?
What resources other than food does Hardin believe people should consider when making decisions about population and immigration? Which of the things he lists are necessities and which are luxuries?
Why does Hardin believe that previous injustices—such as the European conquest of the Americas—are of no practical importance today? Do you agree?
What does Hardin see as the difference between absolute justice and the practical necessities of the real world? Does he see "pure justice" as desirable? What assumptions about morality and immorality does Hardin use as the basis for his ethical argument?
MAKING CONNECTIONS
How accurately does Hardin represent Malthus's arguments about population growth and human poverty (p. 552)?
How well does Hardin counter the arguments of Jesus (p. 541) and Gandhi (p. 560) about the need to help the poor? How do his arguments compare with those of Joseph Stiglitz (p. 594)?
3. To what extent is Hardin's argument a form of Social Darwinism (see the excerpt from "Natural Selection," p. 314)? How would an environment governed by natural selection respond to unchecked population growth within a community?
WRITING ABOUT THE TEXT
Write an essay entitled "The Case for Helping the Poor" in which you rebut Hardin. As possible starting points for your essay, consider the positions of Jesus (p. 541), Gandhi (p. 560), and Simone Weil (p. 571).
Respond positively or negatively to Hardin's view of immigration. Perhaps take the perspective of an immigrant hoping to enter a wealthy country or of a citizen opposed to that immigrant's entrance.
Opponents of population control often argue that the overwhelming catastrophe that Malthus predicted in 1798 and that Hardin predicted in 1974 has not occurred, despite populations having grown at about the expected rates. Write an essay in which you consider whether these facts invalidate Malthusian theory.
Using as much demographic data as possible, determine whether world overpopulation is a serious problem. If not, give evidence and support that it is not; if so, propose a solution.
joseph stiglitz
Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society
[2012]
NOBEL PRIZE-WINNING ECONOMIST JOSEPH STIGLITZ was born in Gary, Indiana, in 1943. He was educated at Amherst College, the University of Chicago, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received his Ph.D. in 1967. In 2001, he shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with two other economists for their work in "the foundations for the theory of markets with asymmetric information." He is currently a professor of Business and Economics at Columbia University in New York City.
In addition to his notable academic work, Stiglitz has had a number of roles in shaping economic policy. He was a cabinet member in the Clinton administration, serving as the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors from 1995 to 1997. From 1997 to 2000, he was the chief economist at the World Bank, and, in 2000, he founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University, a nonprofit foundation and think tank that helps leaders in developing countries think through difficult political and economic challenges.