Ines Massart (s0214734)
23/02/2024
Short Task for Seminar - between 300 and 400 words - deadline February 23th, 16h00
Read the article by Hardin on the lifeboat ethics and think about the story he's telling. Address as
many of these questions as you feel like:
Where is Hadin's positionality and why is it relevant/irrelevant?
Where do you stand in the story? Why?
Who else is there and why?
Why are you standing where you are and the others where they are?
How are your position and that of the others linked?
Thinking about the solutions, what is Hardin not considering and what shall be
considered?
My answer:
The text talks about comparing Earth to a spaceship and raises ethical questions about how we use
resources, handle immigration, and provide aid to other countries. It compares the ethics of treating
Earth like a spaceship, where resources are limited and tough decisions must be made, with those of
a lifeboat. In a lifeboat scenario, with limited resources, difficult decisions must be made to survive. It
suggests that without strong global rules and careful ethical thinking, our survival might depend on
adopting tough but necessary ethics similar to those of a lifeboat.
Hadin focuses mainly on promoting responsible use of resources and controlling population growth.
He stresses thinking about the future and making sure Earth's resources can last, which I think is
significant, especially for future generations.
On the other hand, intuitively I feel what he is doing is unjust and irrelevant: he misses an important
part of his narrative namely human rights. He focuses on population control and limiting aid which
contradicts humanitarian principles. He neglects to address equality and justice for the people who
are living now on this earth and doesn’t treat this people as their ends.
I feel Hardin has a very pessimistic view of the future and I believe that he could also take another
more optimistic perspective and a more Kantian perspective. I would seek to strike a balance
between meeting immediate humanitarian needs (taking human rights into account), treating people
who are now living on this planet with their full dignity, and also safeguarding the health and
sustainability of the planet.
He underestimates human capacity such as technological innovation. He assumes that technology will
not advance. Yet, new developments such as renewable energy sources and sustainable agriculture
techniques offer potential solutions to help the planet and redistribute more efficiently and
sustainably.
Lastly, he overlooks the resilience of the population. Increasing movements like veganism, the
preference for second-hand clothing, and the desire for fewer children indicate a growing awareness
and action toward addressing these issues. While spreading this mindset may take time, I firmly
believe it could eventually become the new norm, shaping both public opinion and influencing
governmental and corporate practices.
23/02/2024
Short Task for Seminar - between 300 and 400 words - deadline February 23th, 16h00
Read the article by Hardin on the lifeboat ethics and think about the story he's telling. Address as
many of these questions as you feel like:
Where is Hadin's positionality and why is it relevant/irrelevant?
Where do you stand in the story? Why?
Who else is there and why?
Why are you standing where you are and the others where they are?
How are your position and that of the others linked?
Thinking about the solutions, what is Hardin not considering and what shall be
considered?
My answer:
The text talks about comparing Earth to a spaceship and raises ethical questions about how we use
resources, handle immigration, and provide aid to other countries. It compares the ethics of treating
Earth like a spaceship, where resources are limited and tough decisions must be made, with those of
a lifeboat. In a lifeboat scenario, with limited resources, difficult decisions must be made to survive. It
suggests that without strong global rules and careful ethical thinking, our survival might depend on
adopting tough but necessary ethics similar to those of a lifeboat.
Hadin focuses mainly on promoting responsible use of resources and controlling population growth.
He stresses thinking about the future and making sure Earth's resources can last, which I think is
significant, especially for future generations.
On the other hand, intuitively I feel what he is doing is unjust and irrelevant: he misses an important
part of his narrative namely human rights. He focuses on population control and limiting aid which
contradicts humanitarian principles. He neglects to address equality and justice for the people who
are living now on this earth and doesn’t treat this people as their ends.
I feel Hardin has a very pessimistic view of the future and I believe that he could also take another
more optimistic perspective and a more Kantian perspective. I would seek to strike a balance
between meeting immediate humanitarian needs (taking human rights into account), treating people
who are now living on this planet with their full dignity, and also safeguarding the health and
sustainability of the planet.
He underestimates human capacity such as technological innovation. He assumes that technology will
not advance. Yet, new developments such as renewable energy sources and sustainable agriculture
techniques offer potential solutions to help the planet and redistribute more efficiently and
sustainably.
Lastly, he overlooks the resilience of the population. Increasing movements like veganism, the
preference for second-hand clothing, and the desire for fewer children indicate a growing awareness
and action toward addressing these issues. While spreading this mindset may take time, I firmly
believe it could eventually become the new norm, shaping both public opinion and influencing
governmental and corporate practices.
