Freedom to Breed Will Bring Ruin to All - Report Example

Freedom to Breed Will Bring Ruin to All More than two centuries have lapsed since Thomas Robert Malthus, a prominent scholar and cleric inspired debate in the disciplines of demography and political economy. The scholar’s essay on exponential population growth prompted people to think about usage of available resources and how overpopulation could cause their depletion. Despite concerns raised at the time, there are seemingly no measures taken in the larger contemporary society in an effort to limit excessive population growth. Pressure on natural resources continues to mount, and people are increasingly observing the effects of this increment in cases of increased resource-linked conflicts, hiked prices of natural resources like oil, complete depletion of others, and even certain irreversible environmental changes. These are all ascribable to overpopulation to some degree, especially given the fact that the world is habited by a populace that is five times more than that which existed during Malthus’s era and increasing fourfold. This is evident from the fact that the globe supports an annual population increase of about 90 million people (Hardin, 1968, pp. 1245-1247). Another outstanding scholar that has spurred the population debate in recent times is Garrett Hardin, an ecologist renowned for his essay “Tragedy of the Commons.” In this controversial work, the ecologist turned political economist and activist, addresses aspects such as the impact of overpopulation on depletion of common natural resources. This paper provides insight into Hardin’s argument that freedom of procreation is likely to bring destruction to all people in society; examining potential considerations that the scholar took into account to reach this conclusion, as well as, their validity. A principal assertion that introduces Hardin’s literary work is that, every emergent enclosure or restriction of a commonly held pool of resources, which are deemed free or not apportioned by the extant markets, entails infringement of a given person’s personal liberty. This notion serves as a pre-emptive warning that the proposed population regulatory measures are not any different from previous limitations. The author is keen to note that infringements made in the past do not necessarily matter, since modern societies have no control over them. It is the restrictions suggested presently that lead to vigorous opposition and advocacy for freedom and rights. However, Hardin suggests that this freedom may be detrimental to society at large, since people blindly follow the logic that common resources are free, but end up instigating ruin as a result of misusing the commons (Lloyd, 2007, pp. 5809-5812.). The scholar was perhaps prompted to think of this from observing preceding trends of campaigns against a given act, only to see people accept the measure they previously viewed as an infringement of rights, after realizing it is meant for their benefit and that of the greater society. For example, in past eras, people especially in agrarian societies used to get many children, as a sign of prestige. Recommendation of family planning would spur debate and opponents would adamantly argue that it is against the natural course of things. However, as needs increased progressively and people realized the need to regulate family size for enhanced financial stability and possible prosperity, family planning ceased to be a violation to the human right of procreation. This is a credible argument posited by Hardin, since it shows the crucial need for population regulation, only this time the scope of implementation is wider and more intensive (Coase,1960, pp.20-27 ). Hardin goes on to emphasize that the most crucial aspect to take into account in the efforts of population regulation is the desertion of the commons in the breeding or procreation debate. The scholar explicitly states that there are no technical solutions to the potential misery likely to be caused by overpopulation. This is a credible argument, as shown by the continued growth in population numbers despite widespread availability of diverse family planning methods. Other technical measures like implementation of child bearing restriction laws have also been tried in some societies, yet the global populace keeps burgeoning on a yearly basis. It is, therefore, logical for Hardin to reason that the ultimate solution to overpopulation stems from a moral rather than technical perspective. Correspondingly, people must refrain from propagandizing conscience relating to breeding or advocating for continued procreation solely on the basis on purported responsible parenthood. The realization that proposed and extant solutions to population regulation have not been successful thus far is perhaps one of the primary reasons that led Hardin to advocate for a moral-oriented approach. However difficult it might be to accept the scholar’s argument, it is logical that the only way that people can manage to preserve and foster other valuable freedoms is through giving up others like the liberty to procreate (Herring, 2006, pp. 12-17). This is because unless people are coerced to recognize the need for the proposal and take such a step from a personal level, then imposition of technical measures would be virtually ineffective. As a result, the choices of excessive childbearing are likely to impact not just individuals who choose not to relinquish breeding freedom, but also those around them owing to depletion of the commons. The graziers-open pasturage analogy drawn by Hardin clearly illustrates the potential dangers that are likely to occur if individuals are not pressured to make proper childbearing choices. The herdsman in this case is the breeder, while the cattle represent the excessive number of children and overgrazing constitutes the latter’s over consumption and potential exhaustion of common resources. Evidently, Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” provides a distinctive approach to the prevalent population problems that currently affect the globe. The scholar’s perspective provides clear insight into why it is necessary to pressure people in limiting their breeding potential. For instance, Hardin shows the need for public intervention in the issue since in human societies, people are concerned about others’ welfare and depend on each other to avoid common tragedies. The scholar illustrates this, by comparing human civilizations to birds. The latter are capable of hatching numerous nestlings and they also look for food to guarantee survival of their offspring. However, if birds fail to get food for their young ones, they eventually die, thus effectively controlling population growth. The same would apply in cases of parents that bear numerous children and end up failing to adequately provide for them. It is imperative to take note of the fact that if every human family unit depended solely on its resources, if the kids died of starvation and if population was placed in check by such an occurrence, then society involvement in regulating breeding would not be necessary. This is, however, not the case, since people tend to look out for each other. It is only logical that the society should be involved in regulating breeding in families, since we all share the care burden and are likely to suffer in unison from the commons’ tragedy. Hardin’s preceding argument is perchance attributable to acknowledgement of the fact that, it is extremely difficult to deal with distinguishable, yet cohesive groups within a welfare state. It is not an easy task to specifically ask diverse social classes, families, races or religions and other groups, to stop over breeding, while they might use procreation as an act of increasing their wealth, prestige, power or scope of influence. This necessitates inception of common regulatory measures that apply to all people in a given society irrespective of their distinguishing attributes. Further, failure to take such a corrective measure and instead perpetuate notions such as, everyone has the freedom to procreate, and every individual born has equal rights to the common resource pool, places the world on a tragic path towards over population and ultimate resource exhaustion. This emphasizes the crucial need for breeding and population increase regulation; an aspect that must stem from human behavioral change. An example that would back Hardin’s suggestion concerns the proposed use of technology to counter pollution and enhance energy efficiency. If such technologies run out and humans can no longer increase the capacity of renewable energy, then there would be a significant problem in attempting to meet people’s energy needs. With the hypothetical expiration of technical solutions, humans would only be left with moral solutions to enhancing energy efficiency and combating pollution. The same applies to the subject on population control. It is imperative for people to change breeding habits or entirely forfeit breeding freedom, in order to avoid increasing the global populace to a point where the earth can longer support comfortable human existence due to exhaustion of common resources (Herring, 2006, pp. 19-20). Hardin’s other primary argument that cannot be overlooked, is the self-eliminating nature of human conscience. The scholar is adamant that controlled breeding cannot be achieved in the long term through attempts to appeal to the human conscience. This is because humans have an inherent survival instinct. Hardin considered trends and preceding scholarly information like Darwin’s assertion that the fittest and most persistent in society tend to survive best, in order to reach this conclusion. If people are confronted with pleas to limit procreation, there is a likelihood that those with vulnerable consciences will comply, while the rest would not thus creating a disparity in number of progeny borne, generation after generation. Appealing to people’s consciences would not be effective in restricting breeding or regulating population size, since it is inevitable to have individuals that will not observe the requests. Alternatively, making such appeals sets the foundation for formation of a selective framework that completely eliminates conscience from the human race. This will, in turn, accentuate tragedy of the commons in the long run. These are valid arguments, since they are based on extant scientific information. Hardin argument that “Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all” is supported by numerous human factors. For instance many people have a conscience when dealing with the issue of having more children. The long-term con of the appeal to conscience is enough to condemn it, but also there are extremely serious short-term limitations as well. Many people are condemned for acting responsibly and this has been one of the issue that has led too overpopulation. People do not have the principal to start a family in their own accord but they will listen to other people. This means that conscience contributes highly to what people think and want in terms of having kids. Communication is therefore the key aspect as to which it contributes to the decisions made. Later, consciously or subconsciously, an individual senses the importance of the communications received and that they may contradict with his/her believes. If an individual does not do as told, he/she is condemned and if a person does what he is told he is also condemned for simpleton. This shows that the human nature is a phenomenon that is incomprehensive to many especially when some of the populace is exploiting the commons. This shows that peoples’ freedom to breed has given others a chance to exploit individuals. This is described by Hardinas as the double blind (Ostrom, 2007, pp. 50-57). The double blind can be described as one of the aspects that have been promoted by people’s freedom to breed. This is especially applicable to people with a bad conscience that unable to make their positive decisions. However, the double bind could not be as damaging, but I many case it endangers people’s mental health to the ones that it is applicable. People have not been able to make good decisions when it comes to breeding. It is the responsibility of every person make good decisions in terms of environment and population. If the population is high, there will be a high chance that nobody is going to respect what is people refer to as good decisions. Freedom to breed means that people should have the kind of control which will enable them to live happy but not by making decisions that will have detrimental effects in their future. In the modern world, people should try and make breeding decisions that will not only lead to their success but also improve the environment they are living in. For centuries; many people believed that having more children is a sign of wealth. However, due to the increased living standards, numerous people are trying to make decisions that will not affect their future lives. For instance, family planning has been introduced to make sure that people do not get a lot of children. Overpopulation has affected the commons in diverse ways since these resources are unfairly shared. It is obvious that an individual does not need to have professional training to see the probable issues that will befall one for having more kids than one can handle. There are numerous consequences that people face for following their conscience towards making decisions to breed. People are affected by their decisions and it does not matter if there is a law prohibiting freedom to breed, there are those that will follow their conscience in making the ultimate decision. It is difficult to convince an individual’s that believes in the freedom to breed that one can have a small family that they can comfortably provide for. The freedom to breed is consequential to people that look at life in a different way instead focusing on the imperative life aspects. It does not matter if there is a policy under which people follow. It all depends with the decisions made by such an individual (Meadows, Meadows and Randers, 1992, p. 45). Prohibitory laws are perhaps the best option for such people, but it is extremely difficult to control an individual’s decision that has been induced by conscience. Nowadays, there are numerous talks on responsible parenting and these words are coupled and incorporated in different titles of some of the organizations which are devoted to birth control. In some cases, there are massive propaganda campaigns that have been implemented in order to instill responsibility in positively utilizing the freedom offered to breed. This is because; there are detrimental results if this freedom is abused. However, people should try and understand the real meaning of responsibility. Responsibility does not mean that one s able to provide for the family in the present but it means that one has made decisions that will lead to prosperity of the family in the future. The freedom to breed should offer people a chance to be creative and know how to properly provide for their families. Responsibility is used by many people in an attempt to acquire things for free. However, it is evident that people should work in order to have a better future (Meadows, Meadows and Randers, 2004, pp. 30-33). Conscience appeals have been used by many people to justify their irresponsibility. Hardin rejects the appeals to conscience as a way to protect the commons. He further states that propaganda should not be used because it will not work. This is because the use of propaganda for many people is used as a means of avoiding hard decisions which are required for the future. Hardin’s argument that “Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all” is varied. That is why he states that people should make sure that they abandon the temptation to appeal to autonomous actions with catchphrases such as responsible parenthood. This is why Hardin offers a way to maintain individual responsibility by arguing that, responsibility might be realized via use of new social arrangements which produce responsibility through force. These kinds of coercion will only be achieved by having mutual agreement between the affected individuals. Therefore, education is an imperative aspect that can be used in order to brat the commons logic. Additionally, Hardin outspokenly notes that any form of enclosure can essentially infringe on individual liberty. This is why he further assuages guilt in his audience stating that freedom to breed should be considered by people who recognize its necessity (Young, 2006, pp. 1445-1447). “Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all” is a social arrangement which should focus on enhancing. The conclusion is defensible due to the fact that responsibility arrangements usually create coercion. For instance, a person who steals from a shop considers the shop as commons therefore; people should focus on stopping such occurrences. This cannot be effectively achieved by trying to change or control individuals behavior. Instead people should take actions and define social arrangements which keep it from being a commons. This way we will be able to infringe on the freedom that one has to become a robber. The morality of stealing is predominantly easy to comprehend since people accept complete prohibition of such activities. Therefore, people are able agree in unison that it is bad to steal. However, temperance is also created by coercion. There is need to have focus towards having a good future that will not any form of distress to the environment. Overpopulation is one of the reasons that there are robbers. This is because people are not able to deal with their freedom to breed. This means that the world is overpopulated and the available commons cannot be able to support ever individual. Therefore, they make sure that they get the basic needs by stealing. This evidently depicts that freedom to breed has brought ruin to all because the people that get affected by such things are law abiding citizens (De Graff, Wann and Naylor, 2001, p. 56). Recognition of necessity has also plated a huge role in proving that Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. This is because of the fact that analysis of the population issues are the commons. Necessities are crucial to everybody but this can only be available to everybody only under low-population population density. Due to the fact that the human population has grown and is constantly growing, commons have to be abandoned in one or another. For instance, the first thing which happens is people focus more on food gathering and enclosed farm. Additionally, land for pasture becomes restated as well as the hunting areas and fishing regions. Overpopulation caused by the freedom to breed has therefore restricted numerous aspects throughout the world. It is evident that there are no places to dispose garbage. This means that the freedom to breed has also affected the environment in a huge way. Restrictions on disposal areas for domestic sewage show that overpopulation has really affected the way the nation operates (Revelle and Revelle 1992, pp. 32-39). This means that pollution has also been increased by the freedom to breed. Therefore, there is need to facilitate individuals discipline towards attainment of a better future. Most importantly, there is need for people to recognize the imperativeness of valuing the commons by reducing breeding. This is because of technical solutions can be utilized to rescue the world from miseries caused by overpopulation. Otherwise, it is evident that freedom to breed will bring ruin to all. Presently, so as to avoid hard decisions numerous individuals are contemplating propagandizing conscience, as well as, responsible parenting. However, this should not be allowed to follow their conscience. This is because of the simple fact that freedom leads to necessity recognition. This means that education should be emphasized in revealing the necessity of abandoning freedom to breed. It is by doing so, that people have the capability to end the rising tragedy of the commons. In conclusion, Hardin offers a solution by stating that people should find ways of legitimatizing needed authority of corrective feedbacks both, as well as, custodians. This means that people should focus on maintain a properly maintained environment. The freedom to breed does not mean that people should not make the right decision towards conserving the world. Overpopulation is a factor that has affected the world at large and this can only be changed if people could start focusing more on taking responsibility on their freedom to breed. Bibliography Coase R. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1): pp. 1-44. De Graff,,J.,Wann, D.,and Naylor, T. 2001.Affluenza: The all Consuming Epidemic. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc, San Francisco. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248. Herring, H. 2006. Energy Efficiency: A Critical View. Energy 31, pp. 10-20. Lloyd. B. 2007. The Commons revisited: the Tragedy Continues. Energy Policy 35, pp.5806–5818. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D.L. and Randers J. 1992. Beyond the Limits. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Meadows, D., Meadows, D., and Randers, J. 2004. Limits to Growth: the 30 year update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Ostrom, E. 2007. Challenges and growth: the development of the interdisciplinary field of institutional analysis. Journal of Institutional Economics, 3 (3): pp. 239–264. Revelle,P., and Revelle C. 1992. Global Environment: Securing a Sustainable Future. Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett Pub. Young, R. 2006. Sustainability: From Rhetoric to Reality through Markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14, pp.1443-1447. Read More