Why Are So Many Fisheries Over Exploited And Why Have Policy Makers Struggled

Throughout history there have been many examples of tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons is when people in a certain area over exploit a common resource which leads toa higher problem. Tragedy of the commons normally happens when people get greedy and get more than they really need. For example, if one farmer is public grazing area were to add a cow over the limit the field can sustain it won’t do much damage but if the other farmers also add another cow to the field it could end up harming it to the point where it is no longer usable.This comes to show that if even a single person becomes greedy it could ruin so many things for other people. Ideas will be pulled out from Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” to be used in this essay.

In 1974, Human Ecology Professor Garrett Hardin published his work Lifeboat Ethics: a Case against Helping the Poor. Throughout his essay Hardin uses rhetoric to defend his stance on how helping the poor doesn’t help anyone in the long run. He believes that aiding the poor actually hurts everyone globally. Hardin breaks his essay down between two major topics: food aid and immigration. Hardin argues that if rich counties provide food to poor ones, the poor countries will slowly drain the entire system and deplete all of the surplus food; and he also argues that if we were to allow open immigration to wealthy countries from poor counties we would ruin the environment because we would put an additional strain on the land to produce food and in order to increase food production we would need to clear other land, eliminating other resources we need. In order to back his argument Hardin uses the rhetorical devices logos and ethos.

This market failure exists because the market price for Bluefin Tuna undervalues the full social cost of unrestricted consumption of this once plentiful fish. When negative environmental externalities exist, the private equilibrium price and quantity, as determined by free market supply and demand, is not the same as the social equilibrium. Since social costs are not priced into the individual or organization decision making, when accounting for the intrinsic costs to society (see graph 1), the socially efficient quantity while decline and the socially efficient price will increase. Because overfishing is so widespread and pervasive, coordinated global intervention is necessary through a combination of market-based corrective policies in order to adequately address this market failure.

At first Hardin’s ethics seem rude and selfish, but as you continue reading he makes it clear this may be the only way to save our world and have it become a better place. For instance, "on the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. If the poor countries received no food from the out side, the rate of their population growth […]" (Hardin 4). Hardin continues his piece explaining why rich countries should not help poorer countries that are in need. He believes a poor country that needs support needs to learn the hard way, even if that means losing resources or people. His words like "rich countries", "no food" shows the use of a metaphor that Hardin is able to paint a visual illustration of his argument to his audience. This helps influence and persuade his readers because they are able to grasp the whole concept of Hardin’s argument. Hardin also spoke in his essay using the repetition of the words "we" and "us" is a language factor that persuades the audience to accept Hardin’s ideas because it implicates that he and his audience is of equal status. Here, the ethics he reveals in his essay have good reasoning. Helping someone in need has always been a moral in someone’s life. But now, Hardin proposes a new ethic, "lifeboat ethics". Singer, on the other hand, often refers to the fact that nearly one-third of Americans spend their income on luxuries that they “desire” instead of donating the

Hardin's complex dexterity of petrifying diction is brought to a halt when compared to the scientific diction seen in Durning's article. Hardin's nauseating, fear-provoking diction is rendered in the same passage mentioned in the previous paragraph; the unequivocal author uses words such as: "swamps," "drowns," and "catastrophe" (Hardin, 477). All of these words are associated with devastation and misfortune as Hardin tries to point out our suffering as a result of caring for the poor nations. This is an example of the visceral appeal Hardin employs to scare his audience by having them consider the consequences of not abiding into just letting the still developing nations handle themselves.

In Garrett Hardin’s essay “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor,” Hardin asks readers if every person on earth has an equal share of resources and then argues why he takes the position against helping the poor. Hardin uses the metaphor of a lifeboat that is almost filled to capacity, floating in an ocean where the “poor of the world” are overboard. This metaphor appeals greatly to one of humanities greatest instincts, survival. The main focus of Hardin’s essay and metaphor is to strip all morals, take the fault from the rich nations and place the responsibilities and blame on the poor. There are a few rebels who seem to think that the blame and responsibilities are incorrectly placed. One of these rebels is Alan Durning who presents his argument in his essay “Asking How Much is Enough.” Durning argues that overpopulation does not threaten the world’s resources. He believes the real culprit is overconsumption by the rich. Joseph K. Skinner is another rebel who argues against Hardin in his essay “Big Mac and the Tropical Forests.” Skinner argues that wealthy nations, including the United States, are responsible for the world’s resource problem because they use poor nations as main producers of goods they expend. The arguments made in the essays’ by Durning and Skinner make readers alert of Hardin’s rhetorical strategies and how he uses his

Commercial fisheries can do tremendous damage to the marine ecosystem if they are not managed properly. This became apparent in Newfoundland and Labrador during the 1990s, when decades of overfishing caused the northern cod stocks to collapse and resulted in a moratorium on the centuries-old industry. These were huge ecological and economic losses, which dictated an urgent need to change fisheries policy and practice in a way that would make the industry sustainable and protect marine biodiversity.

In the article “ Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”, Garrett Hardin (1974) argues that wealthy people should not be responsible for the poor and that the consequences of feeding the poor are detrimental to the environment and to the society as a whole. Hardin was a well known philosopher and ecologist. He earned his bachelor's degree in zoology from the University of Chicago in 1936 and also earned his doctorate degree in microbiology from Stanford University in 1941 (Garrett Hardin, n.d.). The main issue that he tackled was human overpopulation and one of the books that he wrote that analyzed this issue was called ‘How Global Population Growth Threatens Widespread Social Disorder’(1992). Because the author has a sufficient

Hardin’s lifeboat analogy proposes an interesting situation. If a lifeboat with 50 people on board and a capacity of 60 floated past 100 other people in the water, who would we take, if anyone? If we tried to take everyone, the boat would capsize and everyone would either become stranded or die. It would lead to “complete justice, complete catastrophe” (Hardin 1). If we took no one, we would constantly have to stave off desperate people climbing on board and those who claim entitlement. If we decide to push our lifeboat to its limits, and add 10 more people, how would we choose who to take? What I gather from this is that there’s no truly correct solution. If we take everyone, we all die. If we take no one, we get shamed and blamed for leaving others behind. If we take a select few, we get called out as biased by those who weren’t selected.

According to a study done by Living Planet Report in 2015, 29% of the world’s fishing stocks are considered overfished and an additional 61% is fully exploited with no possibility to produce more fish. Our environment is currently afflicted by a number of different problems, one of which is overfishing. Overfishing is defined by FishOnline as, “Fishing with a sufficiently high intensity to reduce the breeding stock levels to such an extent that they will no longer support a sufficient quantity of fish for sport or commercial harvest.” The overfishing situation is being exacerbated by non-sustainable and destructive fishing practices and unfair fisheries partnership agreements; while there are currently attempts being made at fixing these problems and their effects on overfishing, nothing has been extremely effective.

In contemporary society, human society is progressing rapidly on various fronts. Nevertheless at the same time, the problem of overfishing is becoming increasingly worrisome and attract extensive attention of the society. In this essay, I will address overfishing and propose some possible causes of this phenomenon which can give contribution to some solutions.

The main causes of overfishing are poor fishery management with a lack of regulation, unrestricted access to the ocean and illegal fishing. During the last few decades the demand for edible seafood globally has skyrocketed and the high demand is causing us to overfish to keep up with the demand. Unfortunately, fisherman are catching more fish than can be naturally reproduced. There are only limited regulations in place, which means that fishing companies are basically fishing when and where they want to with out any oversite. Overfishing causes such serious effects such as the ocean life getting knocked out of balance. Coastal communities rely on the benefits of the fishing for social and economic health. When we overfish it

Garrett Hardin was a controversial ecologist who believed that overpopulation was going to bring a downfall to a world of limited resources. Each nation was compared to a lifeboat with the rich being inside the boat and the poor in the water, drowning (Hardin, 561). He wrote the “Lifeboat Ethics” in 1974 when Ethiopia was having a starvation problem. Hardin’s opinion about the situation was that sending aid to Ethiopia was only making the problem worse and by feeding the people would aid overpopulation; the root to the problem. Hardin’s thesis developed from the notion that the rich should do nothing to help the poor. He believed that one

How often do we stop and think about the people that fish to provide the rest of the world with the supply of fish that is in demand. With many fisheries closing down due to poor managing and depletion, anglers are turning to the deep sea to fill their “fish orders”. Large fishing vessels also known as Super Trawlers are dragging fishing nets up to a mile deep. Doing this allows them to catch as many fish as possible, but it is also destroying natural habitat such as coral reefs that have been part of the sea for thousands of years. The effect of this is devastating to sea life.

One solution is to set strict limits to how much fish commercial fishermen can take from the oceans. The limits would be determined by yearly evaluations, and studies of the population of harvestable fish(Koster, 2016). There are already many limits on the amount of fish that can be harvested by fishermen but they are not well enforced or punished. Another solution would be to crack down of fishing boats, and check how much of each fish they have caught. If the fishermen have exceeded their limit the punishment would be much greater than it is now to scare them into not taking more fish than they are aloud(Koster,