The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia

Rating:
Summary: Right questions, Wrong answers!
Review: I loved Hardin's previous book, "Living with Limits" which I found hard hitting, concise and spot-on with its criticisms of unchecked population growth. So I started reading "The Ostrich Factor" with high hopes, but was ultimately disappointed. To me the book seemed to consist of long and sometimes rambling justifications for why we must come to accept some restriction on the right of individuals to produce as many children as they want. I had already accepted this proposition which was why I bought the book, and didn't need to be convinced. I was hoping to see a discussion of the different ways that this "democratic coercion" may be applied, and a consideration of the practicalities, ethics and long-term implications of each.

Is it something to do with me not being American? Not that the cult of the individual isn't big in Oz too, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't have any problem with the idea that individual rights cannot continue to run rampant once they start to damage the world that we all depend upon, and obliterate the other species with whom we share it. Surely there are plenty of educated, thinking people who have come to the same conclusion? I found myself frustrated with Hardin's seeming assumption that this was the ultimate taboo which needed to be elaborately justified at every step, at the expense of an in-depth discussion of the practical side of population control.

Good criticisms of current economic theory and immigration policy, but nothing I haven't read before. I finished the book feeling that I was little the wiser about how a large-scale system of "mutually coercive" population control might occur.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn¿t live up to its promise
Review: I loved Hardin's previous book, "Living with Limits" which I found hard hitting, concise and spot-on with its criticisms of unchecked population growth. So I started reading "The Ostrich Factor" with high hopes, but was ultimately disappointed. To me the book seemed to consist of long and sometimes rambling justifications for why we must come to accept some restriction on the right of individuals to produce as many children as they want. I had already accepted this proposition which was why I bought the book, and didn't need to be convinced. I was hoping to see a discussion of the different ways that this "democratic coercion" may be applied, and a consideration of the practicalities, ethics and long-term implications of each.

Is it something to do with me not being American? Not that the cult of the individual isn't big in Oz too, and I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't have any problem with the idea that individual rights cannot continue to run rampant once they start to damage the world that we all depend upon, and obliterate the other species with whom we share it. Surely there are plenty of educated, thinking people who have come to the same conclusion? I found myself frustrated with Hardin's seeming assumption that this was the ultimate taboo which needed to be elaborately justified at every step, at the expense of an in-depth discussion of the practical side of population control.

Good criticisms of current economic theory and immigration policy, but nothing I haven't read before. I finished the book feeling that I was little the wiser about how a large-scale system of "mutually coercive" population control might occur.

Rating:
Summary: Right questions, Wrong answers!
Review: The author pointed out the absurdity of our belief in "sustainable growth". Unfortunately his solutions to the problem is the same as the title of this book--be an ostrich. Hardin just told us to shut the door and go on enjoying our last feast of Malthus.

Rating:
Summary: Some insights among the indirections
Review: The central argument of this book is that we are ostriches with our heads in the sand unable to face our problems because facing them would entail confronting taboo, which is socially and politically impossible (at least within earshot of anybody). But Professor Hardin, who is the author of Stalking the Wild Taboo, finds a way around the forbidden by creating a man from Mars who can be objective where we cannot, allowing Hardin to express the taboo point of view. For example on page 106 he has the Martian say (referring to the organization, Zero Population Growth): "it is virtually unheard of outside the learned community... [I]n the long run, it will decrease the relative number of educated people compared with the uneducated." The Martian adds, "Propaganda in favor of reducing fertility must be accompanied by repressive legal measures... Perhaps the first thing to do would be to cancel income deductions for the third child in a family (and beyond)." Hardin himself obliquely gives his point of view on page 61 with these words, "The natural sciences have probably made it possible for millions--probably not billions--of human beings to live sustainably on the earth."

While I (and the natural resources of the planet) would welcome a world with say six hundred million people as opposed to six billion, I must disagree with the man from Mars about the educated and the uneducated. I suspect, regardless of actual numbers, their proportions would stay approximately the same.

However most of this book is not about overpopulation, but about political and economic issues that Professor Hardin is pleased to expound on. There is the problem of "Equity, Equality, and Affirmative Action" (Chapter 14). As Hardin sees it we really need to understand that "no two human beings are created equal" (p. 109) and that "equity" and "equality" are not the same thing. Exactly how he feels about affirmative action however is never stated directly--indeed little in this book is stated directly. Hardin prefers to hint at his position and let the reader figure it out. Since he gives the (absurd) example of laws mandating "the admission of pygmies to professional basketball teams," I am persuaded that he is opposed to affirmative action.

There are some things he does make clear, but not in a manner likely to persuade. For example, he is opposed to one world government, believing that it would be unstable. In support (surprisingly enough) he quotes Bertrand Russell: "A world state, if it were firmly established, would have no enemies to fear, and would therefore be in danger of breaking down through lack of cohesive force." Why a superstate would necessarily lack cohesive force is never explained. One gets the sense that it somehow has to do with another related Hardin idea, namely that multiculturalism within a single society is unstable. (See Chapter 15.) His argument is that the differing cultures would not be able to agree on how to go about their business peaceably and laws could not be formulated that all cultures would find acceptable. He gives the example of somebody from one culture wanting to drive on the right side of the road and somebody from another wanting to drive on the left. In fact, he gives this example a couple of times.

I am at a loss to appreciate these arguments (and some others in the book). That different people could not be persuaded to agree to drive on one side of the road seems silly. That a superstate could not find enemies for the populace to rally against seems naive. After all we have today the phenomena of the U.S. government directing its energies against drug lords and terrorists with the public firmly behind those efforts, as President Bush's high approval ratings attest. Furthermore, there will always be a counter-culture (in a democratic society) that the majority culture can and will rail against (and vice-versa). But I even question the underlying psychological assumption that a state needs enemies to be cohesive. Historically, governments have sought enemies (both within and without) as a means to solidify their power, but that hardly proves that a state necessarily needs enemies to survive. At any rate, perhaps we can dream up nasty little green men from some distant solar system to hate, if need be.

Hardin's style is somewhat off-putting at first and betrays his long years as a teacher. He makes statements with little or no support that encourage readers to evaluate for themselves, and then later on (after readers have presumably had time to think for themselves), he gives his rationale. (Or he doesn't!) The subject of one chapter is concluded in the next and then reopened in another. He sometimes explains the obvious and then fails to explain the cryptic, as for example he informs us that "philosophy" means "love of knowledge" (p. 31 ), but does not reveal why "adding two more lanes to a highway...ultimately increases traffic jams." (p. 39)

Some of Hardin's sentiments, however, I find quite agreeable. For example, "No one expects the physics of 50 B.C. to tell us how to launch a spaceship. But apparently many people are sure that the 2,000-year-old ethics developed in Near Eastern villages is all we need to solve" our moral problems. (pp. 4-5)

The greatest problem facing the planet today (and the root cause of many other problems) is overpopulation. It is a truth that needs a wider and more emphatic expression. I hope in his next book Professor Hardin concentrates on this urgent problem and leaves the political and economic niceties for others to straighten out.

Rating:
Summary: More than meets the eye
Review: This book has more in it than meets the eye and it infers many things that readers may not pick up on. One of the ideas I thought was useful not just for the population problem but for many other problems that humas are facing his his ideas about all the investments in failure that we are making in many of our "solutions". I think Hardin implies the solution which is that limits have to be set and that our basic ancient mythology which was set at a time when population growth was extreemly useful is now no longer useful. His solution is to argue this point again and again because so many people still have their heads in the sand. Until people can come to some of the realities of our world population problem it is pointless to try to implement any solution which those with their heads in the sand will continue to oppose. His solution is very difficult to swallow for people who are holding on to the ideals of the past which are now fatal so this book is very vital. I like that he leaves it to the inventiveness of the reader to pursue the results of his findings. Details about any of his infered solutions are not in this book. This book is a work of genious from someone who has been in the field of population control for over 30 years. He knows what he's up to. He opens up so many possibilities for creative readers or political thinkers. His ideas on coercion, equality, multiculturalism, and altruism will be invaluable for any solution to take place. This book is just brimming with discussions and it makes for a great book for a class to read and discuss which is what I think Hardin ment it for mostly to be used in his classes and used to launch many discussions. That is why is is so bare in many ways and leaves the conclusions up to the reader. The thing I dislike about the book the most is that the inside cover says "sure to spark controversy." It just goes to show how many in our society have there heads in the sand!

Rating:
Summary: Natural selection should push this book to an early death
Review: When I purchased this book I was looking for insight into why some people believe that human populations can continue to grow indefinetly. I was also hoping for a discussion of the consequences of unlimited population growth. What I found instead was a rambling, poorly organized and unsupported, train-of-thought expounding of one person's ideas.

Hardin is a professor emeritus of "human ecology". Whatever that is it is not a science, at least as Hardin embodies it. Although his book purports to discuss scientific ideas, ideals and the scientific method, he clearly has no real understanding of these concepts. Science is provable (or disprovable), systematic, reproducable and requires support of multiple researchers. Hardin apparently has no respect for these priciples, although he makes references to them. I stopped reading the book, which I found to be a big waste of my time, when I got to the first paragraph of chapter 8. This is what it says:

"Natural selection is an inescapable default position of all biology, and as such calls for no experimental proof. Would human beings with six fingers per hand be superisor to those with five? If this were so, six-fingeredness would soon be the norm of the species. In truth, we deduce natural selection form whatever exists."

If you do not understand the incredible incompetence of such a statement then you should read a book by a biologist on evolution and the theory of natural selection (and some opposing or augmenting theories). If this paragraph strikes you as absurd and irresponsible than you can find better, more reliable sources of information.