@strypey

I read much of Hardin's works, saw him lecture a few times, and even met with him once. I'm not entirely certain of the present take on his immigration stance --- much of that seem either based on 1) associations with others, 2) his later writings (post 1990 or so), and a pretty revisionist take on his earlier (1960s -- 1990) writings. That critique does not seem to have appeared at any point up to the 1990s, or even during his life so far as I'm aware, though I'll grant that views, perspectives, and sensibilities have changed tremendously, my own included.

I do believe that there are people and organisations Hardin was affiliated with which did eventually emerge as racist and anti-immigrant. Again. there were strong shifts in viewpoints and specific statements over time.

But as of the 1968 essay itself ... I think you'd be hard-pressed to make the case.

@Kantolope

2/end/

@mathew I'd roll back a little bit further:

Resources and carrying capacity are ultimately finite.

That to me is his core and foundational premise.

I'm revisiting his essays (I've not read them since the late 1980s / early 1990s for the most part). There are a few further assumptions which may well be questionable:

• Resource distribution is inequitable: valid

• We can't rewrite the past: arguable, though from a pragmatic basis ... there's some truth to this. Look at the rather simpler question of, say, progressive and equitable taxation.

• That population is not a global problem, but on of local ecosystems and support. This is another key point on which much of his arguments hinge, and it may well be incorrect, as humans overloading carrying capacity does not contain itself in many regards: CO2 emissions, regional unrest, disease, financial dislocations, disrupting globalised trade and commerce (on which many livelihoods, and lives, depend), etc.

• That permitting emigration as an escape valve doesn't address the more core problems. You could argue that this, like the premise of rewriting history, doesn't pass the pragmatics test. Where pushed to their limits, humans have throughout all our anthropological history migrated to greener pastures and greater opportunities. That this doesn't solve the underlying problems is secondary to the fact that preventing emigration is itself infeasible on any number of grounds from practical to military to political to moral.

• That the demographic transition doesn't work. I'm concerned myself that it's wishful thinking, but it does seem to have at least some legs.

@strypey @Kantolope

1/

@mathew A charitable read is that opposing immigration encourages dealing with overpopulation issues sooner rather than later.

Whether or not that charity is warranted ... isn't entirely clear.

The premise that overpopulation can be contained by national borders is a particular weakness.

Even granted all that, the underlying problem of resource overexploitation remains, and as I've noted, is his core concern.

Other's who've argued that point have leaned far more strongly to demographic transition and education / assistance, notably Paul & Anne Ehrlich.

The 1950s -- 1970s were also a period of peak concern across the board and spectrum on the population issue (I've done considerable reading on views from that period), and were largely couched simply in terms of population. This pre-dated general awareness of global warming, ozone, and plastics pollution, as examples. Remember, Rachel Carson only published in 1962, and really began what we consider the Environmental Movement.

@strypey @Kantolope