There is a dilemma in increasing military power because it endangers security. Therefore, the problem of overpopulation cannot be solved by technical solutions, because the search for technological solutions does not really solve the fundamental problem. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Since our world is finite, therefore it can only support a finite population. Thus, Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" is unattainable, because maximizing population interferes with how we maximize the good desired by everyone. Since we live in a finite world, we need to both stabilize the population and supplement our biological tendency as an energy source. In doing so, we need to make biological maintenance per person as close to zero as possible, which means we need to give up a lot of things we consider "good." But assuming we can have an infinite source of energy, it will always dissipate as the rate of population growth increases. After laissez-faire reproduction, we can assume that men will control their individual fertility in order to produce the optimal population. The tragedy is not a matter of misfortune but of the merciless workings of nature. This tragedy is the tendency of actors to exploit the commons for short-term interests or economic gains. The tragedy of the commons works like this, a common like a pasture was shared by the shepherd. Common goods are a space that does not belong to any individual but is shared by the whole of society. In this pasture, it is common sense for the shepherds to try to keep as many cattle as possible. This scenario only works in centuries past due to chance and conflict that placed man and beast below the carrying capacity of the common. However, today, the much-desired social stability is becoming a reality with the inevitability of the commons to mercilessly cause tragedies. As a rational being sharing the commons, each shepherd will seek to maximize his gain. Invite yourself to the idea of ​​the negative and positive elements of using the commons according to your own agreement. The positive side is that each herder will benefit from the sale of the additional livestock they have added to the common estate, but the downside is that they will share in all the effects of overgrazing. It's like competing -1 and +1. In adding the components, it is wise for the herdsman to add as many cattle as he wants, but other herdsmen as rational beings also do the same. From a cost/benefit analysis perspective, they are now forced to add an unlimited number of livestock to a limited commons, resulting in tragedy. Since each individual will pursue his or her self-interest, freedom in the commons will bring ruin to all. To combat this, the education of the succession of generations must be renewed. Currently, the devastating effects of the freedom of the commons on land and sea are evident where overgrazing produces erosion and weed dominance and the belief that the ocean is inexhaustible of resources brings species of marine life is close to extinction. The solution could therefore be to sell the commons as private or public property, with distribution based on wealth, merit, by lottery and/or on a first come, first served basis. Contradictorily, the problem of freedom of common goods also reappears. in pollution. GOODthat it is not a question of taking something, but of putting something into the commons because of the waste that we put into the water, on the earth and in the air. The calculation of the negative and positive components of common usage is the same as mentioned above. Ergo, a rational man considering himself independent, rational and free to undertake will continue to discharge his waste into the common, noting that “the cost of the waste he rejects is lower than the cost of purifying his waste before rejecting it”. So it seems we are locked into a system of dirtying our own nest. The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is in trouble because of private property practices and others. On the other hand, in the case of the air and water around us, it is very devastating because we cannot contain the effects. To remedy the tragedy of the common as cesspool, we must develop coercive policies that make treating its pollutants less costly for the polluter than discharging them untreated. Even though our concept of private property has prevented us from undermining the earth's resources, it still promotes pollution. Justifying that an owner of a factory located on the edge of a stream that extends to the middle of the stream, often sees that it makes no sense not to allow it to degrade the water that passes over it. his property. With this kind of reasoning, it is necessary to modify the laws to combat these new aspects of the common. It is often believed that nature has the capacity for chemical and biological healing, but overpopulation makes this idea far from the truth. This reality requires a redefinition of property rights. Overpopulation is really a big threat in our society and even in the whole world, especially where we have limited resources. Population growth is unbearable because we humans will be the ones who suffer from our actions. If we continually increase our population, we could find ourselves in a war for the acquisition of resources like food, water, oil, land, etc. In other words, the biggest problem we will face in the near future is not climate change, corruption and politics. it’s a competition for things. Consciousness is the key to limiting reproduction is wrong. People who consciously appeal to limit reproduction risk becoming extinct after many generations. This may include certain traits that may disappear in the future. This is also contradictory to the theory of natural selection. However, for people who do not have consciousness and do not limit reproduction, their existence can continue after several generations and also be passed down. This greatly underlines the double bind mentioned by Bateson. It is a form of message in which it is transmitted under two types of communication, intentional and unintentional. Usually, the involuntary mode of communication can cause anxiety and grief. Even if this is effective, it is not acceptable to psychologically manipulate those who exploit the common. Instead of using this method, it is easier and justifiable to adjust the social arrangement regarding responsibility. Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon on the social arrangement which creates a kind of coercion. A social contract is genuine and almost everyone accepts it, even if one is unaware of it upon entering the national domain of the nation after the period of dominant party. A State is a collection of individuals having a selective domain over a globally characterized area. The contract passes.