Editorial note: The following is a repost from http://lifeboat.com/blog/2013/03/life-and-boats by CB student Leif Devaney
In an enormously influential article published in 1974 in Psychology Today, and in a longer version published later that year in BioScience, Garrett Hardin introduced the metaphor of the lifeboat for economic and ethical consideration. This conceptual construction was intended as an improvement over the then-popular ecological metaphor of “spaceship earth” coined by Kenneth Boulding in 1966. Interestingly, in the opening paragraph of “Living on a lifeboat”, Hardin indicates that metaphors in general may be understood as only an early stage in mentally approaching difficult problems, and that this stage may be surpassed as theory advances and becomes more rigorous.
In Hardin’s analogy, large entities such as nations or the biosphere are likened to a boat, while smaller entities – for example, migrating individuals or groups – are likened to swimmers trying to board the already cramped vessel and exploit whatever resources are on board. In the imagined scenario, it is believed that the boat is near carrying capacity, but exactly how near is not known with certainty given the many future possibilities. A central question focuses on at what point, if any, the risk of sinking the entire boat outweighs the good provided for each additional rescued swimmer.
The metaphor of the lifeboat has structured thought about conservation, economics, ethics, and any number of other disciplinary areas for decades. The question I would like to pose is the following: Is the lifeboat scenario still (or was it ever) an apt metaphor for structuring thought about ethical conservation of resources, or have we reached a stage where the boat should be scuttled in favor of either a new metaphor or more literal language? Please feel free to post any thoughts you may have on this issue.
About the author: Leif DeVaney is a PhD candidate in the Conservation Biology Program with a minor in Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, and obtained his MS in Conservation Biology from the U of MN in 2010. A native Minnesotan, Leif studied philosophy and biology at Bethel University as an undergraduate. His master’s research included a Q study focused on the conflict over all-terrain vehicle use on Minnesota public lands, and he has performed social science research with the USDA Forest Service. Leif is broadly interested in philosophy of conservation and the interactions of wildlife, humans, and technology, and his doctoral research is centered on an investigation of and argument for the compatibility of wildlife rehabilitation and conservation. Leif is advised by Dr. David Bengston.
——————————————————————————————————–
PLEASE NOTE: Opinion blogs do not necessarily represent the unanimous opinion of those affiliated with the Conservation Biology Program at the University of Minnesota. Rather, they are meant to broaden and elevate the educational and scientific discourse related to various topics in conservation biology
The Cons Bio Blog 
Hey Leif, I think metaphors can be useful in communicating ideas about conservation. I think the lifeboat metaphor is somewhat interesting, especially when the question is raised–as you raised it–At what point do you stop admitting swimmers to the lifeboat if there is a risk of the lifeboat sinking? I also think metaphors about overpopulation and about humans using too many resources have become a little tiresome and stem from the doom-and-gloom environmentalism that I think we need to move beyond. I think many people “get it” that we’re wrecking the environment, so I’d say it’s time to move beyond the lifeboat and start focusing on solutions, and metaphors that help explain solutions, rather than metaphors about how dire the situation is. Those are my two, or perhaps three, cents. –Brandon Breen ’11