There is a dilemma in increasing military power because it puts security at risk. As a result, the problem of overpopulation cannot be solved using 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Because our world is finite, it can only support a finite population. Thus, Bentham's goal of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is unattainable because maximizing population harms how we maximize the good desired by all. Considering that we live in a finite world, we must both stabilize the population and integrate our biological tendency as an energy source. To do this, we need to bring per capita biological maintenance as close to zero as possible, which means we have to give up many things we consider “good.” But assuming we can have an infinite source of energy, this will still dissipate as the population growth rate increases. By following laissez-faire reproduction, we can assume that humans will control their individual fertility so as to produce the optimal population. Tragedy is not about unhappiness but about the ruthless action of nature. This tragedy is the tendency of actors to exploit the commons for short-term interests or economic gain. The tragedy of the commons works like this, a common good as in a pasture was shared by the shepherd. The common good is an area that does not belong to any individual but is shared by the entire society. In this pasture it is logical that shepherds try to keep as many livestock as possible. This scenario only works in past centuries due to circumstances and conflicts that have rendered both humans and animals below the carrying capacity of the municipality. However, nowadays, the much desired social stability becomes a reality with the inevitability of the commons ruthlessly causing tragedy. As a rational being who shares the common goods, every shepherd will try to maximize his gain. Promote the idea of ​​the negative and positive components of using common goods according to one's own initiative. The upside is that each herder will benefit from selling the additional livestock he has added to the commons, but the downside is that everyone will share in the effect of overgrazing. It's like competing between -1 and +1. By adding the components, it makes sense for the shepherd to add as many cattle as he wants, but other shepherds as rational beings also do the same. From a cost/benefit analysis perspective, they are now forced to add unlimited livestock to the limited municipality, so tragedy occurs. Since each individual will pursue his own personal interest, the freedom of the commons will lead to everyone's ruin. To combat this phenomenon, education on the succession of generations should be renewed. At present, the attritional effects of the freedom of the land and sea commons are evident where overgrazing produces erosion and weed dominance and the belief that the ocean is inexhaustible with resources brings species of marine life ever closer to extinction. So the solution could be to sell off the common good as private or public property with allocation based on wealth, merit, lottery and/or first come, first served. On the contrary, the problem of the freedom of common goods also reappears. in pollution. Even if it's not about taking something, but about putting something in common due to the waste we dispose of in the water, land and air. The calculation of the componentnegative and positive use of the municipality is the same as mentioned above. Ergo, a rational man who conceives of himself as an independent, rational and free entrepreneur will continue to dump waste in the municipality noting that "the cost of the waste he dumps is less than the cost of purifying his waste before releasing it." So it seems we are stuck in the system of polluting our own nest. The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is receding due to the practice of private property and the like. On the other hand, in the case of the air and water around us, it is very devastating because we cannot isolate the effects. To remedy the tragedy of the municipality as a cesspool, we must implement coercive policies that make it cheaper for polluters to treat their pollutants rather than dump them untreated. Although our concept of private property has prevented us from depleting our earth's resources, it continues to encourage pollution. Justifying that the owner of a factory on the bank of a stream that extends to the center of the stream, often sees that it makes no sense not to allow him to degrade the water that passes through his property. With this type of reasoning it is necessary to change the laws to combat these new aspects of the municipality. It is often believed that nature has chemical and biological healing abilities, but overpopulation makes this far from the truth. This reality makes the redefinition of property rights necessary. Overpopulation is indeed a big threat in our society and even in the whole world, in particular, we only have limited resources. Population growth is unbearable because we humans, who will be what we will be, will suffer in our actions. If we continuously increase our population we could end up in a war for the acquisition of resources such as 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 competition for things. Consciousness is the key to limiting breeding is a mistake. Those who conscientiously appeal to limit reproduction can cause their existence to disappear after many generations. This may include some traits that may be deleted in the future. This is also contradictory to the theory of natural selection. However, for those people who have no consciousness and do not limit reproduction, their existence can persist after many generations and even be transmitted. This greatly underlines the double bind mentioned by Bateson. This is a form of message where it is delivered in two types of communication, intentional and unintentional. Usually the involuntary way of communicating can cause anxiety and pain. Even if it is effective, it is not acceptable to psychologically manipulate those who exploit the common. Instead, using this method, it is simpler and more justifiable to decide to adapt the social agreement in terms of responsibility. Mutual coercion mutually agreed upon the social arrangement which creates a kind of coercion. A social contract is real and almost everyone accepts it, even if one does not know about it upon entering the national scope of the country after the period of domination. A state is a collection of individuals who have selective dominance over a well-rounded characterized area. The contract precedes the government and provides the premise for the general public to then be able to create an administration, which will be seen in each of the individuals who enter its domain. The main way to terminate the social contract is to leave the territory and stay away. This coercion does not have to be perfectly just to be likely to the commons, and can support this claim with the example of private property and inheritance.