Hardin's metaphor describes a lifeboat bearing 50 people, with room for ten more. The lifeboat is in an ocean surrounded by a hundred swimmers. The "ethics" of the situation stem from the dilemma of whether (and under what circumstances) swimmers should be taken aboard the lifeboat.
Hardin compared the lifeboat metaphor to the Spaceship Earth model of resource distribution, which he criticizes by asserting that a spaceship would be directed by a single leader – a captain – which the Earth lacks. Hardin asserts that the spaceship model leads to the tragedy of the commons. In contrast, the lifeboat metaphor presents individual lifeboats as rich nations and the swimmers as poor nations.
This is a very debatable question, therefore, it is an opinion. Despite the fact that the picture frequently speaks to unlawful discourse of yelling ' flame' in a swarmed theater alludes to an obsolete lawful standard. At a certain point, the law criminalized such discourse, which made an "unmistakable and current hazard." It should specifically urge others to carry out particular criminal activities they could call their own. The thought of dishonestly yelling "flame" in a swarmed theater emerged from the Preeminent Court's 1919 choice for the situation of Schenck v. United States. The Court decided consistently that the First Alteration, however it ensures flexibility of expression, does not secure perilous discourse. The case being referred to did not include flames, theaters or being frenzy. This is my own opinion.