Paras, Leah Rose F.
NS4-E The Tragedy Tragedy of t he Commons Summary-Reaction Paper
Since the dawn of time, t ime, life had always been a question of who survives and who perishes. The struggle to stay alive is i s universal, manifesting from the most basic archaebacteria up to the most complex mammals. Species who managed to cope with the pressures of the competitive environment were granted evolution. With the proliferation of the victors, other species find themselves at the brink of extinction. This arrangement on the battle for f or resources has persisted until now, albeit taking the new form called “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Initially published in 1968, Garrett Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” brought to light the problems faced by the world due to man’s ruthless exploitation of resources. Mainly, the paper addressed the political, social, and environmental consequences of overpopulation. overpopulation. What’s striking about it i t is that Hardin’s sentiments remain relevant as it was forty years ago primarily due to the worsening conditions of life in Earth in general. In Hardin’s perspective, the severity of the overpopulation problem lies in the fact that it cannot be solved in a technical way. While it may be possible to increase food and resources production through technology, it is hard to change human values and our ideas of morality. People’s views on controlling the population vary according to culture, gender, and religion. The stigma on birth control is still present which hinders family planning choices. In order to support the ever-growing population, an enormous supply of resources is needed. However, this is not always met for it is not mathematically m athematically possible to maximize maximize for two variables at the same sa me time [1]. The carrying capacity of the environment must be taken into account. If individual satisfaction is to be prioritized, then the optimum population must be maintained at less than the maximum. These assumptions prove true in real life situations. By comparing the population growth of different countries, it can be seen that developed nations have more control on their growth rates as compared to developing nations. Because it is easier to allocate resources to fewer people, residents of developed nations enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle as compared to overpopulated developing nations. This is where the concept of “The Tragedy of the Commons” comes comes in. The freedom of the commons dictate that public resources are open to all. Hardin explained that this freedom may work within a considerably few population only. This is why it is acceptable for people centuries ago to acquire as many resources as they want. Herdsmen keep as many cattle as possible in the pastures, and fishermen f ishermen catch as many fish as they want from the open seas. However this is not the case anymore. Hardin reasoned, a self-interested "rational" actor will decide to increase one’s exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit of the
increase, but the costs are spread among all users [2]. When people using the commons take advantage of the resources without considering the overall picture, the tragedy happens. Due to overexploitation, the number of arable lands and sea creatures dwindle, leaving everyone at the losing end. Another consequence of population is widespread pollution. Likewise, it entails the tragedy of the commons. Despite everyone taking advantage of the environment, few people take responsibility for the damage that has been done to it. This is evident in the alarming global problem of waste disposal, especially in developed countries. The industries erected by massive national economies openly dump their waste in the air, rivers, and landfills which in t urn pollutes the commons. The problem with these nations is that they often refuse to control their carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emission because in doing so, their economic gain will have to be sacrificed. In response to these problems, Hardin proposed solutions which involves the redef inition of the concept “commons”. According to him, it is not appropriate to apply the same rules that existed in the past for the situations of the present. T his means that the appeal to conscience to control human acts cannot be used anymore. In using conscience, two contradictory communications are being directed. Consider mining for example. Many people push mining to be outlawed. If a miner didn’t do as he is asked, he will be shamed by the authorities for breaking the law. However, if a miner did behave as he is asked, he will be regarded by his peers as an idiot for not exploiting the resources already in front of him. The morality of an act changes over time therefore it is important to adjust the laws in accordance to governing a complex, crowded, changeable world [1]. Hardin’s radical approach in solving the overpopulation problem requires abandoning the system of “commons” altogether in the aspects of food gathering, industry, leisure, and even in breeding. However, in restraining individual repr oduction, there must be a “mutual coercion mutually agreed upon”. Sacrificing freedom to breed will obtain for us other more important freedoms which will otherwise be lost [2]. For instance, family planning can result to parents paying more attention to the needs of their children physically, emotionally and mentally. The decreased growth rate also means decreased carbon footprint and pollution which will secure the right of every person to clean water to drink and air to breath e. The challenge left for us is to gain people’s consent to a system of coercion that ensures the satisfaction of all parties involved.
References [1] Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (3859), 12431248. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=00368075%2819681213%293%3A3859%3C124 3%3ATTOTC%3E2.0.CO%3B2[2] Western Washington University. (n.d.). Hardin. Retrieved June 13, 2017, from http://faculty.wwu.edu/gmyers/esssa/Hardin.html
