Paras, Leah Rose F.

NS4-E
The Tragedy of the Commons
Summary-Reaction Paper
Since the dawn of time, life had always been a question of who survives and
who perishes. The struggle to stay alive is 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 resources has persisted until now, albeit taking
the new form called The Tragedy of the Commons.
Initially published in 1968, Garrett Hardins The Tragedy of the Commons
brought to light the problems faced by the world due to mans ruthless exploitation of
resources. Mainly, the paper addressed the political, social, and environmental
consequences of overpopulation. Whats striking about it is that Hardins sentiments
remain relevant as it was forty years ago primarily due to the worsening conditions of
life in Earth in general.
In Hardins 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. Peoples 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 possible to maximize for two variables at the same
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 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
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
ones 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 turn 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
redefinition 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. This 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 didnt 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].
Hardins 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
reproduction, 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 breathe. The
challenge left for us is to gain peoples 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), 1243-
1248. 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