The
idea of the tragedy of the commons stems from a pamphlet published in 1833 by
William Forster Lloyd. The analogy used to describe the idea of the commons is
presented in this fashion:
Imagine a pasture where herdsmen let their cattle roam. As
each herdsman adds additional cattle to the land to maximize personal gain,
overgrazing occurs leading to the degradation of the land. Since each herdsman
evokes the same rationale as the others—letting additional animals overgraze the
land in consequence to the other herdsmen—the land slumps into a degraded state
where eventually no animals are able to graze: “Therein is the tragedy. Each
man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in
a world that is limited” (Hardin 37).
The
idea of the commons can be extrapolated to many different contexts where humans
believe they should have free reign which affects humanity as a whole. Not only
does it relate to land, but pollution, the freedom to breed, and basic human
rights many feel entitled to. The polluter “finds that his share of the cost
of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying
his wastes before releasing them” (Hardin 38). People who feel it is their
right to breed produce offspring who share the same views that it is a god
given right to be fruitful and multiply. This system of belief that we have
rights to the commons is based on Adam Smith’s monumental work on global
economics, The Wealth of Nations—where
laissez faire economics literally translates to the mantra of “let it be.”
Some of
the controversy that is directed at Hardin stems from the solutions he proposes
to solve the world’s crises in relation to the commons. Although there are some
solutions already in place to remove the "tragedy" from the commons—such as the
institution of private property when dealing with land issues—there are far
more complex solutions when regarding the right to clean air and water. Where
Hardin takes a stance some view as ruthless pragmatism: suggesting the freedom
to breed is intolerable and damaging the commons, coercive laws to tax or
persuade people to make choices he views as prudent, and restricting freedoms for the betterment of society.
Whether
it is right to agree with Hardin varies among individuals, but acknowledging the
tragedy of the commons as it relates to Earth’s resources has certainly shed
some light on the issues of using finite resources.
Critical Thinking: Why should people not have as many
children as possible?
There
is no definitive answer to the upper limit of Earth’s carry capacity. The Earth
itself is an island, with a finite number of resources subject to our use. At
what point will the population number exceed and impinge on our right to
freedom? Where Hardin suggests that the "freedom to breed is intolerable”
(Hardin 38), it is ultimately difficult to deny people this basic human right.
People who breed must have the resources to provide for their children,
and parents who breed a lot eventually have fewer descendants able to provide for
themselves. While there is no definitive number regarding a human carrying
capacity, there is a finite number of resources—and if the human population
continues to increase at an exponential rate, the sooner we use up these
resources will lead to the eventual end of the Earth as we know it.
Works Cited
Hardin, Garrett. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Sources: Selections in Environmental Studies.
Ed.
Thomas
Easton. United States, 2014. 36-40.
No comments:
Post a Comment