Andrew LeaheyPOLI 228. Mid-term. Essay #3.

The Tragedy of the Commons is an essay, and philosophical viewpoint that states that, given the opportunity to increase personal gain and not incur the full value of the expense of that gain, people will chose to operate in their own best interest at the expense of others. Garret Hardin, in this essay, uses the metaphor of a group of herdsman grazing on a common parcel of land. Each herdsman sees the pros of adding an additional cow to their herd as far outweighing the cons. In doing so, the unintended outcome is the destruction of the parcel of land, it being overgrazed and rendered useless to all of the herdsman (28).

In his essay, Hardin illustrates the failure of the Adam Smith “invisible hand” approach to environmental issues; that is, a sort of laissez faire mentality, trusting that if all parties involved act in their own individual best interests, they will by default work towards the best interest of the planet (27). Hardin’s assertion is that there are specific situations where the rational choice for any one individual or group of individuals will be decidedly not beneficial for the rest. The herdsman metaphor illustrates this.

Like the parcel of land, Hardin argues that, left unchecked, exponential population increases worldwide will cause massive environmental harm. Resource depletion and an increase in waste, in line with the population increase, will eventually exceed the amount the planet can sustain. His thesis is that the population problem is a problem which has no technological solution (25). Additionally, Hardin argues accurately that we cannot maximize for two variables (26). If we choose to maximize for population, then we have to accept a decrease in quality of life for that population. Conversely, if we choose to maximize for quality of life, we have to accept a decrease in our population. Hardin is in favor of the latter.

Hardin then argues that the only method of controlling behavior is by making unwanted behaviors increasingly expensive (34). This can either be done naturally or artificially by some sort of legislative body. If population increase is accepted as being a negative behavior, we need to make it more expensive, monetarily or socially, to have more children. His argument is that since the portions of the world with the highest rate of population increase tend to be the most miserable, this is obviously not being handled by the “invisible hand”, laissez faire approach.

His argument is that the current world we live in requires a re-examination of what rights we have. Individual property rights, as well as breeding rights, come in to question when our decisions in those areas impact the world as a whole. He asserts that in the modern world, we are going to have to give up some of our rights, and “legislate temperance” if we want to survive (31).

Despite some indications appearing to show that we are heading, through exponential population expansion, to a massive environmental tragedy, I would be hesitant to jump to that conclusion. One issue I have lies with assuming that technology will never exist that allows us to exist with far less individual consumption and, consequently, waste. It would be a mistake to assume that such a technology is “just around the corner”, and not change our patterns of behavior in lieu of this.

However, at the same time, argument from incredulity stating that such a technology will never exist because one “just doesn’t see how it could work,” is equally mistaken. We should, within reason, employ tactics as much as possible that will limit our impact on the environment, without having to redefine our existence.

Another problem that I see with Hardin’s argument, and abandoning the concept of the “invisible hand” approach, is that it is impossible to know when the “invisible hand” should kick-in. Perhaps it is operating as it should, and that Adam Smith’s philosophy is exactly applicable to environmental policy, but we have just not reached a point yet where the cost of reproduction outweighs the benefit. Hardin states that the populations growing the most rapidly are the most miserable, and cites this as an argument against the increases of population in these areas being an indication of their having not yet reached their optimum population level. I don’t see this as correlative. It could simply be that the gains in labor, in goods produced, food gathered, etcetera, outweigh the costs in these areas. Reducing the overall population of these areas might just result in having a smaller number of people in even more dire straights.

Additionally, Hardin makes a specific argument with regards to National Parks. He states that, since they are each individually unique, but at the same time open to all, they are inevitably heading towards destruction. His implied idea is, then, that if we are to save the parks, we must close them, or make them prohibitively expensive to enjoy. I fail to see the logic here. We’re saving these portions of land because of their natural beauty, we are the only species on the planet capable of recognizing and acknowledging their beauty, and we’re closing ourselves off from them to “preserve” them. I think the ultimate goal is to preserve them for the enjoyment of the most amount of people possible. Keep them open, keep them as clean as possible, and keep them around for as long as possible, free for all to enjoy. If we make them prohibitively expensive to enjoy, only the wealthy will enjoy them. If that is the case, there is no tangible difference for most of the population between this and their destruction through development.

Furthermore, I find Hardin’s metaphor of the pasture to be, in and of itself, a false analogy. The implied assumption is that, like the other herdsman, society is receiving no benefit from the pollution caused by automobiles, factories, fertilizers, and atomic energy (35). From top to bottom, I don’t think this is so. We obviously mutually benefit from the goods produced in factories, the energy generated by atomic energy plants, and the produce grown through fertilizing. The benefits of these industries are clearly not being reaped solely by the individual companies. In addition, if any thought is given to the idea of automobile pollution, a strong argument can be made that this, too, is a mutually beneficial activity. I’m not sure I’d want to live in a New Jersey where all the cars were taken off the road, and my dentist got to work by walking, and my mail was delivered by bicycle. I surely benefit from the dentist driving, not being exhausted during my appointment, and my mail being delivered timely.

We are very likely heading towards environmental hardships, brought on by population expanding in the third world at a greater rate than our environmental policies can adapt. However, reducing the population is not the only solution. The key issue is a lack of the resources needed to sustain a population passed a certain level. Looking at it from this angle, cultures most certainly have, at

the very least, begun to overcome this hurdle. From architectural solutions to simple available space issues, to genetically modified food, and fungus that can feed on trash and produce diesel, I think this essay is beginning to show its age 40 years after its publication. The key to coming in to some sort of balance with population increase, pollution, and resource depletion, is increased conformance with policies already in place. Through incremental change, not radical change, we can hope to stave off environmental disaster.

Alternatively, Hardin’s policy solution is, to put it simply, fewer “commons”. He argues that we’ve been evolving towards this; from enclosing farmland and restricting waste disposal, to cordoning off land fills. We’ve already begun to employ a taxation of heavy polluters. So now, an abandonment of the commons with regards to breeding is, in his opinion, the next logical step. I do not see how Hardin would realistically expect to employ this policy. If there were laws enacted restricting who could breed, and how many children they could have, Hardin admits there would have to be an organization to enforce these laws and punish the offenders. I would question what the punishment would be, or what would be done with the fourth child of a family only allocated three.

Finally, Hardin attacks the detractors of reform by saying they latch on to any flaw. He argues that this assumes the status quo is perfect. It has always been my understanding that the reason the burden of proof is put on the reformer, is because the status quo has the added benefit of having been tested. Our current system surely has flaws, but it hasn’t failed catastrophically. The same cannot automatically be assumed about a reform measure, so it should have to meet a higher standard of proof.

The key question with regards to the validity of this essay stems from one crucial statement, on page 26 of the Debating the Earth book where Hardin argues that, looking at the foreseeable technology (in 1968), we must assume that the world available to the human population is finite. If this is still so, Hardin’s essay stands as still relevant. If however, our technological progress has moved us closer towards realizing infinite resources, perhaps we can adjust our ideas of what a sustainable population is.