What did Garrett Hardin mean by the term Tragedy of the Commons?
A commons is an area of land, air, or water not owned by any one person, group, or entity. This area is the responsibility of everyone to take care of, and is available to all. An example of a global commons (as the subject of this question hints) is the ocean. Aside from waters surrounding countries to a certain distance offshore, the oceans of the world are international: no country owns or controls them. This is an example of a commons. If you have a boat, you can get to them (provided your boat can make the trip), and it’s your responsibility not to pollute or otherwise harm them once you get there.
When Garrett Hardin used the term Tragedy of the Commons, he meant that sooner or later, unless we drastically change the way we as humans operate in this world, the commons will be destroyed by us. He said that “it is rational for us to maximize our own gain from commonly-held land, sea and air.” Therefore, each person on earth will seek to maximize his own profits without regard to the cost on the commons. If every person does this, though the individual cost may be low, the sum of all is enough to destroy the resources forever.
To use an example not of the sea (as that is the next question), imagine if there were no laws again air pollution. All the safeguards against pollution, such as air scrubbers, filters, alternative energy sources, and other pollution-reducers all cost more than a simple smokestack over a coal or oil furnace. Energy produced from a ‘dirty’ source is, at least in terms of monetary cost to the consumer, cheaper than a ‘clean’ source as a result of lesser overhead and startup costs. Therefore, it makes best economic sense for companies and industries to buy power from this ‘dirty’ source rather than a more expensive ‘clean’ power plant. It also makes better economic sense for other industries and companies to produce their goods using cheaper, and dirtier, techniques. While each company may produce little pollution (in the grand scale of things, though factories and other industries can in fact produce massive amounts), the pollution produced by all the ‘dirty’ industries can be enough to seriously degrade the air quality in the area, as happened in eastern Europe and resulted in the US as Los Angeles smog. The individual cost may be small, but the sum of everyone’s small cost adds up to be astronomical.
How does over-fishing the world’s oceans fit the model?
Over-fishing the world’s oceans fits the model of a Tragedy of a Commons because the oceans are a commons, as stated earlier, and the same issue applies here as applies to air pollution. The oceans have a finite amount of fish, though the number is huge. There is a required amount of fish needed to replenish the seas each year, and some are also eaten by predators or killed by natural reasons. Therefore, there is a ‘safe’ number of fish of any given species that we as humans can harvest while still expecting similar numbers the next year. For math’s sake let’s say there are ten fishing crews on the seas fishing Tuna, and each can safely harvest one hundred Tuna per year. If each crew harvests their allotment of one hundred Tuna every year, there will always be one hundred Tuna per crew per year: until the seas dry up. Assuming the price for Tuna stays the same, the crews will make the same amount of money as each other every year. If, however, even one crew exceeds their allotment and catches one extra fish, the balance will be thrown, perhaps irrevocably. That crew will gain an extra profit for the year, but will have set in motion events that over the course of time could reduce the number of Tuna in the seas. If all the crews caught extra fish, the balance would be destroyed, and eventually, were the practice to continue and safeguards not taken, the number of Tuna would be reduced to a level far below the original, or even eliminated altogether. With the Tuna population destroyed, predators would begin to starve, and eat greater numbers of other species until they too were eliminated. This is a Tragedy of a Commons: where seemingly small events set great upheavals in motion that destroy ecosystems, end the usefulness of areas to humans, and ultimately destroy the commons.
People often cite Easter Island as an example of a tragedy of a common: why?
Easter Island is an example of a Tragedy of a Commons because all scientific and archaeological evidence leads us to believe that at one time in the distant past the island was a lush jungle, with birds and tall trees. There were also great stone monoliths scattered over the island, while the inhabitants were not technologically skilled enough, and lacked the materials to have built them themselves. This leads scientists to the conclusion that at one time the inhabitants of the island were much ‘better off’ technologically, materially, and socially than they were at the time of contact with Europeans. A Tragedy of the Commons-type situation would seem to be the best explanation for this strange situation: when the ancestors of the post-contact inhabitants first traveled to Easter Island, the land was rich and covered with life. The area was so rich, in fact, that the Polynesians had the resources to devote time and energy to the production of the stone monoliths. The Polynesians failed to live in balance with their land, however, and eventually the overused their resources to the extent that the forests died, the soil deteriorated due to erosion and lack of nutrients, and the people themselves were much degraded by the time contact was made with Europeans. The Polynesians of Easter Island destroyed their ‘commons’: their island.
How can we prevent/avoid a “Tragedy of the Commons” for our Earth?
Perhaps the most drastic, though also most effective way in which we could eliminate the risk of a “Tragedy of the Commons” would be to limit our population to a level at which our polluting, destruction, and degradation of environments was naturally counterbalanced by the Earth, as Hardin suggested. Essentially this strategy would mean reducing our population to the numbers it was at thousands of years ago. Were we to accomplish this, we would no longer be able to affect the Earth in any significant manner: there simply wouldn’t be enough of us around to produce the same amount of pollution as we do today, and we also wouldn’t be consuming nearly as much as today. This strategy is a very simple one in essence: stop a lot of people from having children for an extended period of time, and in a few generations the amount of people will be down to a sustainable level on Earth. The problem with this strategy is the basis of it as well: you would have to force people not to have children. For this reason, the world will probably never accept this idea as a feasible strategy to become a sustainable species.
Another possible way to eliminate a ‘Tragedy of the Commons” from occurring would be to limit the resources consumed by individuals, companies, and nations, as well as strictly regulating the ‘cleanness’ of these resources and products. If we were to limit the amount of global pollution created, and regulate the resources (such as wood, fish, land, etc) used to sustainable levels, we could eliminate the threat. This strategy would drastically lower the quality of living for many people in developed countries, but result in a sustainable world. Unfortunately, most people would be unwilling to give up much of what they view as the ‘comforts’ of life, and there would have to be some sort of global federation to limit and regulate the consumption of literally every resource on Earth, as well as the production of many goods.
A third example of a strategy to eliminate the threat of a “Tragedy of the Commons” occurring on Earth would be to seek to find alternative resources. This means eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, the number of polluting and destructive industries and companies. If we were to shift to completely clean energy sources, and halted production of harmful materials (such as plastic) we could drastically slow the destruction of our global commons, or even eliminate the risk completely. This strategy is very similar to the second in that it requires the world as a whole to figure out what levels are acceptable, and then strictly police them in order to sustain a sustainable lifestyle for the earth. This strategy would be hard to implement, as it would require a restructuring of the world to accommodate new systems and new ways of living. It would also elevate the cost of living, as ‘clean’ energy sources are usually more expensive for the individual than ‘dirty’ or ‘traditional’ sources.
Throughout history humans have undergone several cultural shifts or revolutions...
The agricultural revolution was the conversion of cultures from hunting and gathering to large scale agriculture and farming. People domesticated animals rather than hunting them, and farmed rather than foraging for food. The slash and burn farming technique was developed, as well as the metal plow, which made farming more efficient. As a result, populations rose as birthrates increased while deathrates fell. Conflicts also began to arise involving land and water rights as those two resources became more and more important.
When the industrial revolution began in England and the US different, and more efficient, energy sources were developed alongside new advanced technology. People began to look to fossil fuels to supply the massively increased demand for energy, as well as centralized sources. As a result of the industrial revolution, agricultural efficiency increased with new technology. This led to a population increase, with larger numbers of people living in cities than rural areas.
The informational or technical revolution we are now in the middle of is allowing great amounts of information to be gathered and flow freely around the world. People now know more about the world and our effect on it than ever before.
How have these cultural shifts (or revolutions) changed how humans interact with the environment?
The agricultural revolution affected the view of humans towards the environment because people became less dependant on it than their ability to manipulate it. Wild animals and plants were no longer as important than they previously had been because people could turn to their domesticated livestock and crops. Slash and burn agriculture also began to have long lasting effects of the environment, as large areas of land were periodically burned and took several years at least to replenish themselves.
With the industrial revolution came a lack of knowledge of the environment. People valued knowledge of the environment only as it applied to being useful to industry. Rather than actually understanding nature, people endeavored to know only enough to be able to exploit it. The rise of cities drastically altered the face of the earth. Rather than many rural villages with little environmental impact, cities concentrated waste, pollution, and people. Cities also further removed people from nature.
The information age has enabled scientists and environmentalists to know more than ever before about the earth. Scientists now have a technical understanding of the earth more complete than ever before, while moral and ethical beliefs are shifting back in time towards the low-impact agriculture and industry of early civilization. This age has also enabled the masses to know more about the earth than ever before, and has sparked a wave of environmentalism.
How have these changes impacted Earth?
The agricultural revolution, and accompanying cultural shifts caused people to largely disregard the environment where it didn’t immediately concern them. More important than sustainability or local species and plants were the harvest of grains or other crops and the herding of domestic animals. People also began to have a far larger effect on the earth than previously as a result of slash and burn agriculture and husbandry on a large scale.
With the industrial revolution came exploitation of the environment and natural resources. The earth was viewed as an infinite supply of any needed material, and little to no thought was given to what the long-term effects of actions would be. Great swathes of forests were cleared, and many species were driven to the brink of extinction and beyond as a result of these thoughtless practices.
The information age has brought a global environmental conscience to our society, as well as many new environmentally friendly practices and methods of conservation. People all over the world now realize the effects of humans on the environment, and have begun to try to undo many of the issues we have created over the life of our species. The forests of the US are now as large as they were over a hundred years ago, and the air and water surrounding out cities has improved drastically as our technology has progressed. People around the world now realize that the health of the world is everyone’s responsibility, and have begun to change their views to a more sustainable culture.
Posts
