Tragedy of the Commons Few people would deny that overpopulation is a major problem. Even sparsely populated nations feel the brunt of the overpopulation problem because overpopulation affects the environment, politics, and the global market economy. The world currently holds six billion plus individual human beings, an unprecedented number. Rainforests are being cut down and soil depleted of their natural nutritive qualities in an attempt to please human appetites and keep the population happy. In his essay "The Tragedy of the Commons," author Garrett Hardin suggests that the only way to stop the overpopulation problem from getting worse is to stop unlimited human breeding. Unfortunately, the United Nations has taken a laissez faire stance that leaves the option to breed with each family. Hardin points out that this position is self-serving and outright stupid. So far, China has been one of the only nations in the world to institute some form of mandatory population control device, in limiting the number of children each family can have. Although China's model is not ideal and might not be the best ultimate application of population control, we do need, as Hardin proposes, to do something. That something must be a radical reworking of our political and social codes.

The "tragedy of the commons" refers to a nineteenth-century tale about an open pasture. "Each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain," by purchasing one or more new animals (3). When each herdsman decides to do so, the field becomes overgrazed. This "tragedy of the commons" can be applied to many environmental problems such as pollution and overpopulation. Hardin's essay treats overpopulation as a tragedy of the commons. I appreciate the analogy because it offers a visual image of an otherwise overwhelming, even abstract problem.

Unlike many other human problems, overpopulation cannot be solved through technology....

While there are technological means to control reproduction, the overpopulation problem is related to psychology, sociology, and public policy more than to technology. Hardin's main purpose is to influence the creation of new social codes, norms, and possibly laws that prohibit unlimited breeding. I mostly resonate with Hardin's suggestion that mutual coercion is the best method of controlling the overpopulation problem. Mutual coercion is basically the creation of social codes and norms of behavior. Mutual coercion does not even necessarily imply laws.
However, laws have their place in any society. Human beings accept laws in other areas related to the environment, especially today. For example, there are many laws preventing pollution. Factories must pay for emissions either through fines for over-emitting or through purifying emissions waste. "The tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devises that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutant than to discharge them untreated," (4). The same principle is in operation with traffic fines or parking tickets. In order to create smooth and safe flow of traffic, police can issue fines for driving or parking violations.

Most people are afraid to suggest radical solutions to overpopulation because breeding is considered to be a sort of common ground, or "commons." To make breeding no longer a common ground suggest authoritarian coercion, which most people in democratic societies disapprove of. In other words, breeding is considered to be a free domain over which the law or any other governing body cannot control. Breeding is considered an inalienable right of all human beings. However, as Hardin suggests, this should no longer be the case because like the herders in the pasture, we…