About Tragedy of the Commons

Tragedy of the Commons

In Garrett Hardin's essay "Tragedy of the Commons," the author presents a radical solution to the overpopulation problem. The title of the essay refers to a scenario presented by a mathematician in 1833. In the scenario, a communal pasture is enjoyed by several herdsmen in a given area. Everything is fine until "social stability" is achieved (2). When that happens, each herdsman feels entitled, even obliged, to "maximize his gain," (3). All the other herdsmen do the same thing and before long the pasture becomes overgrazed. Therefore, human self-serving instincts do not necessarily benefit the collective, and in many cases such as this, self-serving leads to collective destruction. Hardin calls this collective destruction the "tragedy of the commons." Hardin then applies the metaphor of the pasture to other tragedies of the commons, ultimately focusing on the overpopulation problem. According to Hardin, overpopulation can be stopped through public policy that limits breeding. Human beings and their societies enact a slew of laws that limit our personal freedoms. Because overpopulation is causing some undesirable and even disastrous effects such as starvation and pollution, laws should be enacted to enforce human population control. Although Hardin's position is radical and shocking, and offensive to the libertarian social values that most Americans uphold, it is difficult to resist the inherent logic and practicality of the solutions he proposes.

Hardin begins his argument by noting that some problems have definite technical or technological solutions, while others do not. For example, the natural sciences can devise new ways of harvesting wheat and the computer sciences can design new hardware and software solutions to meet the needs of consumers. However, some problems cannot be solved by technical or technological means. Hardin compares these problems to the game of tic tac toe, in which ultimately there is no real way of winning through technical skill. The overpopulation problem according to Hardin is a problem for which no technical solution exists. Therefore, only radical solutions can bring an end to the problem. Hardin's analogy is apt and easy to understand. While tic tac toe and overpopulation have nothing in common at face value, Hardin makes a clear point by reminding his readers that other than coercion, no technical solution exists for the current "tragedy of the commons." Birth control is a technical solution, but it cannot be implemented as a means of population control without coercive devises such as legal or cost-prohibitive measures. Hardin later explains why appeals to conscience do not work in this case, and he is correct. Educating people about the consequences of overpopulation does not deter people interested in breeding from breeding. If a person has the freedom and ability to have children, she will do so unless there are serious considerations.

Hardin then describes pollution as a modern tragedy of the commons. In the case of pollution, the tragedy does not result from "taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in," (4). Whether chemical waste or paper garbage, pollution is a major factor affecting the health and well-being of all humans and animal species. Already human beings and societies have devised laws to regulate pollution. It is illegal to dump waste in public areas. Therefore, there are few "commons" in which people, at least in the United States, can pollute at their own will. Private property, according to Hardin, can cause pollution problems and indeed has in the past. Private property continues to cause pollution problems, as when the private corporation feels free to dump waste on their own land, not caring that the chemicals that seep into the land affects the quality of drinking water for the entire town. The factory that feels free to emit toxins into the air can affect the air quality for neighboring nations. Laws limiting toxic emissions are one coercive way of reducing the negative effects of pollution. Because individuals and corporations must now pay fines or pay for the effective treatment of their waste before throwing it out, they are less likely to pollute. Thus, Hardin suggests that laws are absolutely necessary in preventing the "tragedy of the commons." Again, the author is absolutely right. Although the companies might grumble and complain that it raises their costs, they pass those costs onto the consumer anyway. The fact is that if we want clean air and drinking water, we need to be willing to pay the price. Later, Hardin shows how laws, rather than being negative, ultimately result in positive outcomes for all human beings.

Next, Hardin talks about the intolerability of uncontrolled or unlimited breeding. Unlike many animal species, human beings do not have huge litters that are forced to survive on their own. Rather, human beings love and care for every one of their critters. Therefore, unlimited breeding leads to overpopulation of the species. A society committed to welfare and to feeding and caring for each individual who is born creates the "tragedy of the commons." Breeding is an act of self-interest that leads to collective disaster: depletion of resources, starvation, and pollution. Hardin states bluntly: "To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action," (5). I personally agree: we must somehow control breeding, and the problem cannot be ignored for much longer. The earth has limited resources and we can no longer pretend that unlimited breeding won't produce the same problems faced by the herders. We can't simply rely on a laissez faire attitude because, as Hardin points out early in the article, "natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial," (3). To do nothing and ignore the problem means that those inclined to breed will still breed, even if they are consciously aware of the problems of overbreeding.

Therefore, we cannot control breeding simply through an "appeal to conscience," (5). In fact, Hardin states that conscience in this case has a ripple effect because "those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences," (5). The solution Hardin proposes is simple psychological coercion. Although coercion is a "dirty" word, we can "cleanse" it "by saying it over and over without embarrassment," (6). Hardin wants to show that coercion does not entail physical force or even a lack of freedom. To illustrate his point, the author provides another poignant analogy: laws against robbery create more freedom for human beings, not less (8).