Tragedy of the Commons

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 are creating a "tragedy of the commons."

Freedom, according to Hardin, can be won through restriction. Laws are often instated to protect the rights and freedoms of people, at the expense of restricting the rights and freedoms of a few. Burglary, vandalism, hate crime, and murder, are all against the law because they inhibit freedom and liberty overall. We cannot protect the rights of the robber or the murderer because we respect his or her freedom to do whatever he or she wants.

Thus, Hardin shows how some so-called freedoms, like the freedom to breed, are "intolerable," (4). I fully agree with the author's assessment. The freedom to breed is intolerable because it destroys public property and injures public health and well-being. The effects of overpopulation are extensive and they affect every place on the planet. Therefore, overpopulation is a major international problem. I take Hardin's point one step further to demonstrate how overpopulation is a unique issue because of the global extent of the problem. Because there is no global government, the solution to overpopulation rests in a combination of psychology, sociology, and science. Sound public policy can be created through a "mutually coercive" measure that involves all of these interrelated fields.

Breeding is not normally considered a selfish, self-serving activity. However, Hardin phrases it as such. When families have children they think mainly of themselves, not of the greater good. This is why "we can't control breeding simply by an "appeal to conscience," (5). We have tried that already and it doesn't work. Only more restrictive and more serious and more demanding solutions can work. China's solution is a step in the right direction. Like most solutions, it is imperfect. Hardin thankfully notes that no solution will be perfect. "We don't have to enjoy it or even pretend to," notes the author (6). Hardin continues, "injustice is preferable to total ruin," (7). Sometimes, restricting rights is necessary for the common good. The commons, when left free, open, and collective, will be depleted.

Furthermore, Hardin notes that nearly the entire human population is "deeply committed to the welfare state," that "adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement," (5). We need to change this outlook and its corresponding policies. The freedom to breed should be restricted just as many other human freedoms are restricted. The status quo is not working. "It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the status quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard," (7). One of the highlights of Hardin's article is his point that "the status quo is also action," and in this particular case, a truly destructive action (7).