The Tragedy of The Commons



Recently in class we were introduced to an essay “The Commons” written by Garrett Hardin. This essay was published nearly 40 years ago, but the message in this essay with free access and unrestricted demands for un-renewable resources ultimately dooms the earth resources through over-greedy. This occurs because the humans are greedy to what they “Want and Needs”, each person is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of using the resources are been demand to an increase that will exhausted these undeniable resources or any resources for this matter. Garrett point out in his essay the only thing that causes this problem is the human population growth. He also focused on the use of large resources that are becoming scarcely over time, these resources includes the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, as well as pointing out the “negative commons” of pollution (i.e. instead of dealing with the deliberate privatisation of a positive resources, a “negative commons” deals with the deliberate communisation of a negative cost, pollution). Garrett only focusing on one main issues that the population growth, in my opinion that not the only reason why they resources are become scarcely , there is another reason why the commons; The Tragedy of the Commons” continue because of people greedy, the death rate and birth rate, our life expectancy has increase over the last decade, today doctors expect the average life expectancy is over 80, and not that our education has increased dramatically over the years, which makes the person to want more of what they want, not just the necessarily needs, because the person image of what is the perfect life has change, it’s not only to be healthy, get married and have a family. Today at least 70% of the population want the glamorous life, of been rich, and today society is willing to do anything to get that life. Even if it destroyed the earth!

1 comment:

Mikata Karasu said...

Good comments. Keep digging though...

We’ve already exceeded global carrying capacity. We are now in “overshoot”. (Visualize a car sailing smoothly, but quite temporarily, through the air after having been driven off of a cliff.)

Global population is nearing 7 billion. Different theorists using different methods seem to end up agreeing that global carrying capacity is probably about 2 billion. (This assumes some level of social justice and a moderate, low by US standards, standard of living. More is possible if you accept a cattle car / Matrix-esque "life".)

In any case, we will get to that much-lower-than-7-billion number the hard way (wars, famine, disease, and their accompanying losses of environmental quality, freedom, and social justice) OR the less hard way (immediately and drastically reducing our population voluntarily). Yes, all of us, yes, everywhere. There is no scenario anywhere in which population growth is a "good thing" long term.

Yes a drop in population would cause problems, but none of those problems are as big as the problems, suffering, and environmental collapse that is certain to occur if we don’t.

I disagree with any argument that there is some “right to reproduce”. If there is any "right to reproduce" it's in the concept that one has the freedom to nurture a child or children and form some sort of family. Biological reproduction is not necessary to do that and there are many in need of this sort of nurturing.

This is a global issue with local and nation-state consequences. For example, immigration is a consequence of overpopulation, not a cause of it. Likewise, global climate change is not impressed by national boundaries.

No technological / "alternative energy" options have the capacity or can be ramped up fast enough to avoid major global calamity. That isn't to say we shouldn't do them. Aggressively shifting to alternative energy is necessary, just not sufficient.

For more comprehensive analysis of all this I suggest

Approaching the Limits www.paulchefurka.ca

Bandura etc.
http://growthmadness.org/2008/02/18/impeding-ecological-sustainability-through-selective-moral-disengagement/

Albert Bartlett on the exponential function as it relates to population and oil:
http://c-realm.blogspot.com/2008/12/kmo-interview-with-albert-bartlett.html

Bruce Sundquist on environmental impact of overpopulation http://home.alltel.net/bsundquist1/

The Oil Drum Peak Oil Overview - June 2007 (www.theoildrum.com/node/2693)

...and of course the classic "Overshoot" by Catton