Summary
Written in 1968, "The Tragedy of the Commons" is cited by many as Garrett Hardin's most influential work. Hardin focuses on the idea that individuals left to their own self-interests will ultimately deplete common resources and hurt the common good, even if such consequences are clearly not their intention.
Hardin illustrates this notion with a hypothetical cattle pasture. In this pasture, Hardin asserts that rational herdsmen would seek to maximize individual gain. According to Hardin, this end would be achieved by placing more cattle on the pasture, thereby increasing individual revenue. The negative component of this situation comes from the fact that more cattle on the land would lead to overgrazing. Since the land is common, however, the loss of overgrazing would be distributed among all herdsmen using the pasture. Thus, in the case of the commons, individual gain will always outweigh collective loss. Hardin asserts that this pattern continues until a common resource is completely obliterated, paradoxically making any type of individual gain an impossibility.
Hardin relates this metaphor to the "population problem," stating that the commons and unabated population growth are completely incompatible schemes. Hardin claims that the population problem has no technical solution, and that society must necessarily abandon the commons in breeding in order to avoid "ruin to all." Hardin observes how the commons have historically been abandoned in other aspects of human life, such as private property and waste disposal. Human breeding, Hardin claims, is simply an extension of this historical trend that must be regulated in order to preserve other freedoms that we currently enjoy.
Discussion
Although I find Hardin's perspective interesting, I also find it equally disturbing. First and foremost, I feel that Hardin ignores other factors that are at play when it comes to population growth, especially in highly developed nations. In Hardin's commons scheme, bringing a child into the world is a gain of +1 for the family of the child, and a loss of somewhere between 0 and -1 due to the dispersion of the child's needs and consumption throughout the world. What Hardin ignores is the direct economic burden that having a child places on a family. Recent estimates place the cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 to be somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in the United States. It would seem that this enormous cost would play a large role in deciding whether or not to have a child - and it does. In lesser developed nations, where these resources are often not available, children perish at rates several times higher than those in developed countries. These two realities are effective natural regulators of unabated population growth which Hardin completely ignores.
Second, I could never see Hardin's vision being successfully implemented in any free democratic nation, regardless of the circumstances. Regulation of human life in this manner has serious implications. What if the regulation of procreation was unsuccessful? Would you then judge which living people on earth were worthy of keeping their right to live? Human history has been marred by many dark periods surrounding these types of issues, which is why I believe the free world has collectively agreed that the right to live and procreate are inalienable natural rights.
In brief, I find Hardin's foresight valuable, but I strongly disagree with the conclusions he draws from his visions. Although he claims there is no technical solution, humans must continue to persevere with innovation. If we are ultimately unsuccessful in our technological advances, we must face the ugly doomsday of natural selection. Any attempt at regulating population growth beforehand, however, would be uglier.
Written in 1968, "The Tragedy of the Commons" is cited by many as Garrett Hardin's most influential work. Hardin focuses on the idea that individuals left to their own self-interests will ultimately deplete common resources and hurt the common good, even if such consequences are clearly not their intention.
Hardin illustrates this notion with a hypothetical cattle pasture. In this pasture, Hardin asserts that rational herdsmen would seek to maximize individual gain. According to Hardin, this end would be achieved by placing more cattle on the pasture, thereby increasing individual revenue. The negative component of this situation comes from the fact that more cattle on the land would lead to overgrazing. Since the land is common, however, the loss of overgrazing would be distributed among all herdsmen using the pasture. Thus, in the case of the commons, individual gain will always outweigh collective loss. Hardin asserts that this pattern continues until a common resource is completely obliterated, paradoxically making any type of individual gain an impossibility.
Hardin relates this metaphor to the "population problem," stating that the commons and unabated population growth are completely incompatible schemes. Hardin claims that the population problem has no technical solution, and that society must necessarily abandon the commons in breeding in order to avoid "ruin to all." Hardin observes how the commons have historically been abandoned in other aspects of human life, such as private property and waste disposal. Human breeding, Hardin claims, is simply an extension of this historical trend that must be regulated in order to preserve other freedoms that we currently enjoy.
Discussion
Although I find Hardin's perspective interesting, I also find it equally disturbing. First and foremost, I feel that Hardin ignores other factors that are at play when it comes to population growth, especially in highly developed nations. In Hardin's commons scheme, bringing a child into the world is a gain of +1 for the family of the child, and a loss of somewhere between 0 and -1 due to the dispersion of the child's needs and consumption throughout the world. What Hardin ignores is the direct economic burden that having a child places on a family. Recent estimates place the cost of raising a child from birth through age 17 to be somewhere between $250,000 and $300,000 in the United States. It would seem that this enormous cost would play a large role in deciding whether or not to have a child - and it does. In lesser developed nations, where these resources are often not available, children perish at rates several times higher than those in developed countries. These two realities are effective natural regulators of unabated population growth which Hardin completely ignores.
Second, I could never see Hardin's vision being successfully implemented in any free democratic nation, regardless of the circumstances. Regulation of human life in this manner has serious implications. What if the regulation of procreation was unsuccessful? Would you then judge which living people on earth were worthy of keeping their right to live? Human history has been marred by many dark periods surrounding these types of issues, which is why I believe the free world has collectively agreed that the right to live and procreate are inalienable natural rights.
In brief, I find Hardin's foresight valuable, but I strongly disagree with the conclusions he draws from his visions. Although he claims there is no technical solution, humans must continue to persevere with innovation. If we are ultimately unsuccessful in our technological advances, we must face the ugly doomsday of natural selection. Any attempt at regulating population growth beforehand, however, would be uglier.
No comments:
Post a Comment