Andrew Leahey

POLI 228. Mid-term. Essay #3.

The Tragedy of the Commons is an essay, and philosophical viewpoint that

states that, given the opportunity to increase personal gain and not incur the full
value of the expense of that gain, people will chose to operate in their own best
interest at the expense of others. Garret Hardin, in this essay, uses the metaphor of
a group of herdsman grazing on a common parcel of land. Each herdsman sees the
pros of adding an additional cow to their herd as far outweighing the cons. In doing
so, the unintended outcome is the destruction of the parcel of land, it being
overgrazed and rendered useless to all of the herdsman (28).

In his essay, Hardin illustrates the failure of the Adam Smith “invisible hand”
approach to environmental issues; that is, a sort of laissez faire mentality, trusting
that if all parties involved act in their own individual best interests, they will by
default work towards the best interest of the planet (27). Hardin’s assertion is that
there are specific situations where the rational choice for any one individual or
group of individuals will be decidedly not beneficial for the rest. The herdsman
metaphor illustrates this.

Like the parcel of land, Hardin argues that, left unchecked, exponential
population increases worldwide will cause massive environmental harm. Resource
depletion and an increase in waste, in line with the population increase, will
eventually exceed the amount the planet can sustain. His thesis is that the
population problem is a problem which has no technological solution (25).
Additionally, Hardin argues accurately that we cannot maximize for two variables
(26). If we choose to maximize for population, then we have to accept a decrease in
quality of life for that population. Conversely, if we choose to maximize for quality of
life, we have to accept a decrease in our population. Hardin is in favor of the latter.

Hardin then argues that the only method of controlling behavior is by making
unwanted behaviors increasingly expensive (34). This can either be done naturally
or artificially by some sort of legislative body. If population increase is accepted as
being a negative behavior, we need to make it more expensive, monetarily or
socially, to have more children. His argument is that since the portions of the world
with the highest rate of population increase tend to be the most miserable, this is
obviously not being handled by the “invisible hand”, laissez faire approach.

His argument is that the current world we live in requires a re-examination of

what rights we have. Individual property rights, as well as breeding rights, come in
to question when our decisions in those areas impact the world as a whole. He
asserts that in the modern world, we are going to have to give up some of our
rights, and “legislate temperance” if we want to survive (31).

Despite some indications appearing to show that we are heading, through

exponential population expansion, to a massive environmental tragedy, I would be
hesitant to jump to that conclusion. One issue I have lies with assuming that
technology will never exist that allows us to exist with far less individual
consumption and, consequently, waste. It would be a mistake to assume that such a
technology is “just around the corner”, and not change our patterns of behavior in
lieu of this. However, at the same time, argument from incredulity stating that such
a technology will never exist because one “just doesn’t see how it could work,” is
equally mistaken. We should, within reason, employ tactics as much as possible that
will limit our impact on the environment, without having to redefine our existence.

Another problem that I see with Hardin’s argument, and abandoning the
concept of the “invisible hand” approach, is that it is impossible to know when the
“invisible hand” should kick-in. Perhaps it is operating as it should, and that Adam
Smith’s philosophy is exactly applicable to environmental policy, but we have just
not reached a point yet where the cost of reproduction outweighs the benefit.
Hardin states that the populations growing the most rapidly are the most miserable,
and cites this as an argument against the increases of population in these areas
being an indication of their having not yet reached their optimum population level. I
don’t see this as correlative. It could simply be that the gains in labor, in goods
produced, food gathered, etcetera, outweigh the costs in these areas. Reducing the
overall population of these areas might just result in having a smaller number of
people in even more dire straights.

Additionally, Hardin makes a specific argument with regards to National

Parks. He states that, since they are each individually unique, but at the same time
open to all, they are inevitably heading towards destruction. His implied idea is,
then, that if we are to save the parks, we must close them, or make them
prohibitively expensive to enjoy. I fail to see the logic here. We’re saving these
portions of land because of their natural beauty, we are the only species on the
planet capable of recognizing and acknowledging their beauty, and we’re closing
ourselves off from them to “preserve” them. I think the ultimate goal is to preserve
them for the enjoyment of the most amount of people possible. Keep them open,
keep them as clean as possible, and keep them around for as long as possible, free
for all to enjoy. If we make them prohibitively expensive to enjoy, only the wealthy
will enjoy them. If that is the case, there is no tangible difference for most of the
population between this and their destruction through development.

Furthermore, I find Hardin’s metaphor of the pasture to be, in and of itself, a

false analogy. The implied assumption is that, like the other herdsman, society is
receiving no benefit from the pollution caused by automobiles, factories, fertilizers,
and atomic energy(35). From top to bottom, I don’t think this is so. We obviously
mutually benefit from the goods produced in factories, the energy generated by
atomic energy plants, and the produce grown through fertilizing. The benefits of
these industries are clearly not being reaped solely by the individual companies. In
addition, if any thought is given to the idea of automobile pollution, a strong
argument can be made that this, too, is a mutually beneficial activity. I’m not sure
I’d want to live in a New Jersey where all the cars were taken off the road, and my
dentist got to work by walking, and my mail was delivered by bicycle. I surely
benefit from the dentist driving, not being exhausted during my appointment, and
my mail being delivered timely.

We are very likely heading towards environmental hardships, brought on by

population expanding in the third world at a greater rate than our environmental
policies can adapt. However, reducing the population is not the only solution. The
key issue is a lack of the resources needed to sustain a population passed a certain
level. Looking at it from this angle, cultures most certainly have, at the very least,
begun to overcome this hurdle. From architectural solutions to simple available
space issues, to genetically modified food, and fungus that can feed on trash and
produce diesel, I think this essay is beginning to show its age 40 years after its
publication. The key to coming in to some sort of balance with population increase,
pollution, and resource depletion, is increased conformance with policies already in
place. Through incremental change, not radical change, we can hope to stave off
environmental disaster.

Alternatively, Hardin’s policy solution is, to put it simply, fewer “commons”.

He argues that we’ve been evolving towards this; from enclosing farmland and
restricting waste disposal, to cordoning off land fills. We’ve already begun to employ
a taxation of heavy polluters. So now, an abandonment of the commons with
regards to breeding is, in his opinion, the next logical step. I do not see how Hardin
would realistically expect to employ this policy. If there were laws enacted
restricting who could breed, and how many children they could have, Hardin admits
there would have to be an organization to enforce these laws and punish the
offenders. I would question what the punishment would be, or what would be done
with the fourth child of a family only allocated three.

Finally, Hardin attacks the detractors of reform by saying they latch on to any
flaw. He argues that this assumes the status quo is perfect. It has always been my
understanding that the reason the burden of proof is put on the reformer, is
because the status quo has the added benefit of having been tested. Our current
system surely has flaws, but it hasn’t failed catastrophically. The same cannot
automatically be assumed about a reform measure, so it should have to meet a
higher standard of proof.

The key question with regards to the validity of this essay stems from one
crucial statement, on page 26 of the Debating the Earth book where Hardin argues
that, looking at the foreseeable technology (in 1968), we must assume that the
world available to the human population is finite. If this is still so, Hardin’s essay
stands as still relevant. If however, our technological progress has moved us closer
towards realizing infinite resources, perhaps we can adjust our ideas of what a
sustainable population is.