Title: The Tragedy of the Commons

Author: Garrett Hardin

Year Written: 1968

Occupation: Ecologist

Purpose:  Hardin is trying to persuade in a very patronizing manner.  He uses past philosophers and writers to hammer his points him as if the reader show already know all these things.

Main points: Hardin’s main point in this article is that “population problem.”  In other words, as the population continues to grow, the world will run out of its finite resources and eventually, we will all be worse off for it.   The first statement he makes before that underlines his thesis is that this is a problem with no technical solution.  No amount of scientific progress will solve this problem because “a finite world can support only a finite population.”  Hardin also states that every population should reach an “optimal point” in which the growth of the population will then reach zero.

Hardin’s main argument is based on something he refers to as the “commons.”  The example he uses in his article is about a large field that has some ranchers and an x amount of cattle per rancher.  At first, the ranchers will fight each other for the land and natural disease will kill the cows and numerous other variables to keep the population of the cattle down.  However, there will come a point where the ranchers create a society to advance their own welfares and then the ranchers can decide for themselves how many cows they wish to keep.  If keeping one more cow creates more profit (we’ll say “y” amount), then of course the rancher wants more cattle.  Also, for each cow, he also hurts the land from overgrazing.  However, the cost of overgrazing is split between all the ranchers, not just him, so the “cost” of one extra cow is but a fraction of amount he’ll receive.  This is the principle behind the “commons.”  Hardin also uses pollution as a commons example.

Hardin also uses psychological factors as a reason for why we cannot solve the population problem.  He explains that propaganda, guilt, and anxiety are all useless forms of communication that ultimately leaves the target with little reason to change their original course of action.  Or worse yet, it may lead to a course of action that leads to serious repercussions.  He states that “mutual coercion” is the only way to bring real change that benefits the society.  By giving up one freedom (the right to rob banks), society ultimately gains more freedoms (trust in banks, ability to go and feel safe, etc).

Hardin ultimately states that the freedom to breed will bring about the end to other more precious freedoms.  Only by doing so can “we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.”

Evaluation: Hardin does a good job with his argument citing various examples of his commons theory.  The biggest problem I have with the argument is his unwavering belief that the world’s resources are finite in every way.  This is his clear underlying principle and without it, the rest of his argument isn’t valid.    While I do agree with him to a point, I’m hesitant to draw the same conclusions as he does.  He cites that this is a problem with no technical solution and uses a quote from writers about the Cold War amounting to the same thing.  Obviously the Cold War did end in a solution without a nuclear war.  I think Hardin underestimates the scientific advances that could be made in his future.  While I’m not belittling his argument, I do not believe this planet has reached its optimal population and hence it’s still growing by its own accord and in relative balance to the resources we are provided.  However, I do agree we are reaching a point where that may no longer be the case.