Extracts from “The Tragedy of the Commons”
By Garret Hardin, published in Science, 162 (1968), 1243-1248
The tragedy of the commons is an economic theory by Garret Hardin, according to which individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one’s self-interest, behave contrary to the whole group’s long-term best interests by depleting some common resource. The concept is often cited in connection with sustainable development, blending economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming. “commons” can include the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, national parks, the office refrigerator, and any other shared resource.
After reading an article on the future of nuclear war Hardin was interested in the author’s conclusion that there is no technical solution to the problem (technical = using technology/ science). A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. Today technical solutions are always welcome. However, Hardin believed there were a class of human problems which can be called “no technical solution problems” which needed to be identified and discussed.
Recall the game of tic-tac-toe. A person will ask himself “Howe can I win the game of tic-tac-toe?” It is well known that I cannot if I assume my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put in another way, there is no “technical solution” to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word “win.” I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can drug him; or I can falsify the records. Every way in which I “win” involves possible abandonment of the game.
The class of “No technical solution problems” has members. The population problem is a member of this class. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem – technologically. Hardin tries to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, anymore than can the problem of winning the game of tic-tac-toe.
Population naturally tends to grow exponentially. In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world’s goods must steadily decrease. Is ours a finite world? A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? We want the “greatest good for the greatest number” but can this be realized?
To live any organism must have a source of energy. Energy is utilized for two purposes: maintenance and work. Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech but also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must do: We must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art…. I think that everyone will agree that maximizing population does not maximize goods. The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. To reach the optimum population we need to assume that humans will willingly control their reproductive rates and if they do not we need examine individual freedoms to see which ones are indefensible.
Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
A commons is a natural resource shared by many individuals. In this context, “shared” means that each individual does not have a claim to any part of the resource, but rather, to the use of a portion of it for his/her own benefit. The tragedy is that, in the absence of regulation, each individual will have a tendency to exploit the commons to his/her own advantage, typically without limit. Under this state of affairs, the commons is depleted and eventually ruined.
At the root of the tragedy is the unrestrained self-interest of some individuals. The underlying reasoning is that the commons is eventually going to be used up, whoever affects the greatest astronomical: While the benefits accrue solely to the user, the costs are spread among all others sharing the commons.
Hardin’s Tragedy is not only a tenet of environmental science, it is also very common, no pun intended. To understand why, we must examine the way that Nature works. Most natural resources are held in common, i.e., shared by many. For instance, the air (our atmosphere) is really the quintessential commons. No group or country can claim exclusive ownership of it. Diffusion acts to equalize all constituents, such that the causes of some actions are the effects on others. No better example comes to mind than that of global warming. The excessive pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by some countries results in the melting of glaciers elsewhere around the planet.
Another example of a typical commons is groundwater. Nobody really owns the groundwater; it is technically up for grabs. However, individual pumping of too much groundwater can result in the depletion of the resource, to say nothing of other related effects or losses, such as land subsidence and slat-water intrusion. Again, diffusion acts to spread the effect of the individual’s use among all. Eventually, depletion by a few means depletion for all.
Unlike groundwater, surface water is subject to appropriation, and this is the practice in the United States. Therefore, one may think that surface water is not a commons. However, the real issue is more subtle than it appears. Surface water carries solids in the form of suspended sediments and dissolved salts. Surface water acts as a means of carrying these solids from source in the mountains to sink in the oceans (for peripheral continental basins). Every iota of consumptive use of water (for instance, for irrigation) encroaches upon the right of Nature to export the solids, particularly the salts, to the ocean. It is seen that this “right” is a commons; i.e., by definition, a resource that could be used by many and abused by a few. Taking most, or all, of the runoff and converting it into evaporation and evapotranspiration (as it is usually the case in highly developed basins) wastes the commons’ right to export the salts, resulting in the eventual ruin of the land. Again, the omnipresent diffusion takes its toll. The salts are diffused locally and end up polluting the local and subregional surface and groundwater, laying waste to neighboring ecosystems. Thus, while surface water quantity may not be a commons in practice, surface water quality clearly is.
One does not need to dig too deep to realize that most natural resources are actually commons. Thus, Hardin’s Tragedy is indeed very common. It presents itself almost everywhere, particularly in situations where the rights of the individual are pitted against those of the community. Societies that want to remain sustainable have no choice but to regulate the use of the commons. Regulation is the price to pay for sustainability; it is the least undesirable strategy, since an unregulated commons eventually marches itself toward tragedy.
The Tragedy of the Commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.
As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, “What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?” This utility has one negative and one positive component.
1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.
2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsmen concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another… But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit – in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present they are open to all, without limit. The parks themselves are limited in extent – there is only one Yosemite Valley – whereas population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will be of no value to anyone.
Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in – sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air, and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone we are locked into a system of “fouling our own nest,” so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
Land can be fenced off as private property but the air and waters that surround us cannot readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons must be prevented by different means: by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated.
The pollution problem is a consequence of population. As the population becomes denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes become overloaded. We can legislate, creating laws that a population has to follow. But more is needed. How do we legislate temperance – temperance in breeding and polluting?
“Tragedy of the Commons” Discussion Questions
Answer in complete sentences on Turnitin.
1. According to Hardin, there are some problems that have no scientific or technical (technology) solution. What does he mean by this? What would be an example of a non-technical solution? What does Hardin argue must occur when there are no technical solutions?
2. Hardin discusses the “greatest good.” How would an anthropocentrist define “greatest good”? A biocentrist? An ecocentrist? How do you define “greatest good”? Look back at all the questions, did you answer ALL of them?
3. Explain what the tragedy of the commons is in your own words. This should take some effort and address what “commons” are and what causes the tragedy..
4. Provide an example where individual freedoms should be considered more important than common environmental good.
5. What role does regulation (laws/rules) play in the tragedy of the commons?
6. On page 3, Hardin discusses herdsman sharing grazing land between themselves. How were you and your fishing group similar to the herdsman Hardin describes? Make sure you show an understanding of both situations and how each exemplify the TOTC.
7. Do you think access to common areas such as national parks (owned collectively by all citizens) should be open to everyone, all the time even if the influence of the “crowd” actually diminishes the parks natural resources and/or aesthetic value? If so, why is having visitors more important than having the park stay healthy? If not, how would you fairly control who gets access and who doesn’t?
8. What are some “commons” here at Cleveland High School? (really really really make sure you understand the definition of “commons” and explain how each represent “coommons)