More From This User
poli105essays
Const. Articles & the branches they create and civil liberties vs. civil rights.
Political Science 227 Final Study Guide
Poli-227 Study Guide for Final
Andrew LeaheyPOLI 228. Mid-term. Essay #3. The Tragedy of the Commons is an essay, and philosophical viewpoint thatstates that, given the opportunity to increase personal gain and not incur the fullvalue of the expense of that gain, people will chose to operate in their own bestinterest 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 thepros of adding an additional cow to their herd as far outweighing the cons. In doingso, the unintended outcome is the destruction of the parcel of land, it beingovergrazed 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, trustingthat if all parties involved act in their own individual best interests, they will bydefault work towards the best interest of the planet (27). Hardin’s assertion is thatthere are specific situations where the rational choice for any one individual orgroup of individuals will be decidedly not beneficial for the rest. The herdsmanmetaphor illustrates this.Like the parcel of land, Hardin argues that, left unchecked, exponentialpopulation increases worldwide will cause massive environmental harm. Resourcedepletion and an increase in waste, in line with the population increase, willeventually exceed the amount the planet can sustain. His thesis is that thepopulation 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 inquality 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 makingunwanted behaviors increasingly expensive (34). This can either be done naturallyor artificially by some sort of legislative body. If population increase is accepted asbeing a negative behavior, we need to make it more expensive, monetarily orsocially, to have more children. His argument is that since the portions of the worldwith the highest rate of population increase tend to be the most miserable, this isobviously 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 into question when our decisions in those areas impact the world as a whole. Heasserts that in the modern world, we are going to have to give up some of ourrights, and “legislate temperance” if we want to survive (31).Despite some indications appearing to show that we are heading, throughexponential population expansion, to a massive environmental tragedy, I would be
hesitant to jump to that conclusion. One issue I have lies with assuming thattechnology will never exist that allows us to exist with far less individualconsumption and, consequently, waste. It would be a mistake to assume that such atechnology is “just around the corner”, and not change our patterns of behavior inlieu of this. However, at the same time, argument from incredulity stating that sucha technology will never exist because one “just doesn’t see how it could work,” isequally mistaken. We should, within reason, employ tactics as much as possible thatwill limit our impact on the environment, without having to redefine our existence.Another problem that I see with Hardin’s argument, and abandoning theconcept 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 AdamSmith’s philosophy is exactly applicable to environmental policy, but we have justnot 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 areasbeing an indication of their having not yet reached their optimum population level. Idon’t see this as correlative. It could simply be that the gains in labor, in goodsproduced, food gathered, etcetera, outweigh the costs in these areas. Reducing theoverall 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 NationalParks. He states that, since they are each individually unique, but at the same timeopen 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 themprohibitively expensive to enjoy. I fail to see the logic here. We’re saving theseportions of land because of their natural beauty, we are the only species on theplanet capable of recognizing and acknowledging their beauty, and we’re closingourselves off from them to “preserve” them. I think the ultimate goal is to preservethem 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, freefor all to enjoy. If we make them prohibitively expensive to enjoy, only the wealthywill enjoy them. If that is the case, there is no tangible difference for most of thepopulation between this and their destruction through development.Furthermore, I find Hardin’s metaphor of the pasture to be, in and of itself, afalse analogy. The implied assumption is that, like the
other
herdsman, society isreceiving 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 obviouslymutually benefit from the goods produced in factories, the energy generated byatomic energy plants, and the produce grown through fertilizing. The benefits of these industries are clearly not being reaped solely by the individual companies. Inaddition, if any thought is given to the idea of automobile pollution, a strongargument can be made that this, too, is a mutually beneficial activity. I’m not sure
of 00
Tragedy of the Commons Rebuttal
377 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 02/21/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Leave a Comment