Gianna Dominique M.

Marasigan

August 26,206
Not Just a Tragedy

One of the global problems that has been passed for already how many years and has been left
unsolved is that the population is growing exponentially. This problem must be solved to avoid greater complex
adversities which fuel more state challenges. Garret Hardin determined the factors that caused population to
swell and hypothesized effective solution. He tried to show the relation of resources to population where he
concluded that a finite world can support only a finite population. He said that both the materials which we
humans utilize and the population cant be optimized at the same time. As he debunked a lot of theories and
solutions in controlling the growth of human population, he arrived with the idea that no technical solution can
rescue us from the great destructions of overpopulation. For him, observing it externally combined with
conscience and temptation to go for good solutions would just lead to greater problems in handling population
growth. With this, he came up with a solution which is relinquishing the freedom to breed. Tragedy of the
Commons is the overconsumption of what the author called as commons which are services or products. This
applies the law of inverse proportionality where the higher the demand of the population will deteriorate the
increasing problems regarding overpopulation.
With his example which is the open access field for the pasture for animals, we can see how they dont
value their actions because in the first place they dont bear the result of their actions nor receive any benefits
for making right decisions. This is a building block in the abuse of the natural resources. There is no
conservation thats why they use field before someone else does. Acquisitiveness is one of the typical attitude
that humans possess. Because of this kind of character interlinked with an individuals urge to accumulate
more resources for his necessities and his familys needs, the person has no incentive to care for the
remaining resources. We can perceive in here that this will just be effective if we cut off their means of
communication. If they will make plans this said solution would not be effective. People making plans together
would result to the division of lands or discussing about the number of organisms which will be used by every
herdsman in order to avoid the exploitation of the carrying capacity of soil and to avoid the declination of the
health of the animals.
Adapting this kind of rule in fish ponds, forests and other important areas of the community where we
obtain our resources, this will just develop a kind of negative mentality to future generation. Even at this point
where it has not yet been imposed, a big chunk of the population doesnt care about the environment, how
much more if we are going to legalize this kind of solution? A great portion of hard works done by various
organizations and individuals in empowering the conservation of our Mother Earth and the conservation of
natural resources would just be wasted. This would also greatly clash most religions beliefs for they believe
that resources must be conserved and protected for it is not ours but His and its our duty to guard and protect
our environment. This would also ignite feuds between individuals and groups due to the continuous addition of
species in a specific region. One of the examples of this would be putting cows in a cornfield. The corns would
diminish because it would be eaten by the cows and eventually it will be used up. The owner of the field has

nothing to do because it is an open access field. This would show the inequality in this kind of system. This
solution made by Hardin causes disunity, greed, anger, inequality and injustice. We must not forget that we are
going that future generations may totally embrace these traits while thinking of applying those as norm.
The part which is directly affected with this is the animal rights. They will be subject to peoples
exploitation due to this kind of system. This would later lead our necessities to extinction with Hardins idea
such as soil with good quality, rice and fish. Because of this, the economy of a certain state would surely
decelerate because of the consumption of their products. Huge amount of debts would arise because of the
diminishing of their main resources.
This kind of idea is inhumane for it will cause the sufferings of families in the future due to the lack of
resources`. This may be the solution taken by some nations but later on, they will reap the immense throwback
of the effects done by this theory. We will not wait until we will just stand and stare at the struggles of masses
especially in third world countries.
The tragedy of the commons would just complicate each states problems. Why would we choose a
path where it starts with tragedy and will lead to immense loss and obliteration? This is not a solution but it is
just worsening our current state. We must not only think for the after effect but we must advance ourselves in
viewing the picture of our future and of the Mother Earth.