The Tragedy of the Commons | Summary

Summary
Garrett Hardin's 1968 essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" argues overpopulation is depleting
the earth's resources. He warns without countermeasures, humans are doomed to misery. This
echoes the writings of Thomas Robert Malthus, who observed in 1798 the population growth
rate inevitably outpaces food production, leading to widespread starvation. Since then, many
arguments have challenged Malthus's theory. Although some areas of the world have
experienced periods of famine, Malthus's debunkers argue technology has prevented and can
continue to prevent famine through advances in agricultural techniques. They point out
technology has improved the quality of life across the globe, even as the population has
doubled.
In "The Tragedy of the Commons" Hardin counters such faith in technology. His paper opens
with an image of two superpowers building more and more missiles to extend their power as
well as protect their own citizens. According to Hardin, this stalemate is an example of a
situation that cannot be resolved by new technology. In fact, technology helped escalate the
situation to deadly proportions. No matter what technological solutions we create, Hardin
argues, they are only short-term. New technology will support an increased population that will
deplete the additional resources.

What Shall We Maximize?

Hardin argues we must assume the world's resources are finite so we can work toward a
solution, and he rejects colonization of other planets as an option. He next challenges the belief
the earth's resources have the capacity to support still more people. Hardin argues there is a
difference between maximum and optimum population. Maximum population simply means
having as many people on Earth as possible. Optimum population implies a level of quality of
life. The more people there are, the fewer nutritional and natural resources there are per person.
Supporting the maximum population means surrendering the possibility of pleasure, leisure, or
any other activity beyond basic survival.

Hardin also challenges 18th-century economist Adam Smith's 1776 treatise The Wealth of
Nations. Smith posited when individuals make decisions for their own gain, their selfish acts will
be guided by the mechanism of the "invisible hand," which ultimately leads people to create
stable societies. Hardin says if Smith's theory is correct, people will intuitively choose to limit
their number of children. If not, social controls are required.

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons

Hardin fears dire consequences when a population shares a limited resource. Without limits on
individual use, the resource will inevitably be depleted.

Hardin illustrates this by citing an 1833 essay by economist William Forster Lloyd. Lloyd presents
a fertile community pasture on which a number of herders graze their cattle. At the start each
herder keeps a small number of cattle on the land. However, over time, each man realizes it
would be to his benefit to graze a few more, and then many more. Before long the pasture is
overrun with cattle trampling grass and competing for fodder. The tipping point has been
reached. Eventually the grass is gone, the soil erodes, and the pasture becomes worthless for
grazing. This is the tragedy of the commons: when there are no limits on use, members of a
group take advantage of a shared resource until it is exhausted.

Pollution
Hardin names several modern tragedies of the commons. Maritime countries overfish the
oceans until species become extinct. Music blares from car radios and intrusive billboards
infringe on shared vistas. Without concern for the commons, industries pour sewage, chemicals,
heat, and fumes into the air and water, leading to the degradation of the environment and the
potential destruction of life. According to Hardin, these tragedies of the commons directly result
from overpopulation.

How to Legislate Temperance?

Hardin states what a society considers moral is "system-sensitive," by which he means the
context is important to understanding the society's values. He gives the example of a pioneer
killing a bison and wasting most of the animal. In the context in which the pioneer lived, the
action would not be considered harmful to the abundant population of bison. However, now
there are far fewer bison and such an act would be unconscionable. Because our laws tend to be
based on "ancient ethics," they tend not to take context into account as much as they should,
which can make them "poorly suited" to modern society.

Hardin describes two kinds of laws: statutory law and administrative law. Statutory laws have
been passed by a legislature, while administrative laws are regulations to enforce the statutory
laws. Hardin proposes administrative law, while flawed, is the better suited of the two to
regulating temperance, or the restraint of an activity.

Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable

The activity Hardin believes needs to be restrained is human breeding. The obstacle to limiting
population growth, he states, is the general belief breeding is a human right. Merging "freedom
to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons" will lead to
disaster. He criticizes the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights for affirming
the rights of each family to decide how many children to have.

Conscience Is Self-Eliminating
Hardin next addresses the question of how to change this belief and reduce the rate of human
breeding. He argues appeals to conscience or guilt are self-defeating. Humans with a social
conscience who voluntarily abstain from breeding will be taken advantage of by those without
such a conscience. Those without a social conscience will have more children, and over
successive generations, altruism could disappear as a human trait.

Pathogenic Effects of Conscience

Hardin explores the idea of a "double bind," a term attributed to the anthropologist Gregory
Bateson. If people are asked to stop an activity that is harmful to the commons with an "appeal
to conscience," Hardin argues, they are being given two conflicting messages. The first is they
will be reprimanded for not being "responsible" if they do not take the recommended action.
The second is if they do what is asked, they are easily coerced "simpletons" who will be giving
up access to the commons while others continue to exploit them and benefit.

Hardin believes the overused tactic of making people feel guilty is not effective. It merely causes
"anxiety" in those who are asked to act against their own interests. Real sanctions are preferable.

Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon

Hardin believes the way to change people's attitudes and behaviors is not through guilt or force
but through "mutual coercion." He admits the term coercion has negative connotations but
prefers it to "persuasion." Since appeals to social conscience do not work, people must be
coerced by mutual agreement to limit family size. Hardin recommends instituting "not
prohibition, but carefully biased options." An individual is free to choose between adhering to
social agreements and facing sanctions. He uses taxes as an example of mutual coercion.
Without penalties, he says, those without consciences would not voluntarily contribute to the
communal good.

Recognition of Necessity
Hardin challenges the argument restrictions limit freedom. He argues restrictions protect us
from each other's exploitation. Just as parking meters and parking tickets limit our options, they
also make it more likely we can find a space for our car. As he stated earlier in the essay, "We
need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are defensible." Constraints that
apply to all protect us from each other's selfishness and allow us to live in groups.
According to Hardin, social change is possible. He briefly traces how humans have relinquished
certain liberties in the past and used coercion to avoid the tragedy of the commons. Throughout
history people have found ways to protect resources, such as designating private property and
legislating hunting, fishing, and farming. As cities became densely populated, coercive
agreements prohibited throwing domestic waste into the streets. Once agreements are in place,
Hardin states, people adapt to new norms as if they had always been present. He insists the way
to "preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to
breed."

Analysis
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is an argumentative essay. Building on Thomas Malthus's 1798
theories, Garrett Hardin stresses the urgency of curbing population growth and suggests how it
might be done.

Socratic Method
Hardin develops his thesis through a series of questions and answers that ultimately lead to his
intended conclusion. He poses a question, states the common wisdom, and then systematically
challenges the components and definitions supporting that belief. This resembles the Socratic
method, which was used by Greek philosophers in the fourth century BCE. To use the Socratic
method, the sage would ask a series of probing questions that guided the pupil to see the
discrepancies and inconsistencies in his belief, and this would then lead the pupil to a solid,
logical conclusion.

Similarly, Hardin uses a series of questions that lead the reader to conclude there is no
alternative to limiting breeding. Hardin asks: Is ours a finite world? Can we meet the goal of "the
greatest good for the greatest number"? What is "good"? One by one, he deflates beliefs
technology, infinite resources, space colonization, or market forces can support a growing
population. After providing an explanation of the tragedy of the commons and establishing the
need to reduce breeding, he returns to the question-answer format. He asks: If we must limit
family size, how do we achieve this? He again sequentially dismisses the use of laws, guilt, and
social conscience before reaching his goal, which is convincing us of the need for coercion in
limiting offspring.

Argumentation
Hardin's paper was published in Science magazine, a well-established academic journal
established in 1880. Unlike popular science magazines for the general public or specialized
scientific journals, Science's audience tends to be intellectuals interested in new concepts and
research directions across a range of scientific disciplines.
Throughout the article Hardin demonstrates a broad range of knowledge and draws from a
variety of fields, including economics, mathematics, politics, psychology, and philosophy. He
cites Thomas Malthus, Adam Smith, Charles Darwin, and Georg Hegel, as well as contemporary
authorities to bolster each point with credible sources.

That he is writing for an intellectual audience is reflected in his casual references to scholarly
works in varied fields of study. He assumes his readers have his own depth and breadth of
knowledge. For example, Harding refers to a "theory of partial differential equations" with no
further explanation of the theory. Hardin assumes his readers are familiar with these concepts or
they will take time to access the original sources. Most of these documents are cited in his list of
references, but not all.

In contrast to how he gives cursory mention of those whose ideas support him, he takes pains to
explain ideas he hopes to dismiss. For example, he explains Adam Smith's theory self-motivated
"decisions reached individually will ... be the best decisions for an entire society." This directly
challenges Hardin's theory of the commons, and Hardin provides detail to point out an
inconsistency in Smith's argument. Similarly, Hardin provides details about the United Nations'
Declaration of Human Rights before dismissing its validity.

Although this essay was published in Science, it is highly subjective. His position on
overpopulation is strongly worded. He uses the word breeding, a term mainly used for animals
like dogs and cattle, to refer to human procreation and childbearing. He asserts people who try
to find technical solutions are trying to avoid the "evils" of overpopulation. He wants to
"exorcize the spirit of Adam Smith." Evil and exorcism are strong words that evoke a sense of
ultimate wrongdoing. Throughout the essay, overpopulation is tagged with other words with
negative connotations, such as tragedy, misery, and ruin.

Definition of "Commons"
Hardin draws on the image of a communal pasture shared by several herdsmen who individually
decide it is in their own best interest to graze more and more cattle. With all the additional
cattle, the pasture becomes overgrazed and loses its value to the community. The pasture in this
case is the "commons" and a metaphor for any shared resource destroyed by overuse and
individual greed.

Hardin leaves it to readers, however, to define what constitutes a commons in the world today.
He gives examples of leased land, parking spaces on a city street, oceans and sea life, national
parks, air and water, and even the shared airwaves and sight lines, with uninvited radios blaring
and road signs disturbing our landscapes. If all of these are commons, what is not? He implies
mutual coercions should be set for almost every aspect of community life.

His examples suggest the commons can be exploited by individuals, industries, regions, and
nations competing for resources and power, which returns us to the essay's opening image of
two countries facing off with nuclear weapons. The commons may be the field of influence on
the world stage or a river flowing between countries. However, ownership of private property
blurs the lines. One can claim the right to foul the bank of the river that abuts the person's
property without thinking of the river as a commons.

Morality
Hardin makes a point of saying the morality of an action should be judged in light of the
circumstances. He cites the situation in which a pioneer in the American West could shoot a
bison without significant damage to the herd. However, as the human population reached a
critical mass, bison nearly became extinct. Some commons, like the bison, can be revived. On the
other hand, some cannot. We may be nearing a point of no return with climate change and
biodiversity. When a species has been extinguished, the ecological system is altered and often
cannot be restored. At what point does the use of a commons become a tragedy? What is the
optimal time to intervene?