Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tragedy of The Commons PDF
Tragedy of The Commons PDF
The Tragedy
of the Commons
by Garrett Hardin nuclear world) but on the kind of of tick-tack-toe. Consider the
conclusion they reached, namely problem, “How can I win the game
t the end of a thoughtful
26
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
than can the problem of winning the differential equations, dating back at in analysis are, as it were, reversed;
game of tick-tack-toe. least to D’Alembert (1717-1783). but Bentham’s goal is still
What Shall We The second reas on springs unobtainable.
directly from biological facts. To The optimum population is, then,
Maximize?
live, any organism must have a less than the maximum. The
Population, as Malthus said,
source of energy (for example, difficulty of defining the optimum is
naturally tends to grow
food). This energy is utilized for enormous; so far as I know, no one
“geometrically” or, as we would
two purposes: mere maintenance has seriously tackled this problem.
now say, exponentially. In a finite
and work. For man, maintenance of Reaching an acceptable and stable
world this means that the per capita
life requires about 1,600 kilo- solution will surely require more
share of the world’s goods must
calories a day (“maintenance than one generation of hard
steadily decrease. Is ours a finite
calories”). Anything that he does
world?
over and above merely staying
A fair defense can be put
alive will be defined as work, and “The optimum
forward for the view that the world
is infinite; or that we do not know is supported by “work calories ” population is, then,
which he takes in. Work calories
that it is not. But, in terms of the
are used not only for what we call less than the
practical problems that we must
face in the next few generations work in common speech; they are maximum. The
also required for all forms of
with the foreseeable technology, it difficulty of defining
enjoyment, from swimming and
is clear that we will greatly increase
human misery if we do not, during automobile racing to playing music the optimum is
and writing poetry. If our goal is to
the immediate future, assume that enormous; so far as
maximize population it is obvious
the world available to the terrestrial
what we must do: We must make I know, no one has
human population is finite. “Space”
the work calories per person seriously tackled
is no escape. 2
approach as close to zero as
A finite world can support only
possible. No gourmet meals, no this problem.”
a finite population; therefore,
vacations, no sports, no music, no
population growth must eventually
literature, no art …I think that
equal zero. (The case of perpetual
everyone will grant, without analytical work — and much
wide fluctuations above and below
argument or proof, that maximizing persuasion.
zero is a trivial variant that need not
population does not maximize We want the maximum good per
be discussed.) When this condition
goods. Bentham’s goal is person; but what is good? To one
is met, what will be the situation of
impossible. person it is wilderness, to another it
mankind? Specifically, can
In reaching this conclusion I is ski lodges for thousands. To one
Bentham’s goal of “the greatest
have made the usual assumption it is estuaries to nourish ducks for
good for the greatest number” be
that it is the acquisition of energy hunters to shoot; to another it is
realized?
that is the problem. The appearance factory land. Comparing one good
No — for two reasons, each
of atomic energy has led some to with another is, we usually say,
s ufficient by itself. The first i s a
question this assumption. However, impossible because goods are
theoretical one. It is not
given an infinite source of energy, i n c o m m e n - s u r a b l e .
mathematically possible to
population growth still produces an Incommensurables cannot be
maximize for two (or more)
inescapable problem. The problem compared.
variables at the same time. This
of the acquisition of energy is
was clearly stated by von Neumann
replaced by the problem of its
and Morgenstern,3 but the principle
dissipation, as J. H. Fremlin has so
is implicit in the theory of partial
wittily shown.4 The arithmetic signs
27
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
Theoretically this may be true; has: There is no prosperous their individual fecundity so as to
but in real life incommensurables population in the world today that produce the optimum population. If
are commensurable. Only a has, and has had for some time, a the assumption is not correct, we
criterion of judgment and a system growth rate of zero. Any people need to reexamine our individual
of weighting are needed. In nature that has intuitively identified its freedoms to see which ones are
the criterion is survival. Is it better optimum point will soon reach it, defensible.
for a species to be small and after which its growth rate Tragedy of Freedom
hideable, or large and powerful? becomes and remains zero. in a Commons
Natural selection commensurates Of course, a positive growth The rebuttal to the invisible hand
the incommensurables. The rate might be taken as evidence in population control can be found in
compromise achieved depends on a that a population is below its a scenario first sketched in a little-
natural weighting of the values of optimum. However, by any known pamphlet6 in 1833 by a
the variables. reasonable standards, the most mathematical amateur named
Man must imitate this process. rapidly growing populations on earth William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852).
There is no doubt that in fact he today are (in general) the mos t We may well call it “the tragedy of
already does, but unconsciously. It miserable. This association (which the commons,” using the word
is when the hidden decisions are need not be invariable) casts doubt “tragedy” as the philosopher
on the optimistic assumption that Whitehead used it 7: “The essence
the positive growth rate of a of dramatic tragedy is not
population is evidence that it has
“…by any unhappiness. It resides in the
yet to reach its optimum. solemnity of the remorseless
reasonable We can make little progress in working of things.” He then goes
standards, the working toward optimum population on to say, “This inevitableness of
size until we explicitly exorcize the
most rapidly destiny can only be illustrated in
spirit of Adam Smith in the field of terms of human life by incidents
growing practical demography. In economic which in fact involve unhappiness.
affairs, The Wealth of Nations
populations on (1776) popularized the “invisible
For it is only by them that the futility
of escape can be made evident in
earth today are (in hand,” the idea that an individual the drama.”
who “intends only his own gain” is,
general) the most The tragedy of the commons
as it were, “led by an invisible hand develops in this way. Picture a
miserable.” to promote… the public interest.”5 pasture open to all. It is to be
Adam Smith did not assert that this expected that each herdsman will
was invariably true, and perhaps try to keep as many cattle as
made explicit that the arguments neither did any of his followers. But possible on the commons. Such an
begin. The problem for the years he contributed to a dominant arrangement may work reasonably
ahead is to work out an acceptable tendency of thought that has ever
theory of weighting. Synergistic since interfered with positive action
effects, nonlinear variation, and based on rational analysis, namely,
difficulties in discounting the future the tendency to assume that
make the intellectual problem decisions reached individually will,
difficult, but not (in principle) in fact, be the best decisions for an
insoluble. entire society. If this assumption is
Has any cultural group solved correct it justifies the continuance
this practical problem at the present of our present policy of laissez-faire
time, even on an intuitive level? in reproduction. If it is correct we
One simple fact proves that none can assume that men will control
28
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
29
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
30
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
ancient Chinese, but it may take ten administrative law. We limit confronted with another aspect of
thousand words to validate it. It is possibilities unnecessarily if we the tragedy of the commons.
as tempting to ecologists as it is to suppose that the sentiment of Quis In a welfare state, how shall we
reformers in general to try to custodiet denies us the use of deal with the family, the religion, the
persuade others by way of the administrative law. We should race, or the class (or indeed any
photographic shortcut. But the rather retain the phrase as a distinguishable and cohesive group)
essence of an argument cannot be perpetual reminder of fearful that adopts overbreeding as a policy
photographed: It must be presented dangers we cannot avoid. The great to secure its own
13
rationally — in words. challenge facing us now is to invent aggrandizement? To couple the
That morality is system-sensitive the corrective feedbacks that are concept of freedom to breed with
escaped the attention of most needed to keep custodians honest. the belief that everyone born has an
codifiers of ethic s in the past. We must find ways to legitimate the equal right to the commons is to
“Thou shalt not…” is the form of needed authority of both the lock the world into a tragic course
traditional ethical directives which custodians and the corrective of action.
make no allowance for particular feedbacks. Unfortunately this is just the
circumstances. The laws of our Freedom to Breed course of action that is being
society follow the pattern of ancient pursued by the United Nations. In
Is Intolerable
ethics, and therefore are poorly late 1967, some 30 nations agreed
The tragedy of the commons is
suited to governing a complex, to the following14:
involved in population problems in
crowded, changeable world. Our The Universal Declaration of
another way. In a world governed
epicyclic solution is to augment Human Rights describes the
solely by the principle of “dog eat
statutory law with administrative family as the natural and
dog” — if indeed there ever was
law. Since it is practically fundamental unit of society.
such a world — how many children
impossible to spell out all the It follows that any choice
a family had would not be a matter
conditions under which it is safe to and decision with regard to
of public concern. Parents who
burn trash in the back yard or to run the size of the family must
bred too exuberantly would leave
an automobile without smog-control, irrevocably rest with the
fewer descendants, not more,
by law we delegate the details to family itself, and cannot be
because they would be unable to
bureaus. The result is administrative made by anyone else.
care adequately for their children.
law, which is rightly feared for an David Lack and others have found It is painful to have to deny
ancient reason — Quis custodies that such a negative feedback categorically the validity of this
ipsos custodes? — “Who shall demonstrably controls the fecundity right; denying it, one feels as
watch the watchers themselves?” of birds.11 But men are not birds, uncomfortable as a resident of
John Adams said that we must and have not acted like them for Salem, Massachusetts, who denied
have “a government of laws and millenniums, at least. the reality of witches in the
not men.” Bureau administrators, If each human family were seventeenth century. At the present
trying to evaluate the morality of dependent only on its own time, in liberal quarters, something
acts in the total system, are resources; if the children of like a taboo acts to inhibit criticis m
singularly liable to corruption, improvident parents starved to of the United Nations. There is a
producing a government by men, death; if, thus, overbreeding brought feeling that the United Nations is
not laws. its own “punishment” to the germ “our last and best hope,” that we
Prohibition is easy to legislate line — then there would be no shouldn’t find fault with it; we
(though not necessarily to enforce), public interest in controlling the shouldn’t play into the hands of the
but how do we legislate breeding of families. But our archconservatives. However, let us
temperance? Experience indicates society is deeply committed to the not forget what Robert Louis
that it can be accomplished best welfare state, 12 and hence is Stevenson said: “The truth that is
through the mediation of
31
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
suppressed by friends is the the most general formal sense. The sec retly condemn you for a
readiest weapon of the enemy.” If result will be the same whether the simpleton who can be shamed into
we love the truth we must openly attitude is transmitted through germ standing aside while the rest of us
deny the validity of the Universal cells or exosomatically, to use A. J. exploit the commons.”
Declaration of Human Rights, even Lotka’s term. (If one denies the Every man then is caught in
though it is promoted by the United latter possibility as well as the what Bateson has called a “double
Nations. We should also join with former, then what’s the point of bind.” Bateson and his co-workers
Kingsley Davis 15 in attempting to education?) The argument here has have made a plausible case for
get Planned Parenthood-World been stated in the context of the viewing the double bind as an
Population to see the error of its population problem, but it applies important causative factor in the
ways in embracing the same tragic equally well to any instance in genesis of schizophrenia. 17 The
ideal. which society appeals to an double bind may not always be so
Conscience Is individual exploiting a commons to damaging, but it always endangers
Self-Eliminating restrain himself for the general the mental health of anyone to
It is a mistake to think that we good — by means of his
can control the breeding of mankind conscience. To make such an
in the long run by an appeal to appeal is to set up a selective “Those who have
conscience. Charles Galton Darwin system that works toward the
more children will
made this point when he spoke on elimination of conscience from the
the centennial of the publication of race. produce a larger
his grandfather’s great book. The Pathogenic Effects fraction of the next
argument is straightforward and of Conscience
Darwinian. generation than
The long-term effects of
People vary. Confronted with conscience should be enough to those with more
appeals to limited breeding, some condemn it; but serious short-term
people will undoubtedly respond to susceptible
disadvantages exist as well. If we
the plea more than others. Those ask a man who is exploiting a consciences. The
who have more children will commons to desist “in the name of difference will be
produce a larger fraction of the conscience,” what are we saying
next generation than those with to him? What does he hear? — accentuated,
more susceptible cons ciences. The not only at the moment but also in generation by
difference will be accentuated, the wee hours of the night when,
generation by generation. generation.”
half asleep, he remembers not
In C. G. Darwin’s words: “It merely the words we used but
may well be that it would take also the nonverbal communication
hundreds of generations for the whom it is applied. “A bad
cues we gave him unawares?
progenitive instinct to develop in this conscience,” said Nietzsche, “is a
Sooner or later, consciously or
way, but if it should do so, nature kind of illness.”
subconsciously, he senses that he
would have taken her revenge, and To conjure up a conscience in
has received two communications,
the variety Homo contracipiens others is tempting to anyone who
and that they are contradictory: (i)
would become extinct and would be wishes to extend his control beyond
(intended communication) “If you
replaced by the variety Homo the legal limits. Leaders at the
don’t do as we ask, we will openly
progenitivus.”16 highest level suc cumb to this
condemn you for not acting like a
The argument assumes that temptation. Has any President
responsible citizen”; (ii) (the
conscience or the desire for during the past generation failed to
unintended communication) “If you
children (no matter which) is call on labor unions to moderate
do behave as we ask, we will
hereditary — but hereditary only in voluntarily their demands for higher
32
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
wages, or to steel companies to titles of some organizations devoted infringe on the freedom of would-be
honor voluntary guidelines on to birth control. Some people have robbers we neither deny nor regret.
prices? I can recall none. The proposed massive propaganda The morality of bank-robbing is
rhetoric used on such occasions is campaigns to instill respons ibility particularly easy to understand
designed to produce feelings of guilt into the nation’s (or the world’s) because we accept complete
in non-cooperators. breeders. But what is the meaning prohibition of this activity. We are
For centuries it was assumed of the word “responsibility” in this willing to say, “Thou shalt not rob
without proof that guilt was a context? Is it not merely a synonym banks,” without providing for
valuable, perhaps even an for the word “conscience?” When exceptions. But temperance also
indispensable, ingredient of civilized we use the word “responsibility” in can be created by coercion. Taxing
life. Now, in this post-Freudian the absence of substantial is a good coercive device. To keep
world, we doubt it. sanctions, are we not trying to downtown shoppers temperate in
Paul Goodman speaks from the browbeat a free man in a commons their use of parking space we
modern point of view when he says: into acting against his own interest? introduce parking meters for short
“No good has ever come from Responsibility is a verbal counterfeit periods, and traffic fines for longer
feeling guilty, neither intelligence, for a substantial quid pro quo. It is ones. We need not actually forbid a
policy, nor compassion. The guilty an attempt to get something for citizen to park as long as he wants
do not pay attention to the object nothing. to; we need merely to make it
but only to themselves, and not If the word “responsibility” is to increasingly expensive for him to do
even to their own interests, which be used at all, I suggest that it be in so. Not prohibition, but carefully
might make sense, but to their the sense Charles Frankel uses it. 2 0 biased options are what we offer
anxieties.”18 “Responsibility,” says this him. A Madison Avenue man might
One does not have to be a philosopher, “is the product of call this persuasion; I prefer the
professional psychiatrist to see the definite social arrangements.” greater candor of the word
consequences of anxiety. We in the Notice that Frankel calls for soc ial coercion.
Western World are just emerging arrangements — not propaganda. Coercion is a dirty word to most
from a dreadful two-centuries-long Mutual Coercion liberals now, but it need not forever
Dark Ages of Eros that was be so. As with the four-letter
Mutually Agreed
sustained partly by prohibition laws, words, its dirtiness can be cleansed
Upon
but perhaps more effectively by the away by exposure to the light, by
The social arrangements that
anxiety-generating mechanisms of saying it over and over without
produce responsibility are
education. Alex Comfort has told apology or embarrassment. To
arrangements that create coercion,
the story well in The Anxiety many, the word coercion implies
of some sort. Consider bank-
Makers19; it is not a pretty one. arbitrary decisions of distant and
robbing. The man who takes money
Since proof is difficult, we may irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is
from a bank acts as if the bank
even concede that the results of not a necessary part of its meaning.
were a commons. How do we
anxiety may sometimes, from The only kind of coercion I
prevent such action? Certainly not
certain points of view, be desirable. recommend is mutual coercion,
by trying to control his behavior
The larger question we should ask mutually agreed upon by the
solely by a verbal appeal to his
is whether, as a matter of policy, majority of the people affected.
sense of responsibility. Rather than
we should ever encourage the u s e To say that we mutually agree
rely on propaganda we follow
of a technique the tendency (if not to coercion is not to say that we are
Frankel’s lead and insist that a bank
the intention) of which is required to enjoy it, or even to
is not a commons; we seek the
psychologically pathogenic. We pretend we enjoy it. Who enjoys
definite social arrangements that
hear much talk these days of taxes? We all grumble about them.
will keep it from becoming a
responsible parenthood; the coupled But we accept compulsory taxes
commons. That we will thereby
words are incorporated into the because we recognize that
33
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
voluntary taxes would favor the reform is possible without not complete throughout the world.
conscienceless. We institute and unanimous agreement, an Somewhat later we saw that the
(grumblingly) support taxes and implication contrary to historical commons as a place for waste
other coercive devices to escape fact. As nearly as I can make out, disposal would have to be
the horrors of the commons. automatic rejection of proposed abandoned. Restrictions on the
An alternative to the commons reforms is based on one of two disposal of domestic sewage are
need not be perfectly just to be unconscious assumptions: (i) that widely accepted in the Western
preferable. With real estate and the status quo is perfect; or (ii) that World; we are still struggling to
other material goods, the alternative the choice we face is between close the commons to pollution by
we have chosen is the institution of reform and no action; if the automobiles, factories, insecticide
private property coupled with legal proposed reform is imperfect, we sprayers, fertilizing operations, and
inheritance. Is this system perfectly presumably should take no action at atomic energy installations.
just? As a genetically trained all, while we wait for a perfect In a still more embryonic state is
biologist I deny that it is. It seems to proposal. our recognition of the evils of the
me that, if there are to be But we can never do nothing. commons in matters of pleasure.
differences in individual inheritance, That which we have done for There is almost no restriction on the
legal possession should be perfectly thousands of years is also action. It propagation of sound waves in the
correlated with biological also produces evils. Once we are public medium. The shopping public
inheritance — that those who are aware that the status quo is action, is assaulted with mindless music,
biologically more fit to be the we can then compare its without its consent. Our
custodians of property and power discoverable advantages and government is paying out billions of
should legally inherit more. But disadvantages with the predicted dollars to create supersonic
genetic recombination continually advantages and disadvantages of transport which will disturb fifty
makes a mockery of the doctrine of the proposed reform, discounting as thousand people for every one
“like father, like son” implicit in our best we can for the lack of person who is whisked from coast
laws of legal inheritance. An idiot experience. On the basis of s u c h a to coast three hours faster.
can inherit millions, and a trust fund comparison, we can make a rational Advertisers muddy the airwaves of
can keep his estate intact. We must decision which will not involve the radio and television and pollute the
admit that our legal system of unworkable assumption that only view of travelers. We are a long
private property plus inheritance is perfect systems are tolerable. way from outlawing the commons
unjust — but we put up with it Recognition in matters of pleasure. Is this
because we are not convinced, at because our Puritan inheritance
of Necessity
the moment, that anyone has makes us view pleasure as
Perhaps the simplest summary
invented a better system. The something of a sin, and pain (that is,
of this analysis of man’s population
alternative of the commons is too the pollution of advertising) as the
problems is this: The commons, if
horrifying to contemplate. Injustice sign of virtue?
justifiable at all, is justifiable only
is preferable to total ruin. Every new enclosure of the
under conditions of low-population
It is one of the peculiarities of commons involves the infringement
density. As the human population
the warfare between reform and of somebody’s personal liberty.
has increased, the commons has
the status quo that it is thoughtlessly Infringements made in the distant
had to be abandoned in one aspect
governed by a double standard. past are accepted because no
after another.
Whenever a reform measure is contemporary complains of a loss.
First we abandoned the
proposed it is often defeated when It is the newly proposed
commons in food gathering,
its opponents triumphantly discover infringements that we vigorously
enclosing farm land and restricting
a flaw in it. As Kingsley Davis has oppose; cries of “rights” and
pastures and hunting and fishing
pointed out,21 worshipers of the “freedom” fill the air. But what
areas. These restric tions are still
status quo sometimes imply that no does “freedom” mean? When men
34
Fall 2001 T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT
mutually agreed to pass laws recognition of necess ity” — and it (Freeman, San Francisco, 1964), p.56.
agains t robbing, mankind became is the role of education to reveal to 9. S. McVay, Sci. Amer. 216 (No. 8), 13
more free, not less so. Individuals all the necessity of abandoning the (1966).
locked into the logic of the freedom to breed. Only so, can we 10. J. Fletcher, Situation Ethics,
commons are free only to bring on put an end to this aspect of the (Westminster, Philadelphia, 1966).
universal ruin; once they see the tragedy of the commons. • 11. D. Lack, The Natural Regulation
necessity of mutual coercion, they NOTES of Animal Numbers (Clarendon Press,
become free to pursue other goals. Oxford, 1954).
1. J. B. Wiesner and H. F. York, Sci.
I believe it was Hegel who said, Amer. 211 (No. 4), 27 (1964). 12. H. Girvetz, From Wealth to
“Freedom is the recognition of
2. G. Hardin, J. Hered. 50, 68 (1959); S. Welfare (Stanford University Press,
necessity.” Stanford, California, 1950.
vonHoernor, Science 137, 18 (1962).
The most important aspect of
3. J. von Newmann and O. Morgen- 13. G. Hardin. Perspectives in Biology
necessity that we must now
stern, Theory of Games and and Medicine, 6, 366 (1963).
recognize, is the necessity of
Economic Behavior (Princeton 14. U. Thant. International Planned
abandoning the commons in
University Press, Princeton, N.J., Parenthood News, No. 168 (February
breeding. No technical solution can 1947), p.11. 1968), p.3.
rescue us from the misery of
4. J. H. Fremlin. New Sci. No. 415 15. K. Davis, Science 158, 730 (1967).
overpopulation. Freedom to breed
(1964), p.285.
will bring ruin to all. At the moment, 16. S. Tax, Ed., Evolution After
to avoid hard decisions many of us 5. A. Smith. The Wealth of Nations Darwin (University of Chicago Press,
(Modern Library, N.Y. 1937) p.423. Chicago, 1960) vol. 2, p.469.
are tempted to propagandize for
conscience and responsible 6. W. F. Lloyd, Two Lectures on the 17. G. Bateson, D. D. Jackson, J. Haley,
parenthood. The temptation must be Checks to Population (Oxford J. Weakland, Behav. Sci. 1, 251 (1956).
University Press, Oxford, England,
resisted, because an appeal to 18. P. Goodman, New York Review of
1833), reprinted (in part) in
independently acting consciences Books, 10 (8), 22 (23 May 1968).
Population, Evolution, and Birth
selects for the disappearance of all Control, G. Hardin, Ed. (Freeman, San 19. A. Comfort, The Anxiety Makers
conscience in the long run, and an Francisco, 1964, p.37. (Nelson, London, 1967).
increase in anxiety in the short.
7. A. N. Whitehead, Science and the 20. C. Frankel, The Case for Modern
The only way we can preserve Man (Harper, New York, 1955), p.203.
Modern World (Mentor, New York,
and nurture other and more 1948), p.17. 21. J. D. Rolansky, Genetics and the
precious freedoms is by
8. G. Hardin, Ed. Population, Future of Man (Appleton-Century-
relinquishing the freedom to breed, Crofts, New York, 1966), p.177.
Evolution, and Birth Control,
and that very soon. “Freedom is the
35