2.6
Values and the Tragedy of the Commons
Writing in 1968 to a highly respected scientific audience, Garrett Hardin presented a
compelling formulation of what he coined as the “tragedy of the commons.” In his
assessment of the tragedy, population growth would lead to significant adverse
impacts on common resources. He posed the population problem in stark terms.
First, he examined the relationship of population to resources, and concluded
population must be brought under control. He then evaluated the dynamics responsible for the increase in population size. From this analysis, he proposed solutions.
Hardin rejected the wild hope that improved food production technology will
allow for an indefinite increase in population: “a finite world can support only a finite
population” (Hardin, 1968). More specifically, we cannot hope to provide unlimited
growth in both the material quality of life and population. Mathematically, both
factors cannot be independently maximized; and biophysically, the calories available
per person must eventually decrease as population increases. In his assessment, he
invalidated the classical economic perspective of Jeremy Bentham, who espoused
“the greatest good for the greatest number,” and concluded, “the optimum population is, then, less than the maximum” (Bentham 1879).
Hardin asserted that a resource is a common good when many people have access
to it. He reasoned that a self-interested rational economic agent would decide to
increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit
of the increase, while spreading the costs among all users. The remorseless and tragic
result of each person thinking this way, however, is ruin of the commons, and thus of
everyone using it.
Hardin implicitly rejected the role of conscience or social self-policing of the
commons. However, his perception of behavior is aligned with prevailing
assumptions in economics related to self-interest embedded within both consumer
and producer theory. As a result, individual optimization strategies prevail but
produce outcomes that diverge from those predicted by Adam Smith. Smith in his
assessment and promotion of individual self-interested behavior perceived such
qualities as a mechanism that enhances overall public welfare.
2.7
The Role of Culture in Averting and Promoting Tragedy
Currently, interest in sustainability has promoted a reevaluation of the causality of
observable environmental degradation, exploitation, and resource depletion. As a
result, there has been an increasing interest in Indigenous societies specific to the
balance between their development and the environment. However, the unfortunate
reality is that much of the evaluation and attribution related to Indigenous societies
falls within the realm of conjecture and anecdote. This is due in large part to the
limited availability of records written in the pen of these people, as well as the
countervailing bias of recorded observations written in the hand of the colonial
settler. This is especially true in the United States, where the elimination and forced
assimilation of the Indigenous limited and often prevented the intergenerational
2 The Role of Culture and Moral Responsibility in Facilitating a Sustainable. . .
21
Values and the Tragedy of the Commons
Writing in 1968 to a highly respected scientific audience, Garrett Hardin presented a
compelling formulation of what he coined as the “tragedy of the commons.” In his
assessment of the tragedy, population growth would lead to significant adverse
impacts on common resources. He posed the population problem in stark terms.
First, he examined the relationship of population to resources, and concluded
population must be brought under control. He then evaluated the dynamics responsible for the increase in population size. From this analysis, he proposed solutions.
Hardin rejected the wild hope that improved food production technology will
allow for an indefinite increase in population: “a finite world can support only a finite
population” (Hardin, 1968). More specifically, we cannot hope to provide unlimited
growth in both the material quality of life and population. Mathematically, both
factors cannot be independently maximized; and biophysically, the calories available
per person must eventually decrease as population increases. In his assessment, he
invalidated the classical economic perspective of Jeremy Bentham, who espoused
“the greatest good for the greatest number,” and concluded, “the optimum population is, then, less than the maximum” (Bentham 1879).
Hardin asserted that a resource is a common good when many people have access
to it. He reasoned that a self-interested rational economic agent would decide to
increase his or her exploitation of the resource since he or she receives the full benefit
of the increase, while spreading the costs among all users. The remorseless and tragic
result of each person thinking this way, however, is ruin of the commons, and thus of
everyone using it.
Hardin implicitly rejected the role of conscience or social self-policing of the
commons. However, his perception of behavior is aligned with prevailing
assumptions in economics related to self-interest embedded within both consumer
and producer theory. As a result, individual optimization strategies prevail but
produce outcomes that diverge from those predicted by Adam Smith. Smith in his
assessment and promotion of individual self-interested behavior perceived such
qualities as a mechanism that enhances overall public welfare.
2.7
The Role of Culture in Averting and Promoting Tragedy
Currently, interest in sustainability has promoted a reevaluation of the causality of
observable environmental degradation, exploitation, and resource depletion. As a
result, there has been an increasing interest in Indigenous societies specific to the
balance between their development and the environment. However, the unfortunate
reality is that much of the evaluation and attribution related to Indigenous societies
falls within the realm of conjecture and anecdote. This is due in large part to the
limited availability of records written in the pen of these people, as well as the
countervailing bias of recorded observations written in the hand of the colonial
settler. This is especially true in the United States, where the elimination and forced
assimilation of the Indigenous limited and often prevented the intergenerational
2 The Role of Culture and Moral Responsibility in Facilitating a Sustainable. . .
21