Assignment 3

Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162 (1968): 1243-1248.

Summary

Garrett Hardin writes this article in an attempt to discuss the population increase-related problems across the world. First, he argues that there is no technical solution, but society should not give up on solving it based on a use of morality. Hardin also discusses the phrase “greater food for the greatest number”, identifying with a utopian philosophy, and claiming that the word “good” is a subjective term. This shows that you cannot compare one good to another.

Adam Smith coined the term “invisible hand”, which is the cause for an individual to make decisions for himself that are supporting the public interest. However, Hardin disagrees with this idea by introducing the tragedy of the commons. This idea is best described by an example: if an individual measures the positive effects versus negative (to a group of people) of an action, then he claims the action just if the positive are greater. However, if everyone were to do the same thing, the action will cause resources to be exhausted. This is the effect of depletion to the commons. Another way a commons can become tragic is by pollution: introducing harmful influences to the commons.

Hardin’s argument to reduce pollution to the commons is to set coercive laws and taxes to make the citizen pay the taxes and making it cheaper for him to treat the pollutants as opposed to disposing them. Furthermore, Hardin argues that in order for these to be in effect, the citizens must have recognition of necessity.

Hardin concluded in this paper that the only way that the commons can work is with low-population densities. He claims that the commons will need be abandoned if the population were to increase. The recognition of necessity claims that citizens must be coerced to do actions that will benefit the whole, but may negatively impact their own interests. Hardin stated that the only way that the commons can be preserved is by “relinquishing the freedom to breed”.

Discussion

This is the type of article that I thought would be interesting to read about in this course in terms of optimizing a solution for a model. How would one even begin to create such a model related to this subject? Even Hardin himself claimed that not even a good can be defined because of different perspectives, therefore making a model with inputs and an objective function impossible.

I agree with Hardin in the sense that many citizens are making decisions based on their own self interest, and not paying attention to the society as a whole. However, I am unsure of how much people may or may not pay attention to taxing and laws. The people that make decisions that are of large consequence to society will still do so with or without taxation. Also, it seems that people from the upper class seem to be the ones that get away with illegal actions, which only makes these types of situations worse.

In America, there is a large problem with people polluting, or buying unreasonably large cars that will place toxic pollutants into the environment. There are people that will do this out of their own self interest, even though pollution is a large problem that the world has been facing. The Golden Rule states that one should make decisions not only in their own interests, but in the interests of others. This rule has dated back from the days of the Old Testament, and obviously there are still many problems with people not following it. If everyone were to follow this rule, then society all over the world would be a utopia. There is no taxing or legislation that can eliminate this problem; it is an adjustment of morality that is necessary.