Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162(1968):1243-1248.
Hardin begins his article with the idea that there is no technical solution for certain kinds of problems. The problem here is the “population problem” and the main idea is that it cannot be solved in a technical way. The followings paragraphs state that a finite world can support only a finite population, that the optimum population is not the maximum population possible and would it be the maximum good per person the right question, but what is good?
Then, Hardin brings the picture first sketched by a mathematical William Forster Lloyd, of a pasture shared by herdsmen, called “commons”. This example is used to exemplify how rational beings seeking to maximize its gains bring systematic negative effects that ruin all society. The article addresses some other interconnected issues like pollution and regulation.
Discussion:
Despite the article is a important reference in science in general, bringing into discussion the relevant issue of population growth and finite resources, I have some critics related to how the author have addressed the issue. The article states that the common doesn’t have rules and that anyone was free to do whatever it wants. This is not exactly correct with the concept of common according with economic science. Even if not formally defined, a society sharing a common will have cultural and habits that would characterize the behavior of the resources in a commons. Besides that, it seems to me unrealistic with the present world that a common could be exploited without any regulation.
Another issue apparently neglected by the author is the fact that human society is in evolution and development of new technology is constantly solving new problems. I do believe that in future, human societies can achieve a state of sustainability of human demands and natural resources.
Marcio-
ResponderExcluirI agree with you on your point that the author does neglect the ability of different technologies to increasingly meet the demands of users; however, I question whether we will really achieve long-term sustainability while maintaining a semblance of our "normal" lives. In reality, I think the overlaying "tragedy" discussed really does apply because all groups/countries will continue to want to take more for themselves and further stress the world's resources (and I don't forsee a single world-wide governmental body being able to be formed that allows for the necessary coercion).
I have to agree with Tyson on this. I think that if you view individual nations as the agents and the planet as a the common then there is a situation where each agent acts in its own best interest with little overall regulation. Although you are correct in pointing out that on an individual or community level the analogy does break down.
ResponderExcluir