Hardin begins by asserting that some problems have no technical solution. Technical solutions are techniques that solve problems by changing natural science and not by altering people‘s values. One such problem is population and exponential population growth. Because it is unknown whether the world is infinite and can sustain life indefinitely, it is assumed that for every person born, the world’s resources decrease. In order for the world to sustain life indefinitely, population needs to hit an optimum number and stabilize to a growth rate of zero. We cannot provide the maximum good for the maximum number of people. If we want to maximize population, we must minimize goods so that everyone has enough energy to maintain life. That makes finding the optimum population all the more important. However, the optimum number for population is hard to define. There’s no evidence that any cultural group has hit their optimum population because nowhere is there a flourishing population with a growth rate of zero. And, we’re obviously not working towards the optimum population because the most rapidly growing countries are the ones that are the worst off. There’s a belief that individuals will naturally do what is right for society as a whole. This is not so because of the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy in the tragedy of the commons refers to the inevitable and inescapable destiny caused by our actions and our treatment of the world; it is a destiny that will no doubt bring about unhappiness. A commons is defined as a place open for everyone to use. The tragedy of the commons happens because everyone seeks to maximize their own gain in the commons. The tragedy of the commons is illustrated by the example of a herdsman who shares a common grazing ground with other herdsmen adding more animals to his herd because it benefits him. However, as it benefits him, the overgrazing of his extra herd is affecting the rest of the herdsmen sharing the land. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that all of the herdsmen who occupy the commons want to maximize their own gain by adding to their herds. So, the population of animals using the land is steadily increasing on land that is finite. This leads to a degradation of the environment and natural resources. Not only do increasing populations take from the earth, but they also give in increasing pollution that further degrades air, water, and land. Land can be privatized and regulated, but the air and water can’t.
We can’t depend on ethics to keep people from using and destroying the earth. Administrative law is needed to control people‘s actions. It’s easy to prohibit things by law, but it’s no so easy to legislate temperance, temperance being defined as moderation or self-restraint. Also, there’s the problem that administrators can turn corrupt. Instead of letting that work as an excuse not to use administrative law to moderate people‘s treatment of the commons, ways to keep the administrators honest and uncorrupt should be considered and implemented.
The population is growing at an alarming rate because people are overbreeding. People believe that they have an undeniable freedom to breed and a right to use the commons for their own benefit, just as the herdsman did. There are no punishments for over breeding. Indeed, there are only benefits for individual families because we live in a welfare dedicated state. Overbreeding of human’s isn’t like in nature where an overpopulation of animals invokes a negative feedback loop wherein populations begin to die off. Breeding can’t be controlled simply by appealing to the conscience. The logic goes that those with conscience, conscience being a hereditary trait, refrain from breeding while those without conscience remain freely breeding. As a result, conscience will die out with the non-breeders. Appealing to the conscience also creates a situation wherein men and women feel that they have to do what they’re told to be responsible, but they also feel like simpletons for conforming while so many others don’t. It calls for men to act against their own best interest, and causes guilt and anxiety, which are bad for society.
Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon is the solution proposed by Hardin. Coercion is accomplished by legislating responsibility. A commons can be used and remain a commons only as long as there is a low population density. As the population grows, we must abandon the commons. To do so, people’s rights are infringed upon. People are less likely to do something when there is punishment involved, and agree that punishment is necessary. This coercion leads to the relinquishing of the freedom to breed because population growth is the root of the problem and the area that Hardin believes his solution needs to be applied. It might not be the best solution, but it’s the best one we have for now. Some people might see it as a restriction on our natural rights, but placing a restriction on breeding is preferable to depleting natural resources, destroying biodiversity, and poisoning the earth with pollution.
I agree completely with Hardin because I‘ve always known what people were doing to the earth by overpopulating, and I‘ve always wanted to do my part to help. A few years ago I made the conscience decision not to have children because, as they say, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. I just wish that other people would take responsibility and see what’s happening to the world. Reading the Hardin article just reaffirmed what I believe and the choice I’ve already made. Sometimes we have to relinquish certain freedoms to do what is best for the world as a whole, and the realism of what’s happening because of the tragedy of the commons and population growth is frightening. What will freedom mean when the world is so degraded that we can barely sustain life?