Beah Davee Marie H.

Somozo

Block 11 - BS-Biochemistry

2014-35733

February 6, 2015

More does not always mean Better

A world where everything is free for your use. One where you need not worry about the consequences of freely
using it. A world where you get all the benefits without having to worry about the costs. Such a carefree lifestyle. Doesnt
that sound wonderful? But wait, what if this does not apply only to you? What if everybody in the whole world would also
experience these benefits? Everybody would have free reign over everything and anything they could get their hands
on. Would you still think that such an existence is wonderful?
The Tragedy of the Commons is an article that relates to this. It was written by Garrett Hardin back in 1968. It
is a compelling article talking about the existing population growth problems that, if unchecked, would only lead us to
the path of ruin.
He contradicts Jeremy Benthams formula, based on his utilitarian beliefs, that states "the greatest good for the
greatest number. He states that this is not possible due to two reasons. Mathematically, it is not possible to maximize
two or more variables at the same time. Biophysically, all organisms need a source of energy (e.g. food) to live. This is
used for maintenance of living and work. Man needs 1600 calories (more or less, 5 McDonalds Cheeseburgers or 9
KFC Original Chicken Drumsticks) a day just for mere maintenance. Doing anything over or above would be defined as
work. Work calories are not only the calories needed to do common jobs, but it is also those which help us enjoy
recreational activities, for example, cycling or reading. So if the aim is to maximize population, then everybody must
have virtually no work calories. Which means, no sports, no music, no art. Basically a life based on just ones mere
existence. Not a very flattering notion really. This lead to his conclusion that the optimum population should be less than
the maximum.
Hardin also rebuts the idea of the invisible hand where in an individuals action, even those based on selfinterest, would be for the societys good. He explains the tragedy of the commons via a scenario where there is this
pasture open to everyone. Anyone can bring their cattle there to graze. Of course, herdsmen would want to bring as
much cattle as they can to increase the benefits they get while sharing only a portion of the cost. But the pasture can
only support a certain number of cattle. With each additional cattle over the carrying capacity, the pastures value would
diminish and so would the cattles. But the individual benefits far outweigh the costs. Ultimately, the pasture would lose
all of its value and the herdsmen would lose everything. Now, why not stop? Dont these herdsmen know that they are
leading themselves to their own downfall? Actually, they do know what theyre doing but even if they stop, someone
else would just take their place. So instead of hesitating and losing profits, they would try to profit as much as they can
before everything is sucked dry. This way of thinking can correlate to throwing ones waste anywhere, be it land, air or
water, without proper purification since the cost of purification is more costly than the former. He also analogizes this

with population growth in which each couple expect great benefits each time they have an offspring, disregarding the
social and ecological consequences it has on society.
There are two solutions Hardin proposed to solve the first scenario. One is private ownership, where an
individual owns the property and any choice he makes regarding the property would be his own liability. And communal
ownership, where a government-owned property is given to only a certain group of individuals to use. But the choice
these individuals make regarding the property wont be their liability. Which is to say, they will neither reap any benefits
nor would they bear the costs. Concerning the solution for population growth, he states that it would be a mistake appeal
to the conscience of man since it is highly subjective. Some would just disregard this and continue on with their way of
life. Hardin proposes of Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon in the form of laws and the like. He states that we may
not necessarily like it but it would be beneficial to us all. It would enable us to escape from the horrors of the commons.
In my opinion, Hardin proposes an intriguing idea. One that I agree to in certain points. Yes, I agree that
population growth is a big problem, but only if in excess. If a certain place is in desperate need of a bigger population,
wouldnt it be practical to increase in population? Man must control population growth in order to maximize the efficiency
of his resources. But I disagree on his solution of mutual coercion. It is the couples prerogative to choose how many
offspring they will have. To put it bluntly, the number of surviving offspring that will reach adulthood will depend on the
familys ability and financial status which the couple will take into account. I also concede that private ownership and
communal ownership each have their own merits and demerits and that it depends on a case-to-case basis as to which
should apply in a given situation. As for our environment, greedy bigwigs with nothing better to do increase their coffers
with money from the exploitation of nature. All we can do is try and repair or at least minimize the damage that has been
done. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's
greed.

References
Hardin, G. (1968). The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243-1248. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from
http://www.geo.mtu.edu/~asmayer/rural_sustain/governance/Hardin%201968.pdf