An Analysis of the Tragedy of the Commons — Garret Hardin, US presidential address 1968

Humans are weak, short-sighted and show a flare for utility. We enjoy certain freedoms, including the freedom to breed, which results in overpopulation and the degradation of the environment — the tragedy of the commons. Issues and challenges which will not be overcome through any technological means.

Solutions are to be realised through the authoritative control of human nature. His beliefs are Malthusian: exponential population growth will outstrip available resources and as such, along current growth paths, humanity is doomed to perish. Thus, population growth must equal zero and optimum levels should be below the maximum in order to allow for a maximum good and goods per capita. Garret also recognises that the concept of ‘good’ is ambiguous within a heterogeneous populations.

He notes that empirical evidence indicates that rapidly growing populations are miserable and concludes that growth does not equate to moving towards an optimum level, of population or efficiency. Therefore, a laissez-faire approach to fecundity requires revision — a free market approach, in this regard, does not equate to progress or gain.

Temperance, legitimacy and corrective feedback is required in order to mitigate aspects of psychological denial (of degradation) and acceptance of the legitimacy of a welfare state — both associated with overpopulation and the tragedy of commons. Appealing to the general populaces’ conscience is thought to only be partly effective, proven to engender a sense of guilt and create anxiety, and may even contribute to degradation. Therefore, conscience and authoritative control should be used simultaneously to temper population growth and save the commons.

The tragedy of the commons can only be mitigated through circumstance of low population density, facilitated by laws and sanctions. This infringes upon individual rights and freedoms, however, what is freedom but a matter of perception, and at times reliant on sanction in order to be liberated. Taxing the right to breed through mutual coercion will save the commons.

Analysis

Garret presents a logical argument based on ‘limits to growth’ and suggests mitigation of population growth and associated tragedy of the commons through authoritative sanction and control measures — aimed at managing human character for the greater good.

He fails to recognise human ingenuity and incorrectly identifies the welfare state as a weakness, contrary to modern belief, which is supportive of equality and rights. His belief in run-away population growth is myopic and arrogant: paths to growth and de-growth are complex and reliant on availability of resource, education and aspects of the prevailing political agenda — knowing where a population will go is difficult to predict.

Advocating authoritative control combined with mutually agreed upon coercion to mitigate population growth seems counterproductive and against UN human rights policies: the right to a family — relevant in his time and present circumstance (which Garett disagreed with). A preferable circumstance is to manage population growth and associated tragedy of commons through progressive agendas of equality and access to resources such as education, family planning and birth control mechanisms.

He seems to believe in the evil in humanity, which requires coercion and authoritative control in order to temper its character, alternately it may be better to focus on the positive aspects of human nature and nurture progress through equitable policy mandates.