Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

The tragedy of the commons

No star here laces

10:50 / 05.02.03

From Garrett Hardin's "The tragedy of the commons"

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decisionmaking herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

This is a remorselessly beautiful piece of logic. And profoundly depressing. Does it convince you? What thoughts does it provoke?

11:30 / 05.02.03

Hmmm, just a quick and simple response. As logic goes, it strikes me as quite poor.

Essentially, the assumptions are that the actors have no motivation beyond short term gain, no insight into consequences and no access to political structures. I think that is enough to warrant pretty speedy dismissal.

However, even if we accept the artificial assumptions, both points 1 and 2 are clearly incorrect. As resources become scarce, the benefit of having an animal decreases, because you get less out of it and it becomes more effort to maintain. The effects of over-consumption make themselves felt - this is acknowledged in the conclusion, but not in the body of the argument. So, pretty weak from that point of view.

I think there may be an argument to be made along the lines that with self interest as a prime motivating force, consumption leads to damage before it is rectified. Perhaps. But it depends on so many factors that I think it doesn't really make much sense to make the case in the abstract.

13:37 / 05.02.03

Hardin's argument relies on the homo economicus model that every rational peep will always try to maximise their own gain which in his rather realist conception means that someone else is going to lose out if they don't keep adding to their herd (both in terms of their relative wealth as they've got less animals to sell and because the land will be screwed due to the overgrazing.) Trying to universalise this example hits a bit of a bump though. Does everyone always try to get one over in the power stakes with everone else? What about donating to charity, volunteer work, the thousands of people planning to protest in the anti-war Hyde Park demonstration?

Having said that it seems like Hardin does have a bit of a point as it only takes a few self-interested people to wreck a system of communal restraint. Remember all the fuss cause by innercircle and that was in a system with some restraints - imagine if they're been no posting limit. Examples are abound, world fishing stocks, deforestation etc.

13:50 / 05.02.03

Wouldn't it be, though, that aggressive self-interest on the part of the herdsmen would in turn create a new condition of instability that would regulate the common? I guess the sad thing about this is that a group of people can never be trusted to maintain by themselves an environment of cooperation, but always invite war, disease, famine, etc to come in & force cooperation upon us.