Goodreads helps you follow your favorite authors. Be the first to learn about new releases!
Start by following Garrett Hardin.
Showing 1-16 of 16
“Freedom to breed will bring ruin to all.”
―
―
“Natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial. The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers. Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.”
―
―
“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.”
― The Tragedy of the Commons
― The Tragedy of the Commons
“Quoting from page 308: The Competitive Exclusion Principle. No two organisms that compete in every activity can coexist indefinitely in the same environment. To coexist in time, organisms that are potentially completely competitive must be geographically isolated from each other. Otherwise, the one that is the less efficient yields to the more efficient, no matter how slight the difference. When two competing organisms coexist in the same geographical region, close examination always shows that they are not complete competitors, that one of them draws on a resource of the environment that is not available to the other. The corollary of the principle is that where there is no geographical isolation of genetically and reproductively isolated populations, there must be as many ecological niches as there are populations. The necessary condition for geographical coexistence is ecological specialization.
Quoting page 86: The Exclusion Principle in biology plays a role similar to that of the Newtonian laws of motion in physics. It is a prime guide to the discovery of facts. We use the principle coupled with an axiom that is equally fundamental but which is almost never explicitly stated. We may call this the Inequality Axiom, and it states: If two populations are distinguishable, they are competitively unequal.
Quoting page 87: Because of the compound-interest effect, no difference between competing populations is trivial. The slightest difference--and our acceptance of the Inequality Axiom asserts that a difference always exists--will result in the eventual extinction of one population by another. Put in another way, the Exclusion Principle tells us that two distinguishable populations can coexist in the same geographical region only if they live in different ecological worlds (thus avoiding complete competition and strict coexistence).
Quoting page 88-89: Recall now the sequence of development in the process of speciation. Initially, the freshly isolated populations are nearly the same genetically; as time goes on, they diverge more and more. When they are distinguishably different, but still capable of interbreeding (if put together), we may speak of them as races. Ultimately, if the physical isolation endures long enough, they become so different from each other that interbreeding is impossible; we then say that the two populations are reproductively isolated from each other, and we speak of them as distinct species. ... What are the various possible outcomes of the speciation process, and what their relative frequencies? In the light of our assumption, it is clear that, most often, the speciation process will go no further than the formation of races before the physical isolation comes to an end and the germ plasm of the two races is melded into one by interbreeding. If, however, the speciation process continues until separate species are formed before the physical barrier breaks down, then what happens? The outcome is plainly dependent on the extent to which ecological differentiation has occurred: Do the two species occupy the same ecological niche, or not--that is, are they completely competitive? It seems probable that the degree of ecological differentiation will also increase with time spent in physical isolation. On this assumption, we would predict that, more often than not, "sister species" will be incapable of coexistence: when the physical isolation is at an end, one sister species will extinguish the other.
Quoting page 253: The example illustrates the general rule that as a species becomes increasingly "successful," its struggle for existence ceases to be one of struggle with the physical environment or with other species and come to be almost exclusively competition with its own kind. We call that species most successful that has made its own kind its worst enemy. Man enjoys this kind of success.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
Quoting page 86: The Exclusion Principle in biology plays a role similar to that of the Newtonian laws of motion in physics. It is a prime guide to the discovery of facts. We use the principle coupled with an axiom that is equally fundamental but which is almost never explicitly stated. We may call this the Inequality Axiom, and it states: If two populations are distinguishable, they are competitively unequal.
Quoting page 87: Because of the compound-interest effect, no difference between competing populations is trivial. The slightest difference--and our acceptance of the Inequality Axiom asserts that a difference always exists--will result in the eventual extinction of one population by another. Put in another way, the Exclusion Principle tells us that two distinguishable populations can coexist in the same geographical region only if they live in different ecological worlds (thus avoiding complete competition and strict coexistence).
Quoting page 88-89: Recall now the sequence of development in the process of speciation. Initially, the freshly isolated populations are nearly the same genetically; as time goes on, they diverge more and more. When they are distinguishably different, but still capable of interbreeding (if put together), we may speak of them as races. Ultimately, if the physical isolation endures long enough, they become so different from each other that interbreeding is impossible; we then say that the two populations are reproductively isolated from each other, and we speak of them as distinct species. ... What are the various possible outcomes of the speciation process, and what their relative frequencies? In the light of our assumption, it is clear that, most often, the speciation process will go no further than the formation of races before the physical isolation comes to an end and the germ plasm of the two races is melded into one by interbreeding. If, however, the speciation process continues until separate species are formed before the physical barrier breaks down, then what happens? The outcome is plainly dependent on the extent to which ecological differentiation has occurred: Do the two species occupy the same ecological niche, or not--that is, are they completely competitive? It seems probable that the degree of ecological differentiation will also increase with time spent in physical isolation. On this assumption, we would predict that, more often than not, "sister species" will be incapable of coexistence: when the physical isolation is at an end, one sister species will extinguish the other.
Quoting page 253: The example illustrates the general rule that as a species becomes increasingly "successful," its struggle for existence ceases to be one of struggle with the physical environment or with other species and come to be almost exclusively competition with its own kind. We call that species most successful that has made its own kind its worst enemy. Man enjoys this kind of success.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
“But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of years is also action”
― The Tragedy of the Commons
― The Tragedy of the Commons
“Individualism is cherished because it produces freedom, but the gift is conditional.”
―
―
“the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed”
― The Tragedy of the Commons
― The Tragedy of the Commons
“Quoting from page 294-5:
...the most favorable conditions for continued existence and evolution are those that include at least occasional periods of segmentation of the species into fairly completely isolated breeding populations. Groups that never undergo such segmentation will, we expect, sooner or later be completely extinguished. Such may be the explanation of the extinction of some of the conspicuously unsuccessful, widespread species in the past. They may have suffered from putting all their genetic eggs in one basket.
Quoting page 320: Under these conditions [species being broken up into many separate breeding populations] there is a great increase in variety within the species, each isolated population necessarily differentiating into a different race. ... With a greater variety of harmonious genotypes [i.e. natural races, not hybrids] in existence the species is better adapted to face a varying and unpredictable future. Not all of its breeding populations may survive a change; but the chance that at least some will is greater than it would be for a single, large population. And those races that survive a change can then repopulate regions left vacant by those that have succumbed. ... The loss of adaptability of a species is the result of the inevitable tendency of a breeding population to become genetically uniform.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
...the most favorable conditions for continued existence and evolution are those that include at least occasional periods of segmentation of the species into fairly completely isolated breeding populations. Groups that never undergo such segmentation will, we expect, sooner or later be completely extinguished. Such may be the explanation of the extinction of some of the conspicuously unsuccessful, widespread species in the past. They may have suffered from putting all their genetic eggs in one basket.
Quoting page 320: Under these conditions [species being broken up into many separate breeding populations] there is a great increase in variety within the species, each isolated population necessarily differentiating into a different race. ... With a greater variety of harmonious genotypes [i.e. natural races, not hybrids] in existence the species is better adapted to face a varying and unpredictable future. Not all of its breeding populations may survive a change; but the chance that at least some will is greater than it would be for a single, large population. And those races that survive a change can then repopulate regions left vacant by those that have succumbed. ... The loss of adaptability of a species is the result of the inevitable tendency of a breeding population to become genetically uniform.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
“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.”
― The Tragedy of the Commons
― The Tragedy of the Commons
“Page 308
The Competitive Exclusion Principle. No two organisms that compete in every activity can coexist indefinitely in the same environment. To coexist in time, organisms that are potentially completely competitive must be geographically isolated from each other. Otherwise, the one that is the less efficient yields to the more efficient, no matter how slight the difference. When two competing organisms coexist in the same geographical region, close examination always shows that they are not complete competitors, that one of them draws on a resource of the environment that is not available to the other. The corollary of the principle is that where there is no geographical isolation of genetically and reproductively isolated populations, there must be as many ecological niches as there are populations. The necessary condition for geographical coexistence is ecological specialization.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
The Competitive Exclusion Principle. No two organisms that compete in every activity can coexist indefinitely in the same environment. To coexist in time, organisms that are potentially completely competitive must be geographically isolated from each other. Otherwise, the one that is the less efficient yields to the more efficient, no matter how slight the difference. When two competing organisms coexist in the same geographical region, close examination always shows that they are not complete competitors, that one of them draws on a resource of the environment that is not available to the other. The corollary of the principle is that where there is no geographical isolation of genetically and reproductively isolated populations, there must be as many ecological niches as there are populations. The necessary condition for geographical coexistence is ecological specialization.”
― Nature and Man's Fate
“Hardin, G. (1982). "Discriminating Altruisms". Zygon. 17 (2): 163–186.
"Universalism" is altruism practiced "without discrimination" of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space… To people who accept the idea of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible… Let us see why.
In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity...
The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step--except for the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has--by definition--no competitive base to support it… [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination." …
"[W]e must not forget that for three billion years; biological evolution has been powered by discrimination. Even mere survival in the absence of evolutionary change depends on discrimination. If universalists now have their way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even the most modest impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so well for billions of years. It is a tragic irony that discrimination has produced a species (homo sapiens) that now proposes to abandon the principle responsible for its rise to greatness." It is to the advantage of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards -- for if they did, they would not be replacing us -- our flawed moral system will vanish with us.”
―
"Universalism" is altruism practiced "without discrimination" of kinship, acquaintanceship, shared values, or propinquity in time or space… To people who accept the idea of biological evolution from amoeba to man, the vision of social evolution from egoism to universalism may seem plausible. In fact, however, the last step is impossible… Let us see why.
In imagination, picture a world in which social evolution has gone no further than egoism or individualism. When familialism appears on the scene, what accounts for its persistence? It must be that the costs of the sacrifices individuals make for their relatives are more than paid for by the gains realized through family solidarity...
The argument that accounts for the step to familialism serves equally well for each succeeding step--except for the last. Why the difference? Because the One World created by universalism has--by definition--no competitive base to support it… [Universalism] cannot survive in competition with discrimination." …
"[W]e must not forget that for three billion years; biological evolution has been powered by discrimination. Even mere survival in the absence of evolutionary change depends on discrimination. If universalists now have their way, discrimination will be abandoned. Even the most modest impulse toward conservatism should cause us to question the wisdom of abandoning a principle that has worked so well for billions of years. It is a tragic irony that discrimination has produced a species (homo sapiens) that now proposes to abandon the principle responsible for its rise to greatness." It is to the advantage of non-Europeans, virtually all of whom retain their cohesion as distinctive, discriminating groups, to exploit the economic wealth and social order of the West, benefits many demonstrably cannot create for themselves. When this cohesive drive is placed in competition with self-sacrificing Western altruism, there can be only one outcome. In the near term, Europeans will be displaced by groups acting in their own self-interest. In the long run, biological destruction awaits us. Since those who displace us do not, by definition, maintain our moral standards -- for if they did, they would not be replacing us -- our flawed moral system will vanish with us.”
―
“Quoting page 235:
Universalism: The Promiscuous Altruism
At one extreme of the spectrum of discriminating altruisms lies universalism, altruism that is practiced without discrimination of kinship, shared values, acquaintanceship, propinquity in time or space, or any other characteristic. An immense literature has grown up promoting an ideal expressed well by a now forgotten poet at the end of World War I: “Let us no more be true to boasted race or clan / but to our highest dream, the brotherhood of man.”
This sounds lovely, but what kind of altruism does it praise? Clearly the poem is a paean to “promiscuous” altruism. Promiscuity should always be challenged. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) said, “If all the world is my brother, then I have no brother.” The specific shortcoming of universalism is easy to identify: it promotes a pathology that was identified in the preceding chapter, namely the tragedy of the commons.”
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
Universalism: The Promiscuous Altruism
At one extreme of the spectrum of discriminating altruisms lies universalism, altruism that is practiced without discrimination of kinship, shared values, acquaintanceship, propinquity in time or space, or any other characteristic. An immense literature has grown up promoting an ideal expressed well by a now forgotten poet at the end of World War I: “Let us no more be true to boasted race or clan / but to our highest dream, the brotherhood of man.”
This sounds lovely, but what kind of altruism does it praise? Clearly the poem is a paean to “promiscuous” altruism. Promiscuity should always be challenged. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) said, “If all the world is my brother, then I have no brother.” The specific shortcoming of universalism is easy to identify: it promotes a pathology that was identified in the preceding chapter, namely the tragedy of the commons.”
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
“The mathematics of biological reproduction is logically identical with the mathematics of usury. Money earns interest, animals have babies. In”
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
“It is now widely believed (and, I think, correctly believed) that the survival of a nation under modern competitive conditions depends on broadening the electorate’s competency in numerate matters. Numeracy”
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
― Living within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos
“At every moment, anyone who dares to predict the future depends largely on the projection of present trends: but as the microbiologist Rene Dubos has said, "Trend is not destiny." Malthus wisely never put much rhetorical force into his predictions of future population size. He deserves neither positive nor negative credit in this area.
A word about prediction. Embarrassing experiences, coupled with Dubos's warning, have led demographers to state repeatedly that they do not make predictions: only projections — projections of present trends. Trends may change with little warning. After two repetitions in the daily press, what begins as a projection metamorphoses into a prediction in the minds of readers. In spite of their warnings, demographers are repeatedly castigated for making predictions that don't come true.”
― The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia
A word about prediction. Embarrassing experiences, coupled with Dubos's warning, have led demographers to state repeatedly that they do not make predictions: only projections — projections of present trends. Trends may change with little warning. After two repetitions in the daily press, what begins as a projection metamorphoses into a prediction in the minds of readers. In spite of their warnings, demographers are repeatedly castigated for making predictions that don't come true.”
― The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia
“Members of society who are wealthy, or whose livelihood is guaranteed by an institution, or whose religious commitments ensure that they will never have to choose between abortion (or other forms of birth control) and being saddled with the many burdens of parenthood—all these sheltered classes can easily approach all moral problems on an exclusively literate plane, with comforting words that give no hint of numerate realities, including the afflictions that time will bring. Margaret Sanger's experience as a nurse in daily contact with the wretchedly poor made her see the numerate realities that were effectively invisible to the sheltered classes — until she rubbed their noses in raw life. Opening the eyes of the socially blind required the creation of new terms: birth control in 1914 and planned parenthood in the 1930s. Literate approaches frequently deceive, but (with imagination) words can be made to serve the goals of intelligent numeracy. Compassionate souls soon see that all of society benefits when women are freed from the necessity of bearing unwanted babies. (It is remarkable how often a human ostrich who seeks to impose compulsory pregnancy and mandatory motherhood on women lightly belittles a woman's request for an abortion as being no more than a "whim.")”
― The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia
― The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia
