The Tragedy of the Commons

by Garrett Hardin

Hardin discussed problems that cannot be solved by technical means, as distinct from those with solutions that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality". Hardin focused on human population growth, the use of the Earth's natural resources, and the welfare state.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Economics, Environment, Politics, School

7 pages, ebook

First published December 13, 1968

About the author

Garrett James Hardin was a leading and controversial ecologist from Dallas, Texas, who was most well known for his 1968 paper, The Tragedy of the Commons. He is also known for Hardin's First Law of Ecology, which states "You cannot do only one thing", and used the familiar phrase "Nice guys finish last" to sum up the "selfish gene" concept of life and evolution.

Reviews

[Marcus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very prescient and important, any commons system will be abused with more commoners and/or subsequent greedy bad apples. Hardin also coined the common-sense idea of “lifeboat ethics.”

[Jonathan Austen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably the best text ever about how we are ruining our own environment by reducing the availablity of shared land as our numbers grow. As our numbers increase all our freedoms decrease with laws and restrictions having to be put in place to deal with the crowds

[madu lisbôa · Rating 1 out of 5]

i had to read it for uni ..

[Astrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

TRÈS intéressant vraiment relevant aux débats autour de l’écologie, réponse aux fatalistes
baeza 🫶🫶

[Marko Njegomir · Rating 4 out of 5]

It nicely explains a fundamental concept from game theory. Individual rational behavior can lead to collective irrational outcomes, especially when shared resources are involved. It is a classic example of a collective action problem.

[Sarah ^~^]

why is this on goodreads

[Kassidy Wheeler · Rating 3 out of 5]

although I disagree with Hardin's solution, he is correct that some type of decoupling to prevent the destruction of common resources is necessary to prevent further destruction of the commons. utilizing the I=PAT method to assess the increasing impacts of environmental degradation is necessary. still, ultimately, a stronger method of decoupling directed specifically at those who have affluence is far more necessary than some type of population control. in essence, persons (people, entities, or groups) who overly exploit and damage the masses must be sanctioned and face repercussions for their transgressions against the rest of us.

the neoliberal solutions of privatization, prescription of law/regulation, penalties, payments, and persuasion do not work as effectively as they think. more stringent agreements must be created for developed states while developing states have differentiating agreements or calibrated bindingness. although I dream of the day we can reclaim our airs, waters, and lands, the capitalist way of life can only contribute to the tragedy of the commons. for more guidance as to how to effectively take international law and regulation into account, we must look at successful law such as the Montreal Protocol.

when it comes to expanding our access to the commons (like entering into space) we must do our best to preserve the cosmos, and its ironic because countries that have access to space are not party to any treaties or anything that matters when it comes to conducting ourselves in a just manner in outer space. I await the day of cosmic capitalism and advertisements on the moon, and why we are not a party to treaties simply because we do not want to share resources is a disease to me. open-source data has been an incredibly important thing for advancements in epidemiology, marine sciences, and geology, so why not let this be the same for climate science and environmental law?

although my views are rather malthusian we must remain hopeful, for this planet is all we have right now, and surviving the anthropocene with a thriving way of life is what matters most.

***

[Michelle Wruck · Rating 4 out of 5]

As Marko Njegomir, says, “It nicely explains a fundamental concept from game theory. Individual rational behavior can lead to collective irrational outcomes, especially when shared resources are involved. It is a classic example of a collective action problem.”

What this means is that Hardin challenges the idea that “freedom in the commons” is a tenable approach to managing communal resources. In other words, we need mutual agreements and generational education to keep people from acting in selfish ways that undermine the sustainability of the ecological systems that sustain life.

“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.”

In this article, Hardin applies this logic to the problem of population growth, arguing in favor of population control. This is the most controversial of all environmental issues but also probably the most important.

It’s an important text for anyone trying to understand the history of environmental ethics or anyone trying to understand the environmental problems we currently face.

[PC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Given how old the book is (1968), Hardin was ahead of his time and pointed out some issues that still exist currently.
I do not agree with everything written here, but with my engineering background, reading that "Technological solutions do not exist for every problem" is mind-blowing.

[niki.uu · Rating 2 out of 5]

1.5 wtf was this guy on.

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting evaluation, but quite authoritatian in it's conclusion

[Oriana B · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting opinions that I feel were conveyed in an authoritarian manner, but the moral questions had me in a death grip.

[Molly Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

this was so incredibly entertaining to read i would give it more except i disagree with 80% of what he said :(

i liked the bit about guilt though paul goodman was on to something

[emily schacht♥️ · Rating 4 out of 5]

honestly fire points

[Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Note :
"The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the
commons in breeding. No technical solution can rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to
breed will bring ruin to all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to propagandize
for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation must be resisted, because an appeal to
independently acting consciences selects for the disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an
increase in anxiety in the short.
The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom
to breed, and that very soon. "Freedom is the recognition of necessity" -- and it is the role of education to
reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of
the tragedy of the commons."