The Tragedy Of The Commons

Garrett Hardin published in Psychology Today in September 1974. This passage is an excerpt from his popular paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” as a warning that overpopulation was dangerous due to how limited Earth’s resources are. This theory is reflected in Hardin’s thesis that the rich should do nothing to help the people of poor nations and turn away those trying to come in. Hardin used the imagery of a lifeboat almost filled in a sea full of drowning people to pose and answer a single question, “what should the lifeboat passengers do?” (290). Hardin's answer was to defend the boat against all trying to board. If anyone felt guilty about this course of action they should feel free to swap places with a drowning man and give them their

Common pool resources denotes natural resources used by many individuals in common, such as fisheries, groundwater basins, and irrigation systems. Such resources have long been subject to overexploitation and misuse by individuals acting in their own best interests.

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

What is "the tragedy o the commons"? Explain how the concept might apply to an unregulated industry that is a source of water pollution?

Even though we separated ourselves from nature in the attempt to salvage some beauty in the world we still “began to alter places where we were not,” through by-products of our industrialized society. (Mckibben XX) Mckibben says “it is also true that we are apart of nature” (Mckibben XXI) while Cronon wants us to see that “wilderness is more a state of mind than a fact of nature.” (Cronon 493) While Cronon wants humans to separate themselves from the wild, Mckibben asks us to confront nature head on. We are apart of it and“we possess the possibility of self-restraint” so we still have the means to stop abusing the natural order. In order to do this “we would need to change the ways we move ourselves around, the spaces we live in, the jobs we perform.” (Mckibben XXII) We can start by thinking of practical ways to affect the environment positively, starting in the

Val Plumwood in her essay “Paths Beyond Human-Centeredness,” illustrates the impact that humans have on nature and non-animals when it comes to preserving environments. Understanding that nature has it’s living properties that let it thrive among its resources allows for people to grasp the complexities that come about when construction companies destroy the environment in which they work. Plumwood uses the term dualism to refer to the sharp distinction between two classes of individuals. There is the high class, which is considered as the “One.” In contrast, the other side of the division consists of individuals that are classified as lower and are subordinates to the “One” as “Others.” This account on dualism allows the reader to understand how humans can significantly alter the environment because of the way they perceive its resources and inhabitants. Plumwood defines five characteristics that illustrate the oppressive actions that change the connection between human relations and the relationship between humans and nature.

Our relationship with nature has currently become strictly economic. we tend to don't associate ourselves as a section of nature as a result of we tend to use it for profit. Forests ar abate for the profits of the lumber trade and to form area for placental mammal. Animals that we tend to ar doubtless associated with, that have senses and therefore the ability to socialize ar slaughtered by the billions to feed Associate in Nursing more and more carnivorous population. Resources like oil and food ar all erratically distributed throughout the globe and thus used as a platform for profit. All the whereas the surroundings bears the grunt of our

The Western world is the dominant society with specific parameters for modernity, which understands nature-people relationships from a perspective that is grounded on human domination over the environment. Nature is regarded as a provider of resources (e.g. oil, timber, cupper, rubber, etc.) for the profit and greed of a market-based economy that seeks infinite development. Consequently, the human-nature relationships are subject-object, implying

In the activity “Tragedy of Commons” 4 people had to share a pond with each other which includes 16 fishes. The people have to fish enough fish to support their families, but cannot deplete the supply of fish to 0 (game over) in a time period of a year. If the person gets 1 fish then that person’s family starves, if the person has 2 fish then the person can use that for profit. Each remaining fish reproduces 1 new fish every year. Later each person will “get” their own private pond that they can fish from (same process/procedure). This will be easier to support the individual’s family, along with keeping the supply of the fish sufficient.

From the article of “Reclaiming the Commons” By Naomi Klein, Klein defines The Commons is “the spirit they share is a radical reclaiming of The Commons” (Klein, 2001, p.82). In other words, the common is a public space where people go. People can gather together to talk and have meetings. An example of the commons is “used to see fights as saving a nation, now I see it as saving democracy” (Klein, 2001, p.83). In other words, The Commons has to do with anything like the cultural, social, and natural materials. It is all public and not private to the society. The Commons implication is nothing is private in the society because everything becomes public for the society to know what is going on such as the news and media of other people. The significance

The tragedy of the commons and the problem of collective action are two key concepts in the world of political science. They act under the assumption that man is a rational being who will act in his own self interest. Humanity id broadly diverse meaning that each individual has their own ideas as to how society should run and how people should live.(heywood) This inevitably results in disagreement and this is where politics steps in. Aristotle described politics as the ‘master science’, ‘the activity through which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create the Good Society.’ Through the tragedy of the commons and the problem of collective action we can see how politics is essentially the ‘search for conflict resolution’

White’s thesis in The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis states that in order to confront the expanding environmental crises, humans must begin to analyze and alter their treatment and attitudes towards nature. The slow destruction of the environment derives from the Western scientific and technological advancements made since the Medieval time period. “What people do about their ecology depends on what they think about themselves in relation to things around them” (RON p.7). Technology and science alone will not be able to save humans until we adjust the way of thinking and suppress the old ideas of humans power above nature. Instead, we need to learn how to think of ourselves as being

“The Tragedy of the Commons” written by Garret Hardin explains how the human population is degrading the environment. When Hardin refers to commons he is talking about a resource that is owned by no one and used by a group of people. Some examples of commons include the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the oceans we fish. The tragedy is that people don’t look at the bigger picture; the over use of commons for our own personal benefit leads to the destruction or extinction of these commons. For example if one fisherman wants to fish the oceans as much as possible that’s fine, but now imagine if every fisherman wants to fish the oceans as much as they can, this is one example of a common being destroyed by the human population. The

The decline of the environment due to natural and human exertion is known as the degradation of the environment. The natural weather occurrences such as heavy rain, flooding, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes etc. are not administered under human control. These meteorological phenomenon’s wreak devastation on the environment from time to time causing the land to become unsuitable to cultivate. On this subject matter, the human population does not contain the power to stop the wrath of Mother Nature. Rather, we are forced to sit back and watch. Nevertheless, humans engage in a crucial role towards the degradation of the environment in which we live in. Unavoidably, the degradation of the environment is a rising and utmost worldwide subject. I accept that the root cause to environmental degradation is the excessive use of resources on our land utilized by the processes under capitalism. As Jensen wrote in Endgame, “The global industrial economy is the engine for massive environmental degradation and massive human and (nonhuman) impoverishment.

Few decades ago, clean water was “commons” (Hardin, 1968) to us. It was a natural resource shared by everyone and not owned by anyone. This “commons” was taken for granted to the extent that people exploit clean water without considering its finiteness. Resorts and factories dumped wastewater and ruined nearby rivers and oceans. People carelessly littered garbage and substituted the dirty water with diminishing clean water. They definitely benefited in terms of financial cost and comfort from their negligence. However, those individual interests ended up bringing severe water pollution, attacking our collective interest of public health and well-being. In this vein, water pollution is undeniably the “Tragedy of the Commons” (Hardin, 1968). Following these dire circumstances, water purification techniques and systems have been further developed and become widespread. Yet, the technical measurements have not quite fundamentally solved the problem. What is needed at this point is people’s will and practical action to improve the environment. However, merely hoping and encouraging people to do so are not enough. In order to have a steady support from people, we need a practical device for a “mutual coercion” (Hardin, 1968) to earn consent to coercion necessary to amend the situation. In this paper, I am going to address the technical and individual effort for water pollution and its limitation, and suggest a way to complement this limitation through a device on an institutional