Tragedy Of The Commons Paper

Throughout history there have been many examples of tragedy of the commons. Tragedy of the commons is when people in a certain area over exploit a common resource which leads toa higher problem. Tragedy of the commons normally happens when people get greedy and get more than they really need. For example, if one farmer is public grazing area were to add a cow over the limit the field can sustain it won’t do much damage but if the other farmers also add another cow to the field it could end up harming it to the point where it is no longer usable.This comes to show that if even a single person becomes greedy it could ruin so many things for other people. Ideas will be pulled out from Hardin’s “The Tragedy of the Commons” to be used in this essay.

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

The relationship between people and their environment in A Land Remembered is one where the profit from land exploitation is naturally corrupting and exponentially increases the exploiters lust for larger profit, leading to the exploiter planning larger scale endeavors in the future. The author, Patrick D. Smith (1984), suggests the idea that communities naturally grow in a hedonic cycle to crave more resources to fuel loftier endeavors that require even more resources from the environment, an idea that is also discussed by Aldo Leopold in the Land Ethic as wholly negative, and that is also part of my world view that is rather more optimistic.

Aldo Leopold is on the forefather of modern environmentalism. His book, A Sand County Almanac, is based on the notion of viewing land as a community and as a commodity. In the chapter “The Land Ethic”, Leopold invokes a rethinking of our relationships to our world and is based on the principle that ethics are “a process in ecological evolution” (238). Leopold describes the stages of ethic evolving and explains that the rules for socializing were originally defined for human beings. These rules are expanded upon in the next stage of “Ethical Sequence” (237-238), describing how humans interact toward their community. The third stage is the ethics between humans and the land. Upon analyzing “The Land Ethic” I have come to the conclusion that in order to have respect and ethic for land, or anything, one must make a personal connection.

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

While environmental questions are frequently channeled through practical and economic prisms, it is also appropriate to consider our econolgy as a function of morality. The ethical dilemmas which contribute to our policies and our behaviors regarding the use of fossil fuels and our attention to global climate change are frequently overshadowed by more immediate concerns of survival or mere comfort.

Since man has evolved from apes, humans have only seen the land for its material value. More specifically, people who are driven by greed and self interest, have consistently taken advantage of the Earth’s limited resources.This relationship is illustrated in familiar pieces of text such as, “Undaunted Courage” by Stephen Ambrose and “On Indian Removal”by former President Andrew Jackson. This topic has extended to more recent articles like, “Is Gentrification a Human Rights Violation?”. Despite overwhelming scientific studies demonstrating the toll that man has reaped on the environment, humans continue to take advantage of and exploit the land for their own economic benefits which has developed a parasitic relationship.

In Hardin’s, The Tragedy of the Commons, he makes two major points that are still widely accepted. He argues that people act in their own self interest which causes them to over use the resources in the commons and that the only way to solve this problem is by utilizing socialism or privatizing free enterprises. This is not always true because there are people who have organized themselves in a way to manager common pool resources that allowed them use a long-term sustainable institution for governing resources. Government ownership and privatization does not always work. In China, Mongolia, and southern Siberia, there are signs of degradation where there is government regulation of the land. China and

Garrett Hardin, biologist from Stanford, used the metaphor of Earth being a “spaceship” persuading other countries, industries and people to stop polluting and washing natural resources of the world. He illustrates that the “spaceship” is represented by the wealthy countries, and the natural resources are represented as the poorer countries of the world. The wealthy people of the world have all the resources they need to survive and more, while other hand the poorer countries are unfortunate. Their rations are broken up into smaller and smaller portions because of their growing population and it lessens the resources to everyone of that country. Hardin's argument is based on sharing. He proposes that the bigger countries should share what

Tragedy of the commons or even the Easter Island situation can happen to our environment. As stated in chapter one, we need a clean ecosystem in order to try to maintain life. We must need clean air, clean water, and healthy soil with plenty of nutrients so our food production can keep increasing, but once you take advantage of the environment like dump waste in our rivers to the point that it causes water pollution, or burning out all our fossil fuels or gasoline to the point that we have smog, or air pollution, our ecosystem will eventually die out. Also stated in chapter one, soil degradation, crop diseases, or even weather conditions can decrease our food production. If our human population and animal reproduction keeps increasing rapidly, there would be a limited amount of space.

Environmentalist believe that a single individual should not be allowed to overuse resources that are lacking in third world countries. The rich are under no authority to obligate or have enough knowledge to helping the poor with world hunger, this has been a problem for many years. World Hunger is sustainable and everyone would like to resolve it, but it is overwhelming and there is no simple resolution. Garrett Hardin, an ecologist addresses this concern in an article titled “Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor,” that first appeared in a 1974 issue of Psychology Today. Hardin argues in that the rich is under no obligation to help the poor when it comes to them not having enough resources. That if the rich helps the poor, the

The classic essay Tragedy of the Commons describes the dilemma society faces when the interests of a group conflicts with the interests of individuals (Hardin, 1968). The example presented is that of a group of cattle ranchers commingling their cattle in a common pasture. At full capacity, each cattle owner still has an incentive to include additional cattle, since the slight decrease in overall yield per animal is offset by the additional animal. Unfortunately, this overgrazing inevitably leads to failure of the commons. The community goal of maximizing food production can only be achieved by placing controls on the interests of the individual cattle ranchers in favor of those of the community (Hardin, 1968). This paper is

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’

“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

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