The Tragedy of the Commons - The Garrett Hardin Society

Fall 2001T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACTancient Chinese, but it may take tenthousand words to validate it. It isas tempting to ecologists as it is toreformers in general to try topersuade others by way of thephotographic shortcut. But theessence of an argument cannot bephotographed: It must be presentedrationally — in words.That morality is system-sensitiveescaped the attention of mostcodifiers of ethic s in the past.“Thou shalt not…” is the form oftraditional ethical directives whichmake no allowance for particularcircumstances. The laws of oursociety follow the pattern of ancientethics, and therefore are poorlysuited to governing a complex,crowded, changeable world. Ourepicyclic solution is to augmentstatutory law with administrativelaw. Since it is practicallyimpossible to spell out all theconditions under which it is safe toburn trash in the back yard or to runan automobile without smog-control,by law we delegate the details tobureaus. The result is administrativelaw, which is rightly feared for anancient reason — Quis custodiesipsos custodes? — “Who shallwatch the watchers themselves?”John Adams said that we musthave “a government of laws andnot men.” Bureau administrators,trying to evaluate the morality ofacts in the total system, aresingularly liable to corruption,producing a government by men,not laws.Prohibition is easy to legislate(though not necessarily to enforce),but how do we legislatetemperance? Experience indicatesthat it can be accomplished bestthrough the mediation ofadministrative law. We limitpossibilities unnecessarily if wesuppose that the sentiment of Quiscustodiet denies us the use ofadministrative law. We shouldrather retain the phrase as aperpetual reminder of fearfuldangers we cannot avoid. The greatchallenge facing us now is to inventthe corrective feedbacks that areneeded to keep custodians honest.We must find ways to legitimate theneeded authority of both thecustodians and the correctivefeedbacks.Freedom to BreedIs IntolerableThe tragedy of the commons isinvolved in population problems inanother way. In a world governedsolely by the principle of “dog eatdog” — if indeed there ever wassuch a world — how many childrena family had would not be a matterof public concern. Parents whobred too exuberantly would leavefewer descendants, not more,because they would be unable tocare adequately for their children.David Lack and others have foundthat such a negative feedbackdemonstrably controls the fecundityof birds. 11 But men are not birds,and have not acted like them formillenniums, at least.If each human family weredependent only on its ownresources; if the children ofimprovident parents starved todeath; if, thus, overbreeding broughtits own “punishment” to the germline — then there would be nopublic interest in controlling thebreeding of families. But oursociety is deeply committed to thewelfare state, 12 and hence isconfronted with another aspect ofthe tragedy of the commons.In a welfare state, how shall wedeal with the family, the religion, therace, or the class (or indeed anydistinguishable and cohesive group)that adopts overbreeding as a policyto secure its ownaggrandizement? 13 To couple theconcept of freedom to breed withthe belief that everyone born has anequal right to the commons is tolock the world into a tragic courseof action.Unfortunately this is just thecourse of action that is beingpursued by the United Nations. Inlate 1967, some 30 nations agreedto the following 14 :The Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights describes thefamily as the natural andfundamental unit of society.It follows that any choiceand decision with regard tothe size of the family mustirrevocably rest with thefamily itself, and cannot bemade by anyone else.It is painful to have to denycategorically the validity of thisright; denying it, one feels asuncomfortable as a resident ofSalem, Massachusetts, who deniedthe reality of witches in theseventeenth century. At the presenttime, in liberal quarters, somethinglike a taboo acts to inhibit criticis mof the United Nations. There is afeeling that the United Nations is“our last and best hope,” that weshouldn’t find fault with it; weshouldn’t play into the hands of thearchconservatives. However, let usnot forget what Robert LouisStevenson said: “The truth that is31