Information synthesis and application from provided sources

¶ … Tragedy of the Commons' is one of the most influential articles of our times. It has been reprinted hundreds of times, each time with a conclusion that appeared different from the previous ones. Hence, the article has both been embroiled in contention and gaining popularity.

The article is contentious because many experts have made comments on the actual precis of the article and many have seemed confused about its main argument. The article in all its simplicity discusses the no-solution problem of human growth and living standards. It is as simple as that.

According to the author, the world is finite and hence the food supply and other resources. In this case, if the population continues to grow, there is likelihood of resources diminishing and this means that with every increase, the resources available to man would decrease. Hence the slow erosion of natural resources that leads to poor living standards for the growing population.

In many ways, the article raises questions about popular views and long held beliefs. Hardin questions the validity of Adam Smith's claim of the invisible hand and also dismisses the promise of Bent ham's utilitarianism. He argues against the capitalist system because he feels that it destroys the natural resources when it goes unchecked. He writes:

The Wealth of Nations (1776) popularized the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual who "intends only his own gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible hand to promote...the public interest." Adam Smith did not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. If this assumption is correct it justifies the continuance of our present policy of laissez faire in reproduction. If it is correct we can assume that men will control their individual fecundity so as to produce the optimum population. If the assumption is not correct, we need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are defensible."

Hardin's article can be best understood in the light of Adam Smith's notion of the invisible hand. According to Smith, when every man tries to maximize his own good, which he of course would try to do under the capitalist system, then unknowingly he would also be doing well for others as well. For example if a man tries to make huge profits and thus brings out better and cheaper products than his rival, then he is also helping the public that would benefit from cheaper products. This is one example and Smith had countless of his own to prove his argument. But Hardin chooses to disagree.

He feels that if every man does what is best for him, he would eventually destroy the natural resources and the loss would have to be borne by everyone alike even if their share in benefits would negligible.

He explains that with the help of a piece of land where every man can bring his cows to graze. The more the animals, the greater the benefits for the man! This is fine but what about the land itself? Doesn't each additional animal leave the land worse and depleted? Of course it does. And the loss in the quality of the land is suffered by every man regardless of how many cows he had on that piece of land.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy."

Hardin wants us to remember that under the capitalist system, it is each man for himself and each organization for itself. So if a company is doing well, the benefits are his to keep but of course the economy will also benefit. This is what Smith had said but what if the benefits of the company are eroding the natural resources alongside all the profits that it is making? Who would then be responsible? Obviously every man will feel the loss of natural resources and everyone will suffer but not all men are responsible for the damage. Acting rationally, man tries to seek the benefits out of employing additional units of labor but fails to see its impact on natural resources.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1."