Science in Christian Perspective
The Tragedy of the Commons*
GARRETT HARDIN
Department of Biology University of California, Santa Barbara, California
From:PSCF 21 (September 1969): 83-87.
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.
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.
Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational
herdsman concludes
that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his
herd. And another; and another . . . .But this is the conclusion
reached by each
and every rational herdsman sharing the commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each
man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd
without limit-in
a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men
rush, each
pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the
commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.
In an approximate way, the logic of the commons has been understood for a long
time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of
private property
in real estate. But it is understood mostly only in special cases which are not
sufficiently generalized. Even at this late date, cattlemen leasing
national land
on the western ranges demonstrate no more than an ambivalent understanding, in
constantly pressuring
federal authorities to increase the head count to the point where overgrazing
produces erosion and weeddominance. Likewise, the oceans of the world continue
to suffer from the survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations
still respond automatically to the shibboleth of the "freedom of
the seas."
Professing to believe in the "inexhaustible resources of the oceans,"
they bring species after species of fish and whales closer to extinction.
The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy
of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The
parks themselves
are limited in extentthere is only one Yosemite Valley -whereas
population seems
to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek in the parks are steadily
eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will
be of no value to anyone.
What does "freedom" mean? When men mutually agreed to pass
laws against
robbing, mankind became more free, not less so. Individuals locked
into the logic
of the commons are free only to bring on universal ruin; once they
see the necessity
of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals.
What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as
private property.
We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right to
enter them. The
allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It
might he on the basis of merit, as defined by some agreed-upon
standards. It might
be by lottery. Or it might be on a firstcome, first-served basis, administered
to long queues. These, I think, are all the reasonable possibilities. They are
all objectionable. But we must choose-or acquiesce in the destruction
of the commons
that we call our National Parks.
Pollution
In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of
pollution.
Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but
of putting
something in-sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into
water; noxious
and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant advertising signs into the
line of sight. The calculations of utility are much the same as
before. The rational
man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into
the commons
is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since this
is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling
our own nest,"
so long as we behave only as independent, rational, free-enterprisers.
How To Legislate Temperance
Analysis of the pollution problem as a function of population density uncovers
a not generally recognized principle of morality, namely; the
morality of an act
is a function of the state of the system at the time it is
performed.2 Using the
commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier
conditions,
because there is no public; the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable. A
hundred and fifty years ago a plainsman could kill an American bison, cut out
only the tongue for his dinner, and discard the rest of the animal. He was not
in any important sense being wasteful. Today, with only a few
thousand bison left,
we 'would be appalled at such behavior.
Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable
The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in another way.
In a world governed solely by the principle of "dog eat
dog"-if indeed
there ever was such a world-how many children a family had would not
he a matter
of public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer
descendants,
not more, because they would he unable to care adequately for their children.
David Lack and others
have found that such a negative feedback demonstrably controls the fecundity of
birds3. But men are not birds, and have not acted like them for millenniums, at
least.
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children
of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding brought its own
"punishment" to the germ linethen there would be no public interest
in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to
the welfare state4, and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy
of the commons.
In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race,
or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that
adopts overbreeding
as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement,'? To couple the concept
of freedom
to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons
is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.
Conscience Is Self-Eliminating
It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind
in the long
run by an appeal to conscience, Charles Galton Darwin made this point when he
spoke on the centennial of the publication of his grandfather's great book. The
argument is straightforward and Darwinian.
People vary. Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people
will undoubtedly
respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce
a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more
susceptible consciences.
The difference will be accentuated, generation by generation....
Recognition of Necessity
Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population problems is
this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions
of lowpopulation density. As the human population has increased, the
commons has
had to be abandoned in one aspect after another.
First we abandoned the commons in food gathering, enclosing farm land
and restricting
pastures and hunting and fishing areas. These restrictions are still
not complete
throughout the world.
Somewhat later we saw that the commons as a place for waste disposal would also
have to be abandoned. Restrictions on the disposal of domestic sewage
are widely
accepted in the Western world; we are still struggling to close the commons to
pollution by automobiles, factories, insecticide sprayers,
fertilizing operations,
and atomic energy installations.
In a still more embryonic state is our recognition of the evils of the commons
in matters of pleasure. There is almost no restriction on the
propagation of sound
waves in the public medium. The shopping public is assaulted with
mindless music,
without its consent. Our government is paying out billions of dollars to create
supersonic transport which will disturb 50,000 people for every one person who
is whisked from coast to coast 3 hours faster. Advertisers muddy the airways of
radio and television and pollute the view of travelers. We are a long way from
outlawing the commons in matters of pleasure. Is this because our
Puritan inheritance
makes us view pleasure as something of a sin, and pain (that is, the pollution
of advertising) as the sign of virtue?
Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of
somebody's personal
liberty. Infringements made in the distant past are accepted because
no contemporary complains of a loss. It is the newly proposed
infringements that
we vigorously oppose; cries of "rights" and "freedom" fill
the air. But what does "freedom" mean? When men mutually
agreed to pass
laws against robbing, mankind became more free, not less so. Individuals locked
into the logic of the commons are free only to bring on universal
ruin; once they
see the necessity of mutual coercion, they become free to pursue other goals.
I believe it was Hegel who said, "Freedom is the recognition of
necessity."
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.
REFERENCES
1S. McVay, Sc. Amer. 216 (No. 8), 13 (1966).
2J. Fletcher, Situation Ethics (Westminster), Philadelphia,
1966).
3D. Lack, The Natural Regulation of Animal Numbers (Claren
don Press, Oxford, 1954).
4J-J, Girvetz, From Wealth to Welfare (Stanford Univ. Press,
Stanford, Calif., 1950).
5G. Hardin, Perspec. Biol. Med. & Med. 6, 366 (1963).
**This article is a collection of partial selections from the paper with this title published in Science 162, 1243 (1968), copyright 1968 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Comment
THE COMING CATASTROPHES:
CAUSES AND REMEDIES
Wilbur L. Bullock
Department of Zoology University of New Hampshire Durham, New
Hampshire 03824
Many of our colleagues, particularly those in academic teaching and research,
are viewing the prospects for the future of mankind with growing alarm. Often
they sound like "prophets of doom" that make the predictions of the
apocalypse sound all too real and imminent. Barry Commoner1 warns of
the far-reaching
and catastrophic effects of thermonuclear war and environmental pollution. The
Paddock brothers2 tell us that we are now entering the "Age of
Famine".
Paul Ehrlich3 announces that the battle against overpopulation and
famine is already
lost and that we must prepare to salvage what is left after
catastrophe decimates
the human race. Harold Cassidy4 and Lamont Cole5 agree with these
grim predictions
and provide additional evidence that mankind is rapidly moving toward a day of
reckoning. Cassidy talks about "Incipient Environmental Collapse" and
Cole asks: "Can the World he Saved?" These are but a few of the grim
prognostications voiced by many of our more vocal and concerned
associates. Many
who have neither
taken up the pen nor hit the lecture trail would add
to the growing clamor of alarm for the immediate
future of man.
Two men who have presented analyses of the human dilemma are Lynn
White6 and
Garrett Hardin7. White, an historian, has attempted to determine the historic
basis for the problem. Hardin, a biologist, suggests what he
considers to be the
inevitable outcome of the population crisis in terms of political
necessity. The
conclusions of both men have serious Christian implications.
The Historic Roots of our Ecologic Crisis
White blames "orthodox Christian arrogance" for most of our
environmental
problems. He reasons that God gave man dominion over the earth, man used this
dominion to exploit and pollute and, therefore, we arrive at the mess in which
we now find ourselves. As evangelical Christians we may not like the sound of
that reasoning but an honest analysis of human history provides too
much support
for White's logic. It is futile to attempt, in the name of "orthodox"
or "conservative" Christianity, to deny that there is much
uncomfortable
truth in the charge. The most serious weakness I see in White's
position is that
it lumps too much into the one pot of "orthodox
Christianity". He fails
to recognize that probably the greatest exploitation was done by people who had
only the vaguest, most perfunctory association with any form of Christianity. Furthermore, these exploiters were interested in their own
selfish gain,
a motive distinctly contrary to the self-denial of true Christian
love. Unfortunately,
we must admit that even real, fervent Christians have sometimes been guilty as
well. In short, we have another example of the old problem of confusing -and we
all do it-the ideal toward which we strive and the faltering,
pathetically imperfect
level of actual performance. There seems to be little question, however, that
God's command to rule the earth has been the sine quo non of most
scientific research
and its technological application. Far eastern and other nature religions seem
to inhibit, through pantheistic worship of nature or through actual
fear of natural
phenomena, scientific and technological endeavors. The biblical picture of man,
as but "little lower than the angels" and the supervisor of the earth
that God created, is much more conducive to inquiry and mastery than religious
reverence of all life because of belief in re-incarnation or other
intimate mystical
association of man and the rest of nature.
However, the misuse of a God-given gift by the recipient does not in
itself condemn
either the gift or the giver. That some people use television to
deaden or corrupt
their minds does not mean that television is all evil. To the
Christian, the exalted
position of man in nature is a basic concept in our understanding of both God
and man. This might sound like "arrogance," but if we are so charged,
we must admit the charge. On the other hand, the Christian must be the first to
recognize, again
on the basis of the biblical picture of man, that sinful
man-ourselves included-all
too often acts as the despoiler of nature and all too seldom as the reverent,
responsible conserver and steward.
White recommends St. Francis as a kind of a compromise between
orthodox Christianity
and the pantheistic nature religions. It might be well to study this suggestion
carefully to see just what aspects of St. Francis were compatible with biblical
Christianity. I have little doubt but that we would benefit from such a study.
It would certainly bring into focus some aspects of twentieth century, western
culture that we have all to glibly accepted as "Christian" but which
are badly tarnished with selfishness, materialism, and "the love
of money".
White oversimplifies the problem by ignoring the variety of
reactions, in different
groups of Christians, to the divine command to rule the earth. However, my own
reflections on White over the past two years lead me to conclude
that, unpleasant
though his conclusions are, Christians must accept a considerable
measure of guilt
to the charge of abusing and exploiting our Godgiven domain. This
divinely ordained
authority is a much more awesome thing than we have realized. It is
basic to the
Christian faith, but we must admit that we have seriously neglected
it. And, others
have made matters worse by accepting the gift with no thought of the Giver nor of their own responsibility to their
fellow man.
The Tragedy of the Commons
Hardin's consideration of the population problem is based on the
assumption that
the population explosion is one of a class of problems (along with
national security
in a nuclear world) for which no technical solution is possible. Such
an assumption
is highly unorthodox in a generation in which there has been on
question but that,
given enough time and money, the human mind could conquer all
problems. Actually,
the significant difference between the optimists and the pessimists about the
future of man is on precisely this point. The optimists focus on the
significant
progress of research in fertility control and in food production and then talk
of the future in glowing terms. The pessimists are convinced that we
cannot pull
technological rabbits out of the hat fast enough to avert catastrophe. To all
of us, trained in the years of research affluence, it comes as a
shock to he told
that NSF or NIH projects might not be able to solve all problems of technology,
health, and survival. As Christians, however, we should have realized long ago
that sinful man, alienated from God, is unable to solve the really
basic problems
of human existence and even survival. It should be no surprise to us that there
are problems that defy technological solution and which require a
drastic change
in human moral and ethical structures in order that man might
survive. We should
have recognized long ago that even our most dramatic successes-such
as, the manipulation
of atomic energy or the control of human genetic mechanisms-have
moral and spiritual
implications of the gravest nature.
It should be no surprise to us that there are problems that defy technological
solution and which require a drastic change in human moral and
ethical structures
in order that man might survive.
Hardin tells us that, in the face of the population problem, "freedom to
breed is intolerable". Furthermore, we need to agree to a
"mutual coercion"
to limit human births. "The only way we can preserve and nurture other and
more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very
soon."
The freedom to breed, to have and to raise children, has been one of mankind's
most cherished possessions. Indeed for many people in this world it has often
been the only freedom they have had. Now we have reached the point in
human history
where uninhibited breeding is threatening the very existence of mankind. Even
the most zealous supporter of the biblical directive to "be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth" must realize that the earth
has been replenished
for some time. The continued, unrestricted participation in the
"commons"
of human reproduction can only bring disaster. To refuse to restrict,
by incentive
or by edict, the natural propensity to breed, will inevitably and quickly lead to world-wide famine, to disease epidemics, to unrest, and to war.
To force or to encourage people to "let nature take its
course" in the
name of sentiment or theology will certainly result in millions of
horrible, unpleasant
deaths from starvation, disease, and violence. It seems clear to me
that the advocates
of this "freedom" or this "responsibility" will be guilty
of mass murder, and that before many years have passed.
Hardin has described his solution in forceful but non-specific terms. Ehrlich3
has spelled out some of the details. He suggests: paying people for not having
children and/or penalizing them when they do; sterility capsules for all women,
capsules that can be removed under carefully controlled conditions;
and the introduction
of sterilizing chemicals into food and water with antidotes being allowed as a
special privilege. We are certainly faced with some sweeping and unconventional
proposals. What are Christians to think and do about all of this?
Our first task is to decide if there really is a problem that
requires such drastic
solutions. My own study of the problem over the past few years has convinced me
that there is little basis for optimism. Even if Hardin is wrong in
his assumption
that no technological solutions are possible, I see little likelihood that such
solutions will actually be forthcoming. The growing unrest throughout
the world,
the lack of concern by affluent Americans (including Christians), the
shift toward
irrationalism and anti-intellectualism even in educational institutions,
all tend
to guarantee that any achievements will be far too little and far too
late, Therefore,
I have been forced to conclude that the problem is real, and that only the most
drastic solutions could possibly work. However, I find that I cannot, at this
time, comfortably accept the morality of the proposed solutions. Rather, I am
inclined to accept such catastrophe as inevitable. Restrictive laws,
if instituted
must be obeyed because the morality of disobedience to such laws seems clearly
worse than the alternative of not having such laws. I cannot,
however, bring myself
to enthusiastically promote such laws.
In a more positive and constructive vein, I feel that, as in the New Testament
church, we need to become more concerned with serving the individual
needy people
with whom God brings us into contact. Awareness of approaching
catastrophe should
constantly haunt us to he more zealous in this task. And, if we view
such catastrophe
in terms of divine judgment on a rebellions world, we are even more obligated
to be more active in "doing good". After all, are we not
urged to "encourage
one another, all the more since you see the Day of the Lord is coming
near"?
Such an attitude is far better than the sometimes comfortable
"involvement"
in the grandiose problems of all mankind or all the poor people. It
requires the
much more demanding, personal involvement with individuals in our
everyday lives.
It seems to me that this is the kind of involvement seen in the New Testament
church and in the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In short, it seems to me that the situation is far too serious for us
to he satisfied
with picking apart the theological flaws of White and Hardin or
others with similar
views and concern. They are trying to tell us something of
cataclysmic proportions,
something that is not too different from the biblical apocalypse.
If there ever was a time for the church of Jesus Christ to be about
the Father's
business, this is it.
REFERENCES
1Commoner, Barry (1966) Science and Survival. Viking, New York.
2Paddock, William and Paddock, Paul (1967) Famine-1975!
America's Decision: Who Will Survive. Little, Brown, Boston.
3Ehrlich, Paul II.
(1969) "Population, Fond and Environment: Is the battle
lost?" The Biologist
51: 8-19.
4Cassidy, Harold C. (1967) "On Incipient Environmental Collapse,"
BioScience 17: 878-882.
5Cnlc, LaMont C. (1968) "Can the World be Saved?"
BioScience 18: 679-693.
6White, Lynn, Jr. (1967) "The Historic Roots of our Ecologic Crisis."
Science 155: 1203-1207. See also Journal ASA 21, 42 (1969),
7Hardin,
Carrett (1968)
"The Tragedy of the Commons." Science 162: 1243-1248.