Political science
The major concern of Hardin’s essay, Tragedy of the commons is that human population is growing exponentially while the resources on planet earth are finite. In this regard, the writer envisions an ultimate scenario in which the resources on the planet will one day be unable to sustain the population. He therefore proposes the control of reproduction and the re-examination of it as a free human right with no control. Common good is used to describe a resource which is owned communally by a group of people or the entire earth’s population, where everyone has equal rights to it (Hardin, 2 ).
The article argues that ‘breeding’ is not a right or a freedom. But rather a thing that must be approached with responsibility over other occupants of the planet and how introducing more people on earth impacts them.
In this light there has been suggested various ways in which to handle the issue. I think that Hardin’s concerns were legitimate and warranted. Common reasoning indicates that continued use of finite resources by a continuously growing populace will ultimately lead to the destruction or the depletion of the resource. There have been suggested three ways of dealing with this tragedy of the commons.
The first approach is to put restriction on the number of births per couple in a population. This would ultimately lead to a decreased number of the users of a particular resource. This can be done by either introducing penalties for people who have extra children or by introducing incentives for those couples that have few or no children (Hartman, 12).
The other way in which this can be handled is through the use of science to multiply resources. Available modern technologies able to be used to increase yield In many different resources and to therefore make it more feasible for the sustenance of a growing population. A good example of this is the growing of food in side large buildings where plants are genetically engineered to produce excess food. This is in my opinion a good way to manage the tragedy of the commons but is however not sustainable since not everything can be scientifically engineered. Technology also has its limitations (Diamond, 6).
Another way of intervention might be through the change of human values. This would require that human beings change their view of things so that they adopt values that protect resources. In such a scenario for instance, the common ownership of resources should be looked at as immoral and unacceptable by society. In this way societies may be able to formulate rules and regulations that protect the environment.
In my opinion such a feat would be incredibly difficult and would need the rallying of support across cultures and societies internationally which is not a hard thing. It would also take a considerable amount of time to do so, in which time irreversible destruction or depletion to key resources might occur.
The final way suggested of dealing with the tragedy of the commons is the changes in the use of resources. This idea propagates the wise use of resources so as not to deplete them ( Cohen, 193). This can be achieved by either restricting access to certain common resources so as to de-communize them. It may also be achieved by the providing incentives to those who invest in resources and heavily penalizing those who destroy them or contribute to their destruction. This seems like one of the best ways top deal with the issue
However ultimately a combination of all or some of these suggested ideas may be the best way to deal with the tragedy of the masses.
Works Cited
Cohen, Joel. How many people can the earth support?Kansas:Paw Prints , 2008,193.
Diamond, Jared. Collapse: How Societies Choose to fail or Succeed. Viking: Penguin Books.
2005.
Hardin, Garret.”The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science. 1968, 162: 1243-8.
Hartman, Betsy. Reproductive rights and wrongs . New York :Harper and Row.1995, 189 .
