Dr. Garrett Hardin: Overpopulation, Survival and Morality

Article Tools

Image Gallery

Print

E-mail

Comments

RSS

PLOWBOY: Then, just as in the jointly owned pasture we discussed earlier, the polluter is able to distribute the dangers of foul air among many people, but personally reaps the full benefits of that contamination ... in the form of increased production, lower costs, and so forth?

HARDIN: That's right. Take, for example, the paper mills that have been terrible polluters of our rivers and streams. If one such firm elects to install a million dollars' worth of equipment to "clean up" its operation, then that company can only recover the money by adding, say, a penny or two to the cost of a roll of paper.

So, when the products reach the stores, customers-who usually pay attention to priceswill buy the less expensive paper produced by polluting firms ... companies that weren't forced t o raise the cost of Weir products. The point 2, it doesn't do a manufacturer any good to be public-spirited unless all of his or her competitors are, too. That's why the answer to a Commons is to get rid of it. In other words, the solution comes when people band together to enforce rules and regulations that apply to everyone. Which is why we now demand that industries have pollution control devices ... and fine those firms that don't comply.

PLOWBOY: So antipollution regulations are examples of what you've referred to as "mutually agreed-upon coercion''

HARDIN: Exactly.

PLOWBOY: Would it be fair to say that pollution—or any problem that might occur in a Commons—can be reduced to a question of population?

HARDIN: That's right. In fact, the concept of "Commonsism"—as I've developed it—is a result of my study of the hazards of overpopulation.

You see, many of our population problem was Rem from me great increase—over the last 150 years or so-in what might be called humanitarianism. The growth of compassion—as indicated by the emergence of humanitarian groups and the passage of humanitarian legislation—has been one of the most striking bits of social evolution in the last couple of centuries. And, on the whole, this sort of public concern speaks well of the human race ... but it also carries dangers with it, the worst of which show up in the form of overpopulation.

For example, as recently as 200 years ago there wasn't much public concern over the fact that many children died of starvation. The usual attitude was something like this: "Well, that poor family shouldn't have produced more children than it could support. " So, if a couple had six offspring and could only feed two, four would starve. In this way, local populations were largely self-controlled.

However, as the humanitarian trend grew, communities became concerned about the welfare of children born into such poor families ... and, eventually, the group took over the responsibility of feeding tots whose parents couldn't support them. Now, that's fine, but—when the impoverished parents insist upon their rights to have more and more babies—the burden of caring for them, which is shared by the other members of the community, grows. The irresponsible breeders are taking too much out of the Commons ... both in terms of the aid that the community gives to their children and in terms of the greater share of all resources that those "extra" people will consume. And, though our public—spirited actions are the result of the best intentions in the world, we end up with overpopulation.

RSS | Comments | E-mail | Print