Tragedy of the Commons

TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

by Antonio C. Antonio

December 3, 2013

QUESTION:  On Garrett Hardin’s TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS.  Do you think his ideas are applicable until today? (Professor Janet B. Martires)

The paper “Tragedy of the Commons” by Garrett James Hardin is an eye-opener.  It clearly highlights the need to control the exponential increase or growth in population vis-à-vis sacrificing the quality of life of people. The Hardin paper called attention to the ill effects on the environment caused by innocent actions by individuals.  Hardin did not make any small talk about the population problem and presented it in an unconventional way.  He first examined the relationship between population and resources then analyzed the dynamics that caused over-population.  Hardin disagrees that improved methods of food production will allow a steady increase in human population.  Considering that resources are finite, an uncontrolled increase in population would render less allocation of resources per individual.  He insists that either quality of life or population should be sacrificed and that both factors cannot be optimized together… “the greatest good for the greatest number.”  Eventually, he concluded that population must be controlled.

Hardin’s ideas are very much applicable today.  Their acceptability, however, would depend largely on the set cultures, customs and traditions of a particular country and race.  It can be noted that under-developed and developing countries have higher incidents of over-population.  Highly developed economies, with people having less leisure time, have better reproductive control.

The Philippines, having a highly religious populace, will have a harder time adhering to the recommendations of Hardin.  There really is a very thin line that divides politics and religion in our country.  Having adopted a democratic form of government also makes population control harder.  Filipinos have a tendency to think that their reproductive capability is not only a constitutional but a God-given right.  We also have the foolish notion that God and government should provide for our every need.  So even if having more children and a bigger family may be a formula for disaster, Filipinos just breed away as if God and government will truly provide for their needs.  The economic condition of the country, where capital and jobs are hard to come and a great number of people are either unemployed or under-employed, has kept people in a state of abject poverty.  The religious dictum that children represent personal wealth is largely believed but can hardly be accepted as gospel truth.

In recent months, a highly emotional debate on the Reproductive Health (RH) Bill happened.  Prior to this, hours upon hours of debates and deliberations also happened in this House of Representatives.  As far as I know, a piece of legislation on RH has already been filed during the Martial Law days in the then Interim Batasang Pambansa. Since then, however, five presidents have already lived in and left Malacanang Palace… but the debates still went on.

The debates on the RH Bill would normally end in deadlocks and the status quo remains.  The status quo in this case is dominated by fear… the politician’s fear that what they will do is not acceptable with the predominant Roman Catholics in the country.  But we often lose sight of the fact that individual choices may or may not solve collective problems such as population.  Adam Smith's laissez-faire (doctrine of the invisible hand) makes us assume that a system of individuals pursuing their private interests will automatically serve the collective interest.  This is not always true and may result in disastrous repercussions because of human tendencies to be greedy.  It would be hard to assume that people possess a conscience (individual or collective) and be responsible for their actions when the going is good… and therefore, another sale to be made, another product to be produced or even another child to be added to the family.

The RH Bill could be considered a “system of coercion” although it may pass as acceptable since it anchors on the concept of “informed choice.”  Informed choice will be more palatable to people as they will consent if they understand the dire consequences of letting the population growth rate skyrocket. Education and various legislated restraints and incentives for low reproduction can also be instituted.

Hardin’s position that resources are finite makes it hard for over-populated countries to cope with a thin distribution of such basic resources as food.  The Law of Supply and Demand dictates that a scarcity of basic commodities would automatically mean a sharp increase in prices for these goods.  A larger segment of the population, which is either unemployed or under-employed, will be hard-pressed to cope with a situation like this.

China’s “One Child” Policy works well for an authoritarian state.  This, however, may be hard to sell in a democracy.  The RH Bill is, perhaps, our best bet to control population growth because it postulates “informed choices.”  The Catholic Church’s position against it makes the bill controversial and an emotional issue altogether.  But something has to give… Hardin, himself presented choices: “over-population or quality of life.”  In our case, perhaps the choices will be “religious beliefs/over-population or RH Bill/quality of life.”

Just my little thoughts…