Population

Read the brief description of the Tragedy of the Commons and LifeBoat Ethics below.

The Tragedy of the Commons

Biologist Garrett Hardin used the term "The Tragedy of the Commons" to dramatize the conflicts which can exist between people's short-term and long-term interests. The specific example he uses is that of a community of herdsmen who graze their cattle on a common pasture owned by the village.

It is to the short-term advantage to any individual herdsman to increase the size of his herd, because his production will be greater, and his family will benefit. The costs of his actions; overgrazing and damage to the commons; will be minimal to the individual, because they are born by the community as a whole.

Similarly, if other herdsmen increase the size of their herds and any given individual does not, that individual will suffer because the commons will be damaged by overgrazing, but he will have nothing to show for it.

Carried to its conclusion, each individual acting his own best short-term interests, increases the size of his herd. This then leads to the tragedy of the commons; leading to the destruction of the community pasture from overgrazing, the death all the herdsmen's cattle from starvation, and the economic (and perhaps physical) death of the community.

Name some other ways in which individuals acting in their own best short-term interests may create a tragedy of the commons situation, and damage their own long-term interests.

One example might be clearcutting a forest for short-term profit, even though the results will be erosion - leading to silting of rivers and loss of salmon runs - loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of recreational opportunities for the larger community. The failure of the forest to regenerate due to erosion, may also result in a significant long-term financial loss to forestry interests.

Overfishing might be another example. In catching more fish than can be sustainably harvested, fishers (and the policymakers who regulate them) may deplete the resource to the point that none of the fishers can survive economically.

A third example might be the success of the US automotive industry in delaying or defeating anti-pollution and fuel efficiency regulations. The individual manufacturers and their shareholders benefit in the short-term because they did not have to invest in new technology, but the larger society is harmed in the long-term by increased energy consumption and pollution. Citizens around the globe may also be harmed in the long-term, because the additional pollution contributes to global warming.

Lifeboat ethics

Hardin also posed the question of "Lifeboat Ethics," using the metaphor of a lifeboat at sea to dramatize the situation of the few prosperous and food-sufficient industrialized countries surrounded by dozens of poor, rapidly-growing and resource-scarce nations. The rich nations are in the partially-filled lifeboat, and the poor are in the water.

Those in the lifeboat face three choices. They can try to pick up all those in the water, which will overload and swamp the lifeboat. They can try to pick up as many as the lifeboat will hold, even though this diminishes their own chances of survival by reducing their margin of safety, and forces them to make the difficult decision of which people to rescue. Or they can fend off those in the water, and row away. Hardin suggests the last option; rowing away; as the most realistic choice for the industrialized nations.

This is harsh, he acknowledges, and may be perceived as unjust. But he suggests that those who disagree with the choice can trade places with those in the water. In real terms, he recommends that the US and other nations cease giving food aid to poor nations, because access to that food simply allows the population to increase further, making the ultimate outcome of starvation and tragedy that much larger in scale, but no less inevitable.

BONUS: For bonus marks, write your reaction to the lifeboat ethics scenario that Hardin proposes. (No more than 1 page).