What’s the Solution?

In The Tragedy of the Commons, by Garret Hardin, Hardin writes that the solution to over population is not technological and that the only way to control over population is to relinquish the idea of a commons in order to be more free. Hardin starts his argument by pointing out our population is growing, and our resources are depleting. He hypothesizes we must acknowledge the optimum growth rate should be zero, and we must understand that “maximizing population does not maximize goods” (Hardin). This particular idea was interesting to me because of Hardin’s debate on what is considered good. While Hardin explains some value wilderness while others value ski lodges, he also points out that there is not common agreement upon what is valuable. While some want to dedicate their time to make a family or have a stable job, others might dedicate it to saving the world or traveling for experience. I think this point is very convincing as to why there is chaos among the world. We cannot agree on what to dedicate our time and resources to, and this poses a problem of individual beliefs and how they affect society as a whole.

Furthermore, Hardin touches on different types of people who have children and observes their conditions. When stating “the most rapidly growing populations on earth today are the most miserable,” Hardin makes the point that the populations with the most people are considered “commons” due to their wide range of beliefs and consciousness. Furthermore, populations that over breed experience a harder time keeping up with the demands of more people. This leads Hardin to make his biggest argument that “freedom in a commons brings ruin to all” (Hardin). It is my understanding that Hardin’s version of a commons is a group of people who think freely and individually. The idea of freedom in a commons poses the debate again on where our resources should go. While some would rather dedicate their time to important matters that affect us a whole, others are more focused on matters that only benefit a small portion of the world. Furthermore, these improvements cost tax payers millions of dollars which they have no authority over. Tax payers can’t control where their money goes and cannot decided what matter is more important to focus on. Freedom in a commons create people who do not think of the entire population when depleting resources and are more self focuses rather than bigger picture focused. Hardin takes an obvious opposition to a commons and believes they are the reason over population and tragedy have stuck earth.

With the multiple arguments and opinions Hardin voices, I finished this reading slightly confused as to why Hardin did not propose a plan to end over breeding. While he has multiple thoughts and opinions of over breeding and believes there is no technological solutions, why did he not create a different solution? I find Hardin’s arguments convincing, but also problematic. While I agree that the world is overpopulated and that we are going through more resources than we actually have, I feel that the solution is not just to recognizes that freedom in a commons is bad, but to propose how we fix this issue. Hardin is merely pointing out the problem and why he thinks it is a problem, but he does not offer any advice on how to rid the idea of a freedom commons or how to make everyone understand we need to work to benefit society as a whole and not just ourselves.