Reaction paper The Tragedy of the Commons
The article about the Tragedy of the Commons examines and argues how the problems of overpopulation can be solved. Hardin (1968) has put the universal assumption published in scientific and professional journals that problems can be resolved with the technical solution under the question. He points out various issues of the population growth and density, such as food gathering and lack of restrictions, waste, pollution, propaganda and putting pleasure prior the necessity and sustainability. Main arguments in the paper presented are that growing population problems cannot be resolved technologically without giving up the privileges we enjoy today. The maximization of the world’s population does not maximize goods. The maximization of goods per person must be achieved. But to make an objective analysis in the area of goods where subjective opinions are we came to the problem that they cannot be compared. The fastest growing populations in the world are the most miserable ones. The author points out various important writers in the past and taking into account their main arguments.
I liked the presentation of the growing population issues with various cases which show that the land cannot carry the capacity of a growing population. I think that that the author has put a lot of effort in explaining on basis of every case various facts, why the growing population has no technical solution and why people act as we have unlimited resources. I liked the comparison and visualization that were given to the concrete cases. On the other hand it gives a focus on stories where the author must come to the conclusion itself and read very carefully since there are various different cases included to represent his view on the issue of the population growth. I see the same problem in today’s world where with the individual benefits are hurting the whole society. Freedom many times results in the negative consequences. I share the opinion that the pollution is also one of the tragedies of the common. For the pollution all of the population is responsible, but nobody does anything about it or very little. We need laws and taxes to prevent something that is known to be wrong and the population density is responsible for the growing waste. No ownership results in the greater pollution. The acts of population should be adoptable to the concrete timely circumstances. A good example on which argued, is that freedom to breed is intolerable. The interesting fact he pointed out is that if humans were depend only on its resources without the public interest and welfare the overpopulation would have its own punishment. I agree with the author in the fact that only with technical solutions that requires only natural science without involving human values, morality and ideas cannot resolve issues and conflicts. But I think that development and innovation, with technical solutions are the most important contributors to increased prosperity and development. I disagree with him in the fact that we should deny the Universal Declaration of Human Right, because it supports the right to self-decision about the family, since it is the core basic globally accepted provision of basic human rights and should be respected in every way.
I have learned the Authors perception on why no technical solutions can rescue the issue of overpopulation. He believes we should end of freedom to breed and improve education if we want to protect the nature. The topic fits into the week’s topic about learning of the contemporary global problems where one of the biggest is how to stop the exponential growing population. Control beyond the limits must be imposed. Not the prohibition, but open options that just cost more and the desired actions to be more preferable. Finally, I believe that more humane ways can be found to resolve the issue.
Questions:
How can we resolve the issue of overpopulation since the zero population growth is impossible to reach and denying the freedom to breed is not a possible solution either?
What has been done since the cold war when the article was written until today to seriously tackle the issue of overpopulation?
Is there any proof that technology improvement with connection to the non-technological ones cannot solve the issue of the overpopulation?
Work cited
Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162: 1243-1248.
