Hardin’s outline of the Tragedy of the Commons raises an important, somewhat separate issue from his main topic: the means of mobility. Under what conditions will people promote change? Rosenfeld also hints at this question. He alludes to great political and cultural shifts in America’s past, including the termination of slavery and numerous amendments that have directly challenged the structure of our original government. In their articles, both authors demand extreme changes on two topics they deem crucial for the continuity and advancement of society. Hardin argues that the world must “mutually coerce” individuals into adopting a temperance of population growth contribution, while Rosenfeld states that the Senate must be done away with so that US resources can be better utilized. Both authors have points that are both compelling and controversial. Their declarations challenge morality and status quo assumptions. But beyond determining the actual validity of their theses, their arguments nudge at a deeper issue: what determines the turning point when humans accept and even promote change and choose to disregard the assumed truths by which they have been living? What would cause individuals to embrace the radical changes demanded by Hardin and Rosenfeld?
Hardin argues that the tragedy of the commons impedes the “invisible hand,” or the process by which individual choices eventually bring about the best situation for the majority, from functioning properly in commons issues like population. He then, however, proposes that societies might attempt to address the issue through “mutual coercion,” where societies collectively agree to limit themselves to ultimately enhance their freedom. But this poses a very interesting problem. How are such coercive acts mutually agreed upon if no one wants to limit their personal liberties? At what point does the common good overshadow personal rights? Who actually determines the greater good, and what causes widespread mobility within a group of people? Rosenfeld presents a gripping argument emphasizing the possible existence of an envelope of stagnation and power corruption within the United States’ government. But what would cause us, as his readers, to choose action over ignorance and actually demand change?
While Hardin’s paper was written in 1968, we can see the cycle of common goods abuse transformed to widespread counteraction in today’s environmental struggle against issues like global warming and alternative fuel. The process has made a definitive leap in the last decades, moving the global conscience of environmental problems from recognition, marginalization and contestation, acceptance as truth, to some forms of mobilized action. Ultimately, it is up to the public to examine such cycles in our past, recognizing parallels between truth and acceptance. In this way, we can know when mobilization is a necessary step.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
As is clearly discussed here, the "tragedy of the commons" is no where more relevant than today's global warming crisis. What greater - or more important - commons is there than our planet's atmosphere as a whole? Unfortunately, democratic initiative at this level is staggeringly enormous and, as the Kyoto Protocol demonstrates, weak in its sanctions ability. Although the environmental movement holds a promise in its grassroots activation - creating new elements of civic society and new networks of social capital that are truly passionate, motivated, and trusting - it's daunting enough to consider applying this model to the national level, of 300 million people. From there, consider the next frequent criticism by cynics: does it matter if 300 million Americans reform themselves, if 1 billion Chinese are contributing more CO2 than we can imagine? As we expand our commons to the global level, tragedy seems to become frighteningly unavoidable.
Post a Comment