“Tragedy of the Commons” is an important article by Garrett Hardin. This theory describes a problem in which many individuals acting independently in their own self-interest ultimately destroy a shared limited resource (despite the fact that it may not be anyone’s interest for this to happen in the long run). Thus, the Tragedy of the Commons challenged Adam Smith in his belief that individual decisions reached will be the best decisions for an entire society. Instead, Hardin advocated “social arrangements” that produce responsibility which might include some form of “mutually agreed upon coercion” or “incentives.”
Hardin's argument is of great significance and is impressively convincing. However, I believe that he has made a tactless hypothesis. One of the concepts that Hardin makes an assumption about is the nature of reason within humans. He states that "as a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain." This then can be reinterpreted on the other hand to be that any person who does not seek to maximize his gain is thought to be irrational.
However, I fully disagree with this inference. This conception of the nature of reason I find to be misleading. Some people who are able to functionally think and reason correctly may reason from a different value set. They may choose to live simply so as to meet the needs of life with the least energy and with the least damaging impact on nature and the environment. Therefore, for people who reason this way, minimalism and prudence permits and allows these individuals to have a better life as they may spend their “gains” on spiritual, cultural and intellectual development instead of consumption. These people may have no interest or desire in maximizing their material gain in regards to consumption.
So therefore, as Hardin seems to stress, reason makes rational individuals seek specific goals and lifestyles that would lead them to environmental destruction. Hardin seems to make his claim very understandably; however, to test this theory, we must try to interpret it in another way. How does Hardin rationalize those who do not lead such lifestyles? Accordingly it can be restated in a logical and equivalent manner such that does this then make them irrational? I do not believe so which is where my reservations lie with Hardin’s assumption.
Despite my criticism above about the nature of reason in humans, I do not necessarily think that this assumption prevents Hardin’s arguments from being effective. From the most consumptive individualists to the most simplistic, everyone works together to consume land, water and resources. Ultimately, action needs to be taken to produce corrective feedback that will help persuade individuals to act responsibly so that we relinquish our “freedom to breed” sort of speak.