The tragedy of the commons is a deceptively simple economic theory that explains why shared resources are prone to overuse and eventual destruction – if not managed appropriately. It was popularized in a 1968 article by ecologist Garrett Hardin, who was applying it to the potential ecological impact of a U.N. declaration regarding family planning, or the lack thereof.
One shorthand is this: if everyone is allowed to hunt a given animal (the “commons” – presumably something desirable and of value) without restriction then, either through an overabundance of hunters or greediness, the animal will become extinct. The “commons” will cease to exist.
In a society comprised of rational people who are sufficiently informed, extinction of any resource seems unlikely. Unfortunately, not everyone is rational – and in these days of “alternative facts,” it is clear that not everyone is sufficiently informed. Objective truth is replaced by subjective interpretation, and personal interests (or selfishness) supplant the greater good. In the absence of universal trustworthiness, the law is the only available treatment and potential cure.
Hardin reportedly remarked years after his article became popular that he should have called it “The Tragedy of the Unregulated Commons.” Regulation is a necessary byproduct of society. There is an old saying that “locks keep honest people honest.” I prefer to think of locks as insurance against ignorance. The more I learn, the more I understand how much I do not know.
As a member of society, I choose to trust that others who are more informed will help me to avoid the tragedies of which I am as yet unaware. I balance that trust with curiosity and the right to question, to protest, and to change laws that were perhaps written by someone with insufficient information. That balance of trust and questioning is society’s best defense against a loss of shared resources, and an abdication of rational self-interest.
Photo by TJ Watt (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons;
