Debunking the `Tragedy of the Commons'

[Rory]

Fantastic article debunking that eugenicist Garret Hardin, a recipient of grants from the Pioneer Fund, an openly eugenicist organization.

Read the post by exojuridik. Makes a very good argument for the strengths of Hardin's.

This essay probably annoys me more than it should but in my mind in reflects why the left is doomed which makes me both angry and sad. At its core the "tragedy of the commons" is not an ideological position but an expression of how power manifests itself amid competing interests. It is a tool which has been used very successfully by the PTB to advance a set of policies that are destroying the planet and the human race. However, for the left to ignore or deride the tool and not the craftsmen is akin to dismissing a geometric proof because you don't like the asthethtic arrangement of shapes in a work of art. Or disliking the laws of thermodynamics because it is too conservative in your mind.


My other problem with the essay and the responses is the glorification of past societies/cultures. There is a reason these societies no longer exist. It is historically suspect to assume that proto-modern people in Europe resolved their conflicts in such a nonwasteful and cooperative manner. first, in a world of about a half a billion they had more resources and were less restrained in the choices they made. Moreover, one can look at the literature and stories from the time and see that they weren't all enlightened decision-makers.

Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self-regulation by the communities involved. One such process was described years earlier in Friedrich Engels’ account of the “mark”, the form taken by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist Germany:

“[T]he use of arable and meadowlands was under the supervision and direction of the community …

“Just as the share of each member in so much of the mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his share also in the use of the ‘common mark’. The nature of this use was determined by the members of the community as a whole. …

“At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of regulations and disputes concerning the mark.” (Engels 1892)

What Engel's historiography ignores is the fact that there was trechery, doubling dealing and the stoning of heretics in these communities as well. Just look at the stories of the Brothers Grimm to see how cooperative and kind hearted these communities were. The whole thousand year legacy of burning heretics and witches stems in large part from ignorant commuities attempting to control their environment. The rise of facism and lutheranism were two solutions these volk supported.

In all societies individuals act as quasi-rational self-interest maximizers - culture/religion may provide the context and values that define this self-interest but doesn't change the underlying dilemma of coming up with cooperative strategies in the face of a dilemma of shared (and diminishing resources).

Hardin’s argument started with the unproven assertion that herders always want to expand their herds: “It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons… As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.”

In short, Hardin’s conclusion was predetermined by his assumptions. “It is to be expected” that each herder will try to maximise the size of their herd — and each one does exactly that. It’s a circular argument that proves nothing.

No- Hardin isn't saying that each herdsman will act as a capitalist in this situation - If the herdsman acted as capitalist socio-paths, it is likely that the community would sanction that behavior and he would be condemned as being ungodly. This is an example of an institutional response and is still subject to the level of analysis Hardin describes. Communities are made up of individual actors. Thus the larger social dynamics are amenable to an indvidual level of analysis. Even Marx used this to explain why the interests of individuals were best served by class politics.

Overall, article's argument confuses the tragedy's analysis of the problem for the very problem the tragedy describes and the capitalist solution that was imposed.

Seriously, one can not underestimate the importance that a game theory has played in the world over the last 50 years. It has been used to tremedous value by world's elite to understand and control the game. There is a reason that this is taugfht in academic and professional programmes the world over - and it has little to do with brainwashing but rather showing the state of the art of our understanding of individual and collective behavior. If the left actually tackled these ideas they could similarly show how cooperative behavior can be better and more justly maintained.

Unfortunately, the left has eschewed it because they mistakenly believe that it doesn't comport with their view of humanity. In response I would suggest: 1. Game theory is not a normative theory - it just states when people are hungry they will eat; 2. Game theory is not a total theory but merely an analytic tool focusing on why individual choose to cooperate or not. Any macrotheory of society needs to take individual motive into account. after all we are all individuals before anything else. 3. sorry, but life doen't comport with my rosy theory of humanity either but here we are and we need to find rational solutions - attacking the wizards won't help anyone. Altruism is often the most rational choice of all.


Thank you for indulging me

I don't think Hardin was a eugenisist but that he had some relevant concerns about the direction we (the species) were/are taking. Certainly, I didn't infer any theme from him that we should privitize everything or deregulate financial markets: Quite the opposite.
More that we should increasingly regulate to protect 'commons'. Also, that we should factor in legislative feedback loops to protect against corruption.
A clear example of where a 'commons' is damaged when not regulated is groundwater:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdrafting

If some body/organisation uses his work in a manner or direction he wasn't arguing for, he cannot be held as solely responsible for their views.

Maybe some of the people who dismiss Hardin's essay should re-read.

[lupercal]

Maybe some of the people who dismiss Hardin's essay should re-read.

Good lord I just read Hardin's essay for the first time and I agree 1000% with wordspeak, the guy is a frikkin' monster. "Eugenicist" is putting it far too nicely. Neo-Malthusian "genocidist" might be more accurate. And he published this thing in Science magazine? That's a mind blower. Anyway, some highlights:

"The Tragedy of the Commons," by Garrett Hardin, Science, December 13, 1968:

Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially. Except of course that it doesn't.

Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable

In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts overbreeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement (13)? Footnote goes to his own article, what a racist asshole

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else. . . .

If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Conscience Is Self-Eliminating

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience.

For centuries it was assumed without proof that guilt was a valuable, perhaps even an indispensable, ingredient of the civilized life. Now, in this post-Freudian world, we doubt it.

The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon.

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

Pure lunacy. The OP article does a great service by bringing to light a small fraction of its failings so thanks for posting it Mac. Rory if it's any comfort Malthusian assholes like Albert Bartlett who demagogue on population are completely full of shit so you can safely ignore them.

[stickdog99]

Maybe some of the people who dismiss Hardin's essay should re-read.

Maybe you need to reread Angus' devastating critique:

Hardin assumed that peasant farmers are unable to change their behaviour in the face of certain disaster.

Can you deny this?

Hardin’s argument started with the unproven assertion that herders always want to expand their herds: “It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons… As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.”

In short, Hardin’s conclusion was predetermined by his assumptions. “It is to be expected” that each herder will try to maximise the size of their herd — and each one does exactly that. It’s a circular argument that proves nothing.

Hardin assumed that human nature is selfish and unchanging, and that society is just an assemblage of self-interested individuals who don’t care about the impact of their actions on the community. The same idea, explicitly or implicitly, is a fundamental component of mainstream (i.e. pro-capitalist) economic theory.

Can you deny this?

Even if the herder wanted to behave as Hardin described, they couldn’t do so unless certain conditions existed.

There would have to be a market for the cattle, and herders would have to be focused on producing for that market, not for local consumption. The herder would have to have enough capital to buy the additional cattle and the fodder they would need in winter. The herder would have to be able to hire workers to care for the larger herd, build bigger barns, etc. And the herder's desire for profit would have to outweigh their interest in the long-term survival of their community.

In short, Hardin didn’t describe the behaviour of herders in pre-capitalist farming communities — he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy. The universal human nature that he claimed would always destroy common resources is actually the profit-driven “grow or die” behaviour of corporations.

Can you deny this?

That leads us to another fatal flaw in Hardin’s argument: in addition to providing no evidence that maintaining the commons will inevitably destroy the environment, he offered no justification for his opinion that privatisation would save it. Once again he simply presented his own prejudices as fact:

“We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust — but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.”

The implication is that private owners will do a better job of caring for the environment because they want to preserve the value of their assets. In reality, scholars and activists have documented scores of cases in which the division and privatisation of communally managed lands had disastrous results. Privatising the commons has repeatedly led to deforestation, soil erosion and depletion, overuse of fertilisers and pesticides, and the ruin of ecosystems.

Can you deny any of this?

Hardin wrote an essay that makes some good points if you assume that everybody is a Randian free agent and that nobody gives a damn about destroying the world just as long as he gets his extra slice of pie while the curtain comes down. This is why this essay and Rand's overwrought melodramas are so popular among our elites. They both describe the nature of our elites, which our elites self-interestedly (as usual) conflate with human nature.

[Stephen Morgan]

Corn's been found in New York, Georgia, Southern Colorado, all throughout Mexico, Northern Central America, Hispaniola (check it out, it's an island), Central and Western South America, and even the Lesser Antilles. Now, I know you aren't used to big spaces, seeing as how the country you live in is smaller than the state I live in, but that's fairly well distributed from North to South, your island Taino friends included.

Must've needed it to feed all the horses.

Read the story of George Washington Carver as well as the history of the Central United States oh, around 1880-1929 or so. European methods and crops were destroying the land, and made the Midwest non-arable for a long time. Also, doesn't your country have to import most of it's fresh produce?
From where does it hail, do you know?

It was, of course, non-arable for the entire period before European colonisation. And no, we don't import most of our fresh produce, and most of our trade, agricultural and otherwise, is with the EEA.

That's the only flaw you can see in the sentence that starts "There cultures was"?

It's not. But, for sure, I can add that you also display self loathing.

Self-deprecation.

And I did vote UKIP at the last election, as I've said before. The only party with a policy I agreed with.

What's their policy: 'There ain't no black in the Union Jack'? Or is that the policy of their sister organisation, the BNP/National Front?

Oops! My bad. I'm projecting my 'feminist Imperialist' world view onto your 'pure, white, masculinity'

There were four cnadidates in my constituency, last election. Obviously I wasn't voting Tory or New Labour, so it was Libdem or UKIP. I defy anyone to tell me I made the wrong choice. Also, I saw this LibDem advert:



Their policy, of course, is to remove Britain from transnational government.

Now, do you think you could list some of my flaws, I'm not just all those good things you mention.

And appologetic about your naked hatred of women and non-white, non-british men.

I'm a white man so you might just disagree with, rathewr than hate me on principle. Until I mention being of Irish ancestry. Then I'll fall under your 'hate views'.
When you boil it down: Do you simply hate everyone who isn't you. And even then you don't like yourself very much?

Not a bad idea, I shall take it under consideration.

Wow. The downward spiral of some of these threads. I'm not even sure whom to blame. Stephen Morgan may be many things with with I disagree, but he's sincere and entertaining. Is he right about some of the Native Americans? Dunno. There were a lot of different Native Americans, weren't there?

There were thousands of tribes spread over two continents, yes. But they all had this deep and mystical connection to nature, just like all those Africans have a natural rhythm.

[wintler2]

..
So: You hate half of the human race by default because they are female. Also, you hate or scorn the remaining non-whites as savages.
Dress it up in all the grammar in the world but you have utterly repugnant views.

Chill, he's only in it for the attention. He can express himself, but has nothing much to express except banal bigotry. Here is the perfect place for him to express his bigotry because he gets to feel like a rebel without leaving his bedroom.

[ShinShinKid]

Discussion with him is like wraslin' a pig. You get dirty, tired, upset...the pig just has fun.
The whole argument started when he declared that Native American beliefs about nature were some sort of neo-liberal pipe dream...which is some sort of neo-conservative pipe dream. He feels that if denies culture or history enough, it didn't happen.
He's never been to a pow-wow. He's never ridden a horse for the first time. He's never felt a blast of fresh lake air on his sunken chest. He's never eaten fresh wild berries off the bush with bears, raccoons, and deer. He's never drank from a wild spring or stream. He's never emptied a quiver of arrows, nor a gun, nor even his shrunken lungs.
He's never felt the brush or bash of bare knuckles on his body. He's never been scared, never tasted or felt death, never cooked a meal from his own land, garden, or neighborhood. If all went dark tomorrow, he would eat everything in his fridge so it wouldn't go bad...then starve to death for fear of a dandelion.
He's never smiled, ever. He's only told lies to himself on his island on an island. Your country does import most of it's fresh produce, a very easy fact to check with a number of sources...You shouldn't feed corn to a horse, sirrah.

[Stephen Morgan]

Discussion with him is like wraslin' a pig. You get dirty, tired, upset...the pig just has fun.
The whole argument started when he declared that Native American beliefs about nature were some sort of neo-liberal pipe dream...which is some sort of neo-conservative pipe dream.

I merely refuse to see red indians through your PC caricature.

He feels that if denies culture or history enough, it didn't happen.

Apologies for applying knowledge and common sense to the matter.

He's never been to a pow-wow.

You've never been to a cock fight. So screw you, buddy!

He's never ridden a horse for the first time.

I'm really not part of the horsey set. I rode a donkey at the seaside when I was young.

He's never felt a blast of fresh lake air on his sunken chest. He's never eaten fresh wild berries off the bush with bears, raccoons, and deer.

My country suffers a general lack of bears, raccoons and, for that matter, pow-wows.

He's never drank from a wild spring or stream.

Serious illnesses can be contracted from unpurified water sources, or courses. I prefer to keep my eyesight.

He's never emptied a quiver of arrows, nor a gun, nor even his shrunken lungs.

I admit to a total lack of experience with projectile weaponry, and proudly so.

He's never felt the brush or bash of bare knuckles on his body. He's never been scared, never tasted or felt death,

I am a rock. I have no need of friendship; friendship causes pain; it's laughter and it's loving I disdain.

never cooked a meal from his own land, garden, or neighborhood.

Some of us aren't members of the landed aristocracy, kimosabe. Honestly, tell me now, is "kimosabe" better than "dear"?

If all went dark tomorrow, he would eat everything in his fridge so it wouldn't go bad...then starve to death for fear of a dandelion.

I will never starve to death while I have neighbours to eat.

He's never smiled, ever. He's only told lies to himself on his island on an island. Your country does import most of it's fresh produce, a very easy fact to check with a number of sources...You shouldn't feed corn to a horse, sirrah.

Perhaps that's how the native Americans killed all of their horses. Didn't have oats, or barley, or wheat.

[Searcher08]

Discussion with him is like wraslin' a pig. You get dirty, tired, upset...the pig just has fun.
The whole argument started when he declared that Native American beliefs about nature were some sort of neo-liberal pipe dream...which is some sort of neo-conservative pipe dream. He feels that if denies culture or history enough, it didn't happen.
He's never been to a pow-wow. He's never ridden a horse for the first time. He's never felt a blast of fresh lake air on his sunken chest. He's never eaten fresh wild berries off the bush with bears, raccoons, and deer. He's never drank from a wild spring or stream. He's never emptied a quiver of arrows, nor a gun, nor even his shrunken lungs.
He's never felt the brush or bash of bare knuckles on his body. He's never been scared, never tasted or felt death, never cooked a meal from his own land, garden, or neighborhood. If all went dark tomorrow, he would eat everything in his fridge so it wouldn't go bad...then starve to death for fear of a dandelion.
He's never smiled, ever. He's only told lies to himself on his island on an island. Your country does import most of it's fresh produce, a very easy fact to check with a number of sources...You shouldn't feed corn to a horse, sirrah.

That was hilariously hallucinatory

Discussion with him is like wraslin' a pig. You get dirty, tired, upset...the pig just has fun.
The whole argument started when he declared that Native American beliefs about nature were some sort of neo-liberal pipe dream...which is some sort of neo-conservative pipe dream. He feels that if denies culture or history enough, it didn't happen.

I didnt see where he is denying Native American culture, in fact quite the reverse.
I think NA culture has been in many cases has had a lot of brutality romanticised out of it by a dominent narrative of Plains Indian culture (the dances with wolves effect) which I think is acceptable propaganda. Native spirituality has lots of charlatans, both Indians and New Age. OTOH I think traditional Hopi teaching seems to indicate a culture used to regular contact with the Greater Community (represented as Kachina) and a powerful model for living a sane life

Tlingit culture didnt arrive magically in the Pacific North West, their legends are they lived in the Canadian plains areas and hated it and decided to move somewhere easier. This wasnt 'at one with Nature', this was 'our life here sucks'.

Prisoners being slowly tortured to death by delighted women and children is barbaric no matter what culture and should be faced, not covered over with 'one with Nature'

Similarly, the facts that some Indian societies were relatively town-based and had quite sophisticated urban settlements (eg Quapaw and Cherokee) is something worth thinking about as well.


You have never ridden The Tube for the first time.
You have never felt the cold of a Thames sunrise on your puffedout chest.
He's never eaten a chicken tikka massala in the park with your mates
You have never eaten blackberries from a hedge listening to Elgar on an iPod
You have smelled the tang of hops brewing or watched swans on the canal
If you have to reinstall a Debian release, you would pray then howl at the Gods for not learning Linux


"Walking a mile in someone elses moccassins" comes to mind

[hanshan]

...

Stephen Morgan:

I will never starve to death while I have neighbours to eat.

Searcher08:


You have never ridden The Tube for the first time.
You have never felt the cold of a Thames sunrise on your puffedout chest.
He's never eaten a chicken tikka massala in the park with your mates
You have never eaten blackberries from a hedge listening to Elgar on an iPod
You have smelled the tang of hops brewing or watched swans on the canal
If you have to reinstall a Debian release, you would pray then howl at the Gods for not learning Linux



check
check (w/ reservations: chest was decidedly unpuffed)
not the park exactly (off Bayswater Road)
Elgar is overrated & iPod sound quality ghastly (pass)
Cheka
Debian release (?)... Linux slightly offdeck


...

[Stephen Morgan]

Prisoners being slowly tortured to death by delighted women and children is barbaric no matter what culture and should be faced, not covered over with 'one with Nature'

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws,
They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws.
'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale.
For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Similarly, the facts that some Indian societies were relatively town-based and had quite sophisticated urban settlements (eg Quapaw and Cherokee) is something worth thinking about as well.

Fuck the Cherokee, there were the Mayans and Incans and so on who lived in large cities.

You have never ridden The Tube for the first time.
You have never felt the cold of a Thames sunrise on your puffedout chest.
He's never eaten a chicken tikka massala in the park with your mates
You have never eaten blackberries from a hedge listening to Elgar on an iPod
You have smelled the tang of hops brewing or watched swans on the canal
If you have to reinstall a Debian release, you would pray then howl at the Gods for not learning Linux

I've done two of those things.

[ShinShinKid]

Apologies all around, sometimes the pig wins.
I thought the argument was about whether a significant amount of Native American cultures had the idea that living in harmony with their environment was to their advantage...then it turned to horses, corn, and now, I'm just slingin' mud.
Yes, taking the role of the other is the goal. Thanks for bringing that back to mind.

SM: There's a reason man is called "the most dangerous game", the weak and sick will have already been culled. The predators are just waiting you out. You also have typhus, your right arm has been chewed to a bloody stump by your rabid gerbil, and there's a pesky splinter that you just can't seem to get at in your left pinky finger. As for me, my head is being preserved in a big vault north of Russia, with all the seeds. "I will have taken that time to see which move my opponent beat me with", devise an effective countermeasure, and come back after they thaw me out a la Encino Man.

[Stephen Morgan]

http://www.montarafog.com/index.php?opt ... atest-news

[Searcher08]

http://www.montarafog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=454:are-we-the-anasazi-slideshow-and-excerpt-from-jared-diamond-speech&catid=1:latest-news

Thank you for that - very thought provoking.

The ruins reminded me of places I have seen in the desert in Xinjiang.

[Stephen Morgan]

http://www.montarafog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=454:are-we-the-anasazi-slideshow-and-excerpt-from-jared-diamond-speech&catid=1:latest-news

Thank you for that - very thought provoking.

The ruins reminded me of places I have seen in the desert in Xinjiang.

aka XAR, aka Uighuristan, aka Chinese Turkestan, and so on, is it appropriate to use the imperialist Chinese name for the region, given the ongoing ethnic cleansing in favour of the Han?

[Searcher08]

http://www.montarafog.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=454:are-we-the-anasazi-slideshow-and-excerpt-from-jared-diamond-speech&catid=1:latest-news

Thank you for that - very thought provoking.

The ruins reminded me of places I have seen in the desert in Xinjiang.

aka XAR, aka Uighuristan, aka Chinese Turkestan, and so on, is it appropriate to use the imperialist Chinese name for the region, given the ongoing ethnic cleansing in favour of the Han?

Ethnic cleansing isnt an accurate term really, it more like Han being paid loads more dosh to work there and piling in.

There was a definite Sinicisation (?) of the culture, but also keeping acceptable parts of it was seen as very important.

The Uyghur culture is really different from Han, but is also under some pressure from 'Pan-Turkic' who want to create a Turkic country from the Bospherous to Mongolia.

Urumqi btw is the greatest shit hole I have been on my travels, pipping the Casablanca at the post.