Editing Tragedy of the commons (section)

==Expositions==

[[File:Cows on Selsley Common - geograph.org.uk - 192472.jpg|thumb|Cows on [[Selsley#Selsley Common|Selsley Common]], [[UK]]. Lloyd used shared grazing of common land as an illustration of where abuse of rights could occur.]]

===Classical===
The concept of unrestricted-access resources becoming spent, where personal use does not incur personal expense, was discussed by the philosopher [[Aristotle]],<ref name="garretthardinsociety.org">{{Cite web |title=An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament by Garrett Hardin |publisher=The Garrett Hardin Society |url=https://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_ecolate_view_human_predicament.html |access-date=2022-11-24 |website=Garrett Hardin Society}}</ref> who observed in his ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'' that{{quote|"That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."<ref name="classics.mit.edu">{{Cite web |title=Aristotle, Politics, Book 2 Ch 3 |publisher=MIT |url=https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.2.two.html|access-date=13 April 2025 |website=Internet Classics Archive}}</ref>}}

===Lloyd's pamphlet===
In 1833, the English economist [[William Forster Lloyd]] published "Two Lectures on the Checks to Population",{{sfn|Lloyd|1833}} a pamphlet that included a hypothetical example of over-use of a common resource.<ref>{{Cite ODNB|last=Thompson|first=Noel|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/27284|title=Thompson, William (1775–1833), socialist and economist|date=2004-09-23|series=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography|doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/27284}}</ref> This was the situation of cattle herders sharing a common parcel of land on which they were each entitled to let their cows graze.

He postulated that if a herder put more than his allotted number of cattle on the common, [[overgrazing]] could result. For each additional animal, a herder could receive additional benefits, while the whole group shared the resulting damage to the commons.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shields|first=Morgan William|date=2016|title=Enhancing insect diversity in agricultural landscapes while providing multiple additional benefits|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1603/ice.2016.111463|journal=2016 International Congress of Entomology|publisher=Entomological Society of America|doi=10.1603/ice.2016.111463|doi-broken-date=1 November 2024 }}</ref> If all herders made this individually rational economic decision, the common could be depleted or even destroyed, to the detriment of all.{{sfn|Lloyd|1833}}

Lloyd's pamphlet was written after the [[enclosure]] movement had eliminated the open field system of common property as the standard model for land exploitation in England (though there remained, and still remain, millions of acres of "common land": see 
{{section link|#Commons in historical reality}}). Carl Dahlman and others have asserted that his description was historically inaccurate, pointing to the fact that the system endured for hundreds of years without producing the disastrous effects claimed by Lloyd.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Dahlman |first1=Carl Johan |title=The open field system and beyond: a property rights analysis of an economic institution |date=1980 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge; New York |isbn=9780521228817}}</ref>

===Garrett Hardin's article===
In 1968, [[ecology|ecologist]] [[Garrett Hardin]] explored this [[social dilemma]] in his article "The Tragedy of the Commons", published in the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''.<ref name="hardin6822">{{harvnb|Hardin|1968}}</ref> The essay derived its title from the pamphlet by [[William Forster Lloyd|Lloyd]], which he cites, on the over-grazing of common land:<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Zhong|first1=Xianxin|last2=He|first2=Shaotang|editor1-first=Richard B|editor1-last=Hoover|editor2-first=Arthur B. C|editor2-last=Walker Ii|date=1996-07-19|title=<title>High-resolution grazing incidence x-ray spectrometer and its characteristics</title>|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.245087|journal=Multilayer and Grazing Incidence X-Ray/EUV Optics III|volume=2805|pages=156–157|publisher=SPIE|doi=10.1117/12.245087|bibcode=1996SPIE.2805..156Z |s2cid=119679290}}</ref>

{{Blockquote|text=Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit{{snd}} in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.|author=Garrett Hardin|title=The Tragedy of the Commons}}
Hardin discussed problems that cannot be solved by technical means, as distinct from those with solutions that require "a change only in the techniques of the [[natural science]]s,<ref>{{Citation|title=Problems Solved by Means of the Lagrangian Formalism|date=2014-08-26|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b17232-9|work=Analytical Mechanics|pages=165–235|publisher=CRC Press|doi=10.1201/b17232-9|isbn=978-0-429-06861-4|access-date=2021-05-24}}</ref> demanding little or nothing in the way of change in [[Value (personal and cultural)|human values]] or ideas of [[morality]]". Hardin focused on human [[population growth]], the use of the Earth's [[natural resource]]s, and the welfare state.<ref name="Intolerable">{{harvnb|Hardin |1968|p=1248|ps=: "it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an end to this aspect of the tragedy of the commons?"}}</ref>

Hardin argued that if individuals relied on themselves alone, and not on the relationship between society and man, then people will treat other people as resources, which would lead to the world population growing and for the process to continue.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Decoupled maternal and zygotic genetic effects shape the evolution of development (Table 3. A number of individuals from each family were used in mapping crosses.) |journal=eLife|date=10 September 2018|volume=7|pages=e37143|doi=10.7554/elife.37143.009|last1=Zakas|first1=Christina|last2=Deutscher|first2=Jennifer M.|last3=Kay|first3=Alex D.|last4=Rockman|first4=Matthew V.|editor1=Nordborg, Magnus|editor2=Tautz, Diethard|editor3=Nordborg, Magnus|editor4=Tessmar, Kristin |doi-access=free }}</ref> Parents breeding excessively would leave fewer descendants because they would be unable to provide for each child adequately. Such negative feedback is found in the animal kingdom.<ref name="Intolerable" /> Hardin said that if the children of improvident parents starved to death, if overbreeding was its own punishment, then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families.<ref name="Intolerable" />

====Political inferences====

Hardin blamed the [[welfare state]] for allowing the tragedy of the commons; where the state provides for children and supports over breeding as a fundamental human right, a [[Malthusian catastrophe]] is inevitable. Consequently, in his article, Hardin lamented the following proposal from the [[United Nations]]:<ref name="HARDIN 202–212">{{Citation|last=Hardin |first=Garrett |title=Excerpts from 'The Tragedy of the Commons'|work=Environment and Society|year=2017 |pages=202–212|publisher=NYU Press|doi=10.2307/j.ctt1ht4vw6.33|isbn=978-1-4798-4474-6|doi-access=free}}</ref>

{{blockquote|text= The [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. [Article 16]<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ |title=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights |newspaper=United Nations |date=10 December 1948 |access-date=4 September 2011|last1=Nations |first1=United }}</ref> 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. |source= Statement on Population by the [[Secretary-General of the United Nations]]<ref name="U Thant Statement">{{Cite book |title=Levels and trends of contraceptive use as assessed in 2002 |publisher=United Nations Publications |last=United Nations. Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division |quote=some have argued that it may be inferred from the rights to privacy, conscience, health and well-being set forth in various United Nation's conventions […] Parents have a basic human right to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children (United Nations, 1968) |year=2004 |page=126 |isbn=978-92-1-151399-8|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BNkRbI8EAJgC }}</ref> |sign= [[U Thant]]}}

In addition, Hardin also pointed out the problem of individuals acting in rational self-interest by claiming that if all members in a group used common resources for their own gain and with no regard for others, all resources would still eventually be depleted. Overall, Hardin argued against relying on [[conscience]] as a means of policing commons, suggesting that this favors [[selfish]] individuals&nbsp;– often known as [[Free-rider problem|free riders]]&nbsp;– over those who are more altruistic.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Touch-screen-guided task reveals a prosocial choice tendency by chimpanzees (''Pan troglodytes'') {{!}} Figure 4: Proportion of the cumulative mean for combinations of two options: S-A, (selfish and altruistic), P-A (prosocial and altruistic) and P-S (prosocial and selfish) in Experiment 2 for five individuals (A) and Pan (B).|journal=PeerJ|date=31 July 2018|volume=6|pages=e5315|doi=10.7717/peerj.5315/fig-4|last1=Mendonça|first1=Renata S.|last2=Dahl|first2=Christoph D.|last3=Carvalho|first3=Susana|last4=Matsuzawa|first4=Tetsuro|last5=Adachi|first5=Ikuma |doi-access=free }}</ref>

In the context of avoiding [[over-exploitation]] of [[Common-pool resource|common resources]], Hardin concluded by restating [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]'s [[Maxim (saying)|maxim]] (which was quoted by [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]]), "freedom is the recognition of necessity".<ref>{{Citation|last=James|first=David|title=Hegel and Marx on the Historical Necessity of the Terror|date=2021-03-04|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198847885.003.0005|work=Practical Necessity, Freedom, and History|pages=101–124|publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/oso/9780198847885.003.0005|isbn=978-0-19-884788-5|access-date=2021-05-24}}</ref> He suggested that "freedom" completes the tragedy of the commons. By recognizing resources as commons in the first place, and by recognizing that, as such, they require management, Hardin believed that humans "can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms".<ref name="HARDIN 202–212"/>

===The "Commons" as a modern resource concept===
Hardin's article marked the mainstream acceptance of the term "commons" as used to connote a shared resource.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Xepapadeas|first=Anastasios|date=June 1995|title=Managing the international commons: Resource use and pollution control |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00691575|journal=Environmental & Resource Economics|volume=5|issue=4|pages=375–391|doi=10.1007/bf00691575|bibcode=1995EnREc...5..375X |s2cid=153630734|issn=0924-6460}}</ref> As [[Frank van Laerhoven]] and [[Elinor Ostrom]] have stated: "Prior to the publication of Hardin’s article on the tragedy of the commons (1968), titles containing the words 'the commons', 'common pool resources', or 'common property' were very rare in the academic literature."<ref name="Nagle 2018">{{Cite journal|last=Nagle|first=Frank|date=2018|title=The Digital Commons: Tragedy or Opportunity? A Reflection on the 50th Anniversary of Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301005|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.3301005|s2cid=158249954|issn=1556-5068}}</ref> They go on to say: "In 2002, Barrett and Mabry conducted a major survey of biologists to determine which publications in the twentieth century had become classic books or benchmark publications in biology.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Barrett|first1=Gary W.|last2=Mabry |first2=Karen E.|date=2002|title=Twentieth-Century Classic Books and Benchmark Publications in Biology|journal=BioScience|volume=52|issue=3|pages=282|doi=10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0282:tccbab]2.0.co;2|s2cid=86354323 |issn=0006-3568|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Lisa|first=Lucas|title=The research game in academic life|date=2006|publisher=Open University Press|isbn=978-0-335-22997-0|oclc=245532963}}</ref> They report that Hardin’s 1968 article was the one having the greatest career impact on biologists and is the most frequently cited".<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.18352/ijc.76| title=Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons| year=2007| last1=van Laerhoven| first1=Frank| last2=Ostrom| first2=Elinor| journal=International Journal of the Commons| volume=1| issue=1|pages=3–28| s2cid=18897696|url=https://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3137/7.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y}}</ref> However, the Ostroms point out that Hardin's analysis was based on crucial misconceptions about the nature of common property systems.

=== System archetype ===
[[File:Tragedy_of_the_commons.PNG|thumb|[[Causal loop diagram]] of the "tragedy of the commons"]]
In [[systems theory]], the commons problem is one of the ten most common [[system archetype]]s. The Tragedy of the Commons archetype can be illustrated using a causal loop diagram.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Senge |first1=Peter M. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bVZqAAAAMAAJ |title=The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization |last2=Senge |first2=Peter M. |date=1990 |publisher=Doubleday/Currency |isbn=978-0-385-26094-7 |language=en}}</ref>