Editing Tragedy of the commons (section)

====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"/>