The Tragedy of the Commons What Shall We Maximize?

More documents

Recommendations

Info

--if indeed there ever was such a world--howmany children a family had would not be a matterof public concern. Parents who bred tooexuberantly would leave fewer descendants, notmore, because they would be unable to careadequately for their children. David Lack andothers have found that such a negative feedbackdemonstrably controls the fecundity of birds. [11]But men are not birds, and have not acted likethem for millenniums, at least.If each human family were dependent only on itsown resources; if the children of improvidentparents starved to death; if thus, over breedingbrought its own "punishment" to the germ line --then there would be no public interest incontrolling the breeding of families. But oursociety is deeply committed to the welfare state,[12] and hence is confronted with another aspectof the tragedy of the commons.In a welfare state, how shall we deal with thefamily, the religion, the race, or the class (orindeed any distinguishable and cohesive group)that adopts over breeding as a policy to secureits own aggrandizement? [13] To couple theconcept of freedom to breed with the belief thateveryone born has an equal right to thecommons is to lock the world into a tragic courseof action.Unfortunately this is just the course of action thatis being pursued by the United Nations. In late1967, some thirty nations agreed to the following:"The Universal Declaration of Human Rightsdescribes the family as the natural andfundamental unit of society. It follows that anychoice and decision with regard to the size of thefamily must irrevocably rest with the family itself,and cannot be made by anyone else.'' [14]It is painful to have to deny categorically thevalidity of this right; denying it, one feels asuncomfortable as a resident of Salem,Massachusetts, who denied the reality of witchesin the seventeenth century. At the present time,in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts toinhibit criticism of the United Nations. There is afeeling that the United Nations is "our last andbest hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; weshouldn't play into the hands of thearchconservatives. However, let us not forgetwhat Robert Louis Stevenson said: "The truththat is suppressed by friends is the readiestweapon of the enemy." If we love the truth wemust openly deny the validity of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, even though it ispromoted by the United Nations. We should alsojoin with Kingsley Davis [15] in attempting to getPlanned Parenthood-World Population to see theerror of its ways in embracing the same tragicideal.Conscience Is Self-EliminatingIt is a mistake to think that we can control thebreeding of mankind in the long run by an appealto conscience. Charles Galton Darwin made thispoint when he spoke on the centennial of thepublication of his grandfather's great book. Theargument is straightforward and Darwinian.People vary. Confronted with appeals to limitbreeding, some people will undoubtedly respondto the plea more than others. Those who havemore children will produce a larger fraction of thenext generation than those with more susceptibleconsciences. The differences will beaccentuated, generation by generation.In C. G. Darwin's words: "It may well be that itwould take hundreds of generations for theprogenitive instinct to develop in this way, but if itshould do so, nature would have taken herrevenge, and the variety Homo contracipienswould become extinct and would be replaced bythe variety Homo progenitivus. [16]The argument assumes that conscience or thedesire for children (no matter which) ishereditary-but hereditary only in the most generalformal sense. The result will be the samewhether the attitude is transmitted through germcells, or exosomatically, to use A. J. Lotka's term.(If one denies the latter possibility as well as theformer, then what's the point of education?) Theargument has here been stated in the context ofthe population problem, but it applies equally wellto any instance in which society appeals to anindividual exploiting a commons to restrainhimself for the general good -- by means of hisconscience. To make such an appeal is to set up
a selective system that works toward theelimination of conscience from the race.Pathogenic Effects ofConscienceThe long-term disadvantage of an appeal toconscience should be enough to condemn it; butit has serious short-term disadvantages as well. Ifwe ask a man who is exploiting a commons todesist "in the name of conscience," what are wesaying to him? What does he hear? -- not only atthe moment but also in the wee small hours ofthe night when, half asleep, he remembers notmerely the words we used but also the nonverbalcommunication cues we gave him unawares?Sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously,he senses that he has received twocommunications, and that they are contradictory:1. (intended communication) "If you don't do aswe ask, we will openly condemn you for notacting like a responsible citizen"; 2. (theunintended communication) "If you do behave aswe ask, we will secretly condemn you for asimpleton who can be shamed into standingaside while the rest of us exploit the commons."Every man then is caught in what Bateson hascalled a "double bind." Bateson and his coworkershave made a plausible case for viewingthe double bind as an important causative factorin the genesis of schizophrenia. [17] The doublebind may not always be so damaging, but italways endangers the mental health of anyone towhom it is applied. "A bad conscience," saidNietzsche, "is a kind of illness."To conjure up a conscience in others is temptingto anyone who wishes to extend his controlbeyond the legal limits. Leaders at the highestlevel succumb to this temptation. Has anypresident during the past generation failed to callon labor unions to moderate voluntarily theirdemands for higher wages, or to steel companiesto honor voluntary guidelines on prices? I canrecall none. The rhetoric used on such occasionsis designed to produce feelings of guilt in noncooperators.For centuries it was assumed without proof thatguilt was a valuable, perhaps even anindispensable, ingredient of the civilized life.Now, in this post-Freudian world, we doubt it.Paul Goodman speaks from the modern point ofview when he says: "No good has ever comefrom feeling guilty, neither intelligence, policy, norcompassion. The guilty do not pay attention tothe object but only to themselves, and not evento their own interests, which might make sense,but to their anxieties.'' [18]One does not have to be a professionalpsychiatrist to see the consequences of anxiety.We in the Western world are just emerging froma dreadful two centuries-long Dark Ages of Erosthat was sustained partly by prohibition laws, butperhaps more effectively by the anxietygeneratingmechanisms of education. AlexComfort has told the story well in The AnxietyMakers; [19] it is not a pretty one.Since proof is difficult, we may even concedethat the results of anxiety may sometimes, fromcertain points of view, be desirable. The largerquestion we should ask is whether, as a matterof policy, we should ever encourage the use of atechnique the tendency (if not the intention) ofwhich is psychologically pathogenic. We hearmuch talk these days of responsible parenthood;the coupled words are incorporated into the titlesof some organizations devoted to birth control.Some people have proposed massivepropaganda campaigns to instill responsibilityinto the nation's (or the world's) breeders. Butwhat is the meaning of the word conscience?When we use the word responsibility in theabsence of substantial sanctions are we nottrying to browbeat a free man in a commons intoacting against his own interest? Responsibility isa verbal counterfeit for a substantial quid proquo. It is an attempt to get something for nothing.If the word responsibility is to be used at all, Isuggest that it be in the sense Charles Frankeluses it. [20] "Responsibility," says thisphilosopher, "is the product of definite socialarrangements." Notice that Frankel calls forsocial arrangements -- not propaganda.Mutual Coercion MutuallyAgreed Upon
Page 1 and 2: The Tragedy of the CommonsGarrett H
Page 3 and 4: today that has, and has had for som
Page 5: with the solution of this problem a
Page 9 and 10: for our lack of experience. On the
Page 11 and 12: THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMON REVISITED

The Tragedy of the Commons What Shall We Maximize?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?