(HOST) Writer, former teacher and legislator Bill Mares is intrigued by how we avoid depleting precious resources. In his commentary today, he reflects on how we might all work together to protect what we have.
(MARES) Forty years ago in a seminal essay entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons" the biologist Garrett Hardin gave the nascent environmental movement its abiding parable and conundrum. How does society divide limited resources?
Hardin used the image of the commons, which comes from the medieval practice of a common grazing land open to all. Economically speaking, it is in the immediate self-interest of each herder to add more of his cows to that common land. Gradually, however, the commons loses its capacity to sustain the ever higher demand on its grass. Eventually the entire resource is depleted, even though such destruction was in no one’s long term interest.
Ever since Hardin wrote the essay, ecologists and political scientists have applied the theory to grazing, forests, fisheries, wildlife protection, water resources, irrigation systems and outdoor recreation. The term "reverse commons" came into use to conceptualize private pollution of public waterways, the sea and the atmosphere.
Hardin’s thesis was controversial from the start. Advocates of population control and limits to economic growth hailed the essay. Conservatives used his theory to argue for greater private property rights. Today, people talk of the "New" Commons in relation to global climate change, the Internet, even intellectual property.
As an ordinary citizen I have found Hardin’s thesis a fruitful touchstone for looking at the clash over resources between individual self-interest and that of the collective, locality, state, nation and globe. For example, one question is: at what point does use became over-use? Some guidelines for answering this question appeared in a recent article in the Economist magazine QUOTE "What you take out must equal what you put in. Everyone has to have a say in rule-making. Use has to be compatible with the underlying health of commons." In other words "First do no harm."
To pursue these issues further, I went to see Robert Manning a professor in the Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources at UVM He has spent much of his career testing Hardin’s theory in practice. His specialty is the national park system. Manning expressed delight that Hardin had used the national parks as an example of protecting the commons. "We can we love the parks to death," he said.
But Manning thinks Hardin was too pessimistic about the power of human nature to override any common interests. He sees enlightened self-interest, even altruism having a significant influence in this process.
Manning’s life’s work has been to crystallize that idea of limits in the management, stewardship of the parks. The key device has been a permit system built upon the principle Hardin enunciated, which is "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon."
Indeed, in 2007 Manning wrote a book called "PARKS AND CARRYING CAPACITY: Commons without Tragedy."
(HOST TAG) Listen to more of Bill Mares’ commentaries online at vpr-dot-net.