ECOLOGY: 'Tragedy of the Commons' Author Dies

Science Magazine | 2003-10-03 | Constance Holden

[Lessismore]

Ecologist Garrett Hardin never minced words in presenting his unvarnished view of humanity's impact on the planet. And he was no less direct in planning his death. On 14 September he and his wife committed suicide at their home in Santa Barbara, California. Hardin was 88, and his wife Jane was 81. Both were in very poor health.

Hardin is best known for his 1968 article in Science, "The Tragedy of the Commons" (13 December 1968, p. 1243). In it he argued that if everyone had free access to common property, the resource would be lost to all. But Hardin was immensely influential in a host of related causes, including environmentalism, population control, abortion rights, and restrictions on immigration. His hard-headed approach to the competition for resources won him notoriety as well as fame--as when he suggested that if rich people let poor people into their "lifeboat," all will sink. "The human species viewed as a whole has been a disaster for the Earth," he said in a 1996 interview.

He "pushed very hard, was an innovative thinker, and is certainly somebody we're going to miss," says Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich, whose 1968 book, The Population Bomb, also stoked the debate over population and the environment. Herman Daly, an economist at the University of Maryland, College Park, says Hardin showed a new breed of "ecological economists" the importance of "giving the welfare of future generations a weight in moral decisions."

Hardin received a Ph.D. in microbiology from Stanford University in 1941 after studying zoology at the University of Chicago. He taught at the University of California, Santa Barbara, until his retirement in 1978. He remained active, however, and in 1986 he and his wife helped found Californians for Population Stabilization. His output totaled 27 books and 350 articles.

Friends say the Hardins practiced what they preached by collecting rainwater to drink, recycling, composting, and eschewing newspapers because they squander newsprint. They were members of the Hemlock Society, and their deaths occurred a week after their 62nd wedding anniversary.

[Sabertooth]

Double-suicide human haters. Tragic. Common.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

If Paul Erhlich will miss him, then I won't.

[Support Free Republic]

Flame warriors, unite!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Billthedrill]

Pity that, really. He was a hard-headed SOB but not a lot of people (eco-nazis especially) read The Tragedy of the Commons clear through to the last few paragraphs. What didn't work was common ownership. What did work was private ownership.

[RightWhale]

Garrett Hardin

May have to check out some of his writing. Usually don't read the greenie stuff, but this one sounds rational. At least he did some original thinking.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Garrett Hardin
Pioneer in the science of human ecology

It takes five years for a willing person's mind to change. Have patience with yourself and others when treading in an area protected by a taboo.
-- Garrett Hardin (source unknown)

The morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.
-- Garrett Hardin (source unknown)

I started being an activist for legalized abortion in 1963. I spent most of my external time on that issue until the Supreme Court reached the famous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. I thought the fight was all over. Well, I was wrong. At the time, my wife and I were active in Planned Parenthood. She was on the local board of directors. The question came up in Planned Parenthood as to what our position should be on abortion. Some wanted to stay clear of it entirely because they realized there would he a lot of opposition. Fortunately, Planned Parenthood decided that it was a question of women's rights. Abortion is above all other things a method of birth control. To put it another way, it's a backstop for any system of birth control when the rest of the system fails. That decision to support the woman's right to abortion put Planned Parenthood in a dangerous position. As opposition developed, the opponents then went on to say that everything Planned Parenthood was doing was just window-dressing for their principal interest -- killing babies. No president could now accept such a position.
-- Garrett Hardin, interview by Frank Meile, "Living Within Limits & Limits on Living: Garrett Hardin on Ecology, Economy, and Ethics," Sceptic, Vol 4., No. 2 1996, pp.42-46, answering the question: "In the early sixties, former presidents Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower were the honorary cochairmen of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood clinics are now being routinely picketed and in some cases bombed. How has family planning become a dirty word?"

In the specific case of abortion, the matter is particularly easy in that no woman wants a late abortion. Once abortion was made legal, the age of the aborted fetus went down. The slope slipped in the other direction. If we legalize RU-486 and other similar new drugs, the age will fall to one week or less and start approaching zero. The slippery slope will slide in the other direction. The only reason we have late abortions is because we make early abortion difficult.
-- Garrett Hardin, interview by Frank Meile, "Living Within Limits & Limits on Living: Garrett Hardin on Ecology, Economy, and Ethics," Sceptic, Vol 4., No. 2 1996, pp.42-46, discussing the "slippery slope" of the abortion argument (see also Positive Atheism's discussion of the Slippery Slope argument)

Religious reasons, which is no reason. I notice Skeptic had a review of Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Religious reasons amount to what Dennett terms "skyhooks." Do you believe in skyhooks? I don't.
-- Garrett Hardin, interview by Frank Meile, "Living Within Limits & Limits on Living: Garrett Hardin on Ecology, Economy, and Ethics," Sceptic, Vol 4., No. 2 1996, pp.42-46, discussing reasons for keeping an anencephalic child, Miele had mentioned that "Well, there are religious reasons"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Emeritus Faculty Profile: Garrett Hardin

Professor of Biological Sciences and Environmental Studies Program (1946 -1978)




Garrett Hardin is an ecologist, best known for his controversial beliefs about population control. Hardin became famous through his writing, specifically through a 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162, now reprinted in over 100 anthologies and widely accepted as a fundamental contribution to ecology, population theory, economics and political science. Hardin's work, especially that on population, immigration, and abortion, has had many practical effects on public politics and debate, as well as on biological science itself. Since his retirement from the Santa Barbara campus in 1978, he has devoted himself to writing and speaking.


EDUCATION:

B.A. University of Chicago
Ph.D. Stanford University

AWARDS:

Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science with his 1993 book, Living Within Limits: Economics and Population Taboos, Oxford University Press.

1997 Constantine Panunzio Distinguished Emeriti Award, honoring one retired faculty member of the nine campus University of California system for continuing scholarly productivity.

VARIOUS PUBLICATIONS:

The Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia, 1999.

The Immigration Dilemma: Avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons, 1995.

"The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons, Trends in Ecology and Evolution," BioScience, 2 (5), 1994

Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos, Oxford University Press, 1993.

Filters Against Folly: How to Survive Despite Economists, Ecologists, and the Merely Eloquent, 1985.

"Living on a Lifeboat," BioScience, 24 (10), 1974

"The Tragedy of the Commons," Science, 162 (1243-1248), 1968

[Cicero]

"Living on a Lifeboat," BioScience, 24 (10), 1974

I haven't even read this, but I suspect it's another "moral" argument for abortion. It sounds like the problem these people began posing for schoolkids. If you have 4 people in a lifeboat and only enough food for 3, what do you do? (Kill one of them.)

[WorkingClassFilth]

Like Scott Nearing and other socialist kool-aide drinkers, I shed no tears and offer no condolences for the death of these two. At least their efforts to promote the enslavement of the rest of us are at an end.

[sweetjane]

Herman Daly, who was quoted in the article, wrote an interesting book about sustainable development. If you are interested in green politics you might want to check it out, if you have not already. It is an amazingly sane piece of work (from a conservative perspective) by a former World Bank economist.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Huh. This reminds me of an essay I wrote in college in 1977. Here it is:

The Final Solution to Overpopulation

Of course, abortion is the best form of birth control. Condoms break, you can forget to take the pill, and IUDs can pierce a woman’s uterus and scar and injure her. Spermicidal jellies and foams are messy and not likely to be used. Tubule ligation and vasectomies work only for those who are willing to make such a commitment, as does abstinence. Pregnancies caused by birth control mistakes are proverbial in our culture. The surest solution to the world’s greatest problem, that of overpopulation, is abortion. It is safe when done early in pregnancy, and 100% certain to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, abortion doesn’t go far enough in reducing population growth, and in reducing population itself.

The world’s population has increased nearly three billion since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade in 1973. World population under the best estimates will stabilize at eleven billion after 2050. The world’s ecosystem is already severely stressed with the six billion people on the earth. More needs to be done to reduce population. What is the next step?

Roe v. Wade determined the first 23 weeks of pregnancy are eligible for abortion since the fetus is not yet viable. More recent court rulings have permitted abortions through the last trimester of pregnancy for the health of the mother, mental and physical. Using the principle of “viability” and the principle of what is best for the mental and physical health of humanity, the next logical step is to permit “post natal abortions” (PNAs) on non-viable “post natal fetuses” (PNFs).

Although the majority of PNFs are wanted, not a single PNF is viable. It cannot survive without an adult caregiver. Further, they are a mental and physical burden upon the caregiver and should not be permitted to live without the full and willing desire of the caregiver. Why should PNFs be permitted to burden our sorely taxed ecosystem by allowing unwanted ones to grow to full maturity? Is it not kinder, gentler, and more humane to safely terminate them should the caregiver find them a burden? Is not the caregiver fully within their privacy rights to manage this life form within their own home as they see fit?

There need be no moral qualms about this policy whatsoever. Our society has already established the legal morality of abortion up through the end of the third trimester. What difference should the simple process of parturition make to morality of removing a non-viable life form from a possibly miserable existence? Just as abortion removes the burden of an unwanted fetus from society, so a PNA can terminate the mental and physical burden of an undesired PNF. A simple injection of potassium cyanide or a pill of the same can quickly and painlessly remove this ecological disaster waiting to happen.

The benefits of PNA’s cannot be exaggerated. They are safer than abortions in the third trimester. They alleviate a financial burden on the family and society in general, reserving resources for those individuals chosen to enter the human family. With a worldwide policy of PNAs, all individuals will be wanted. Without undesired PNFs, the negative influence of humanity upon the earth will decrease, not increase. Air and water pollution will begin to decrease. The welfare rolls will decrease, reducing the tax burden.

Yet, even a vigorous, worldwide program of PNAs, administrated under the auspices of the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) does not go far enough. There are millions and billions of individuals worldwide who are no longer viable. Although they were human at one time, they are no longer self-supporting. Many can no longer communicate and are not conscious. They are all draining society’s resources and all require care of some other human being. Using the same moral principle as Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion rulings, we may safely and ethically consider such entities as “post human lives” (PHLs). In view of human induced global warming and the possible worldwide catastrophe that is pending, is it not nobler to remove these life forms from existence than to permit them to continue to consume the world’s limited resources? Such an act of mercy would spare the functioning, productive humanity this unwanted burden, and more importantly, would reduce the space pressures humanity puts on endangered species worldwide. Concurrent with a program of PNAs there must be a worldwide program of “post human abortions” (PHAs).

As good as PNAs would be, PHAs would be even better. PHLs consume far more resources than PNFs. All the benefits enumerated for PNAs would be multiply true for PHAs. Society would become free of all individuals who are not productive. Taxes could be reduced, or the freed up funds could go toward art, literature, and good public works. Cares and worries of old age would be a thing of the past. Once a person becomes a burden to anyone, they are simply considered a PHL and given a gentle PHA. The social security trust fund will become adequate and even generous, with a reduced future burden upon working humanity.

PNAs and PHLs have benefits even beyond these. They will give birth to a new age of medical research. There will be an unlimited supply of organs and stem cells for the benefit of human population. Very likely, the human lifetime will be considerably extended. This will create additional population pressure, so PNAs and PHAs need to be executed and enforced ubiquitously.

How is a sweeping, worldwide program of PNAs and PHAs best to be administrated and implemented? It should start with the UN. As part of UN membership, every country should have laws that require every caregiver to sign a certificate of humanity to their offspring or to any non-viable entity in their care. At a minimum, these certificates should be renewed annually, like drivers’ licenses. Each country may add additional requirements for their definition of viable humanity. This allows each country to retain its own sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. By entrusting such a critical definition to each federal government, we can be sure the same care and wisdom shown in governmental taxing and welfare programs will be applied toward this critical program of PNAs and PHAs.

It is expected that some countries will put political requirements into their definition of humanity, some will put religious requirements, some physical requirements, such as a certain height, weight, body build, or skin color. Aside from promoting cultural diversity, this mosaic of laws will catch PHL’s who travel from one country to another and further reduce world population. The varied laws will also purify the human gene pool, catching the ignorant and unwary, classifying them as PHLs and terminating them, protecting mother Earth from the corrosive effects of their former human existence.

Even such a beneficial program will surely have opposition. Religious extremists and radical anarchists are likely to resist blessing mankind with a healthier, less intrusive life upon this earth. A simple and effective method of dealing with such evil-minded beings is to classify them as PHLs and perform PHAs upon them. This action will quickly bring about worldwide consensus for this uniquely effective approach to population control.

With unwanted PNFs eliminated through PNAs, with burdensome PHLs removed through PHAs, with humanity’s genetic lines improved through the forced evolutionary selection of diverse laws worldwide, a new age will dawn. No longer will pollution wreck our planet’s rivers, lakes, and oceans. No longer will smog dominate cities. No longer will teeming millions suffer and starve. No longer will species die out through human encroachment upon their habitats. With the moral principles put forth in Roe v. Wade, logically extended and applied, humanity will joyfully march forward into a brave, new world.

[Calvin Locke]

I read about a new method of human body disposal developed in Sweden a couple of years ago. Involves composting. The details evade my recollection.

I wondered if that's going to be the method for these two.

[TopQuark]

What didn't work was common ownership. What did work was private ownership.

Yes, but some goods ARE public.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

That is great. Thanks for posting it.

[Kevin OMalley]

Time for a bump due to the article, "Bushonomics: FDR in Reverse?"