Tragedy of the Commons

The term “Commonwealth of Australia” should mean something – it is not just a title – the wealth (in this case derived from its inherent resources) is – or should be – a common wealth for all. 

The metaphor, “tragedy of the commons,” lends emphasis to the argument that free access and uncontrolled demand for any particular finite resource (the “commons”), will diminish that resource, either temporarily or permanently, through over-exploitation. More pertinently it refers to situations in which individuals (or a groups of like minded people), acting to meet their own short term interests make choices that are detrimental to society as a whole.  This occurs because the benefits of exploitation always accrue to individuals or groups, each of whom is motivated to maximize use of the resource to the point in which they become reliant on it, while the costs of the exploitation are borne by all those to whom the resource is available – in this case the citizens of Australia.

(Adapted from the original article “Tragedy of the Commons”, by Garrett Hardin, Science, 1968).

When money is considered pre-eminent and more important than people, we have a real problem. It must be remembered, at all times, that money and commercial enterprise are tools for the benefit of Man (as in human beings) and not Man as pieces on some economic game board to be moved at will for the benefit of money and commercial enterprise.

It is time that “big” miners and the other players in the resources industry were reminded that what they are exploiting is the “commons” of all Australians (including resident shareholders) that does not “belong” to any one company. When the resources are exhausted, as they will be, what will the “commons” consist of – a pock marked Luna landscape no use to anyone? Who will pay the rectification costs? We, the citizens of Australia, will be called upon – once again – to bear that burden and we will all be doubly impoverished with a degraded environment and higher taxes to pay for it (Adani’s proposed coal mine? All opencast mining?).

This is the “tragedy of the commons” and why I, personally, support and always have supported, some form of payment by the “resources industry” to redress the environmental degradation they cause. I know that a “mining tax” is way off the radar of all politicians at present but I firmly believe that the chickens will come home to roost – somewhere. It is essential, as I understand it, for the long-term benefit and the “common wealth” of the citizens of this country that this “tragedy of the commons”, this untenable situation, be addressed, and soon. 

Because I live here I have chosen to use Australia as an example - but this would apply to any country.

Injustice is always the problem.

The thing about injustice is that it is not a “one size” fits all. What is perceived as just for you may not be seen as just by me. And then there is the added complexity of perceptions. Without knowing the full range of facts I may perceive something as just or unjust.

This emphasizes the importance of ethics because in these cases ethics is, sadly, often forgotten or ignored – which is why they are unethical (obviously).

Spend a moment to think about this. As a hypothetical - I may feel it is just that I am now a wealthy man because I worked hard all my life and built up a large organization that employs many people. Others may have views that differ. They may consider (or perceive) that I exploited my workers by paying them the lowest possible wage so as to maximize my profits; or that I used my economic “clout” to force suppliers to reduce their costs to me, again to maximize my profits.

It matters not who the suppliers or what the products – banks and financial products, miners and raw materials, manufacturers and semi-finished products, machine tools or whatever. Forcing my suppliers to reduce the cost of my “inputs” forces them to reduce the wages they pay their workers; it forces them to consider alternatives such as lowering the quality of what they make. To meet my demands and to maximize their profits (that, also, is what they are in business for) they may consider activities which are criminal; acts such as “sweat shop” conditions and/or employing child labour; acts such as prosthetic companies filling breast implants with industrial gel; acts such as butchers selling horse meat as beef; acts such as adding melamine to baby milk formula; acts such as pharmaceutical companies reducing the number of, or “adjusting”, test results for medical products, and so on and so on.

All this is done, often, without a thought for the purchaser or end user.  Either way it is a matter of perception – mine or yours, and ethics.

Then of course there is the greatest cause of unethical conduct and injustice ever known – the gender difference – male and female. Women, the female of the species, seem to have been discriminated against forever, certainly as far as we can confirm, at least since written records began. Why just because women, generally, are less physically strong are they discriminated against by men? Is it because women are the “gate keepers” of sexual union?  If any force is used against a woman for sexual favours it is considered rape, which in most societies is a crime. I don’t know why men have this perception that they are superior to women – but it seems strange that this discrimination exists at all, because every man was, of a certainty, born of a woman – and most sons hold their mothers in high esteem. So why denigrate, why abuse or discriminate against someone else’s mother or someone who will, in all probability, become a mother?

Possibly the second greatest cause of unethical conduct is skin colour. There is no known way of choosing your own skin colour - you are born with it. No one is born superior to anyone else. It is, again, a matter of perception. Just because someone may look “different” is no reason for discrimination or abuse. To discriminate against someone, or to abuse them because of the colour of their skin is not only unjust but also unethical.

The other major cause of injustice and unethical conduct is religion. Why in God’s name (quite literally) this should be so is beyond my comprehension. There is – as I believe – only one God. So to me it matter not what He, She, It is called and I cannot think of any good reason why He, She, It would care what name we humans use; we humans who live on a miniscule speck of rock at the edge of a very ordinary galaxy that is one of billions of galaxies in a incomprehensibly large universe which He, She, It presumable created (the big bang?). I mean really, does it matter what name we use? Anyway how would anyone know what He, She, It thinks or feels about the issue of a name – or anything else for that matter?

All these are matters of perception – about gender, skin colour and religion – just a person’s opinion. And yet millions have died; millions have been abused; millions have been tortured all because of perceptions which, inevitably lead to injustice.

But then has injustice of any kind - force, abuse, discrimination, torture, cruelty - ever changed anyone’s opinion or perception? I doubt it!