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.

Unintended consequences.

Added Feb23,2018:- I obviously have (partial) ability to foretell. Not boasting, mind!

The effects of the proposal to cut or reduce the printing of newspapers in Australia and the corollary of encouraging the use of electronic formats will have many consequences, mostly unintended.

For instance there will be a reduced requirement for wood pulp (to make newsprint). This will certainly help the conservationists cause. Alternatively it may encourage exports of newsprint, of pulp or woodchips, to make up the shortfall in revenue. But then there may be more employment opportunities for those who work in the electronic media industry! There is a possibility, of course, that the drive to increase readership of electronic media and cut costs will result in more “out sourcing” of jobs to lower cost countries such as India. This, if it occurs, will not help anyone in Australia.

Then what about the countless “news agencies” in Australia? They will either cease to exist or have to change and sell something else. What about the various sawmills and pulping plants in and around the country and the people employed by them? And then what about the vehicles delivering the wood chips to make the pulp from which newsprint is made? What about those who deliver the finished product – newspapers?

This is not just a “game” of hypotheticals, it affect real people. No one can foresee the future or the effects of any changes in plans or policies. This is why it is so important to ALWAYS consider people first (the ethical and moral considerations of the effects of any actions or activities) and not, first, the financial impact on the “bottom line”. To consider the “economy” or money before people puts the “cart before the horse” and will result in unnecessary anguish and hardship.

I know it sounds trite but happiness results – always - from helping people, not from making money. By all means use the money you have made to help people. To do so is good policy.

Remember that money is a useful medium of exchange invented by people. Individuals, people, you and I, normally work to earn it to exchange for goods or services they may need. Money does not create people or work or innovation or any goods. Only people can do this.

People “make” the economy, not the other way round. Without people there would be no commerce and industry and no “economy”. Commerce and industry are for the benefit of people; people are not items on some economic game board to be moved around for the benefit the commerce and industry. The Russian Soviet Republic tried this and failed spectacularly.

I know the old saying is that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” but it is essential to, always, have the welfare of people as pre-eminent - to act, always, with this consideration foremost in one’s mind. This is the ethical and moral way. Acting not for me but for all, will go some way to avoiding unintended, and possibly unpleasant, consequences.

In the case of newspaper publishing organisations, cutting staff to save costs will reduce the quality of the publications and the resulting bad publicity will reach a tipping point beyond which the organisations will spiral down towards total failure.