Self-centeredness and the Tragedy of the Commons

When I read Lawrence Ulrich's New York Times article, "With Gas Prices Less of a Worry, Buyers Pass Hybrid Cars By", I instantly thought of the tragedy of the commons. Due to lower gas prices, people do not see as much economical benefits by buying hybrids over conventional cars, so there has been decreased demand for environmentally-friendly cars. This avarice is an example of how people care more about themselves than the well-being of society.  When individual benefits are greater than individual costs, people continue depleting a common resource for their own gains. However, by doing so, people fail to factor non-monetary benefits and costs.

There is intrinsic value in protecting the environment because as stewards of the earth, we must take care of the planet, not just because of economical benefits, but because it is the ethical thing to do. As individual, we levy tremendous power over other people and species. Man-made effects on the planet include: habitat destruction, acid deposition, and increase in tropospheric ozone formation. All these problems not just affect the individual person who created it (i.e. the lumberer who cuts down a tree), but on every living thing, albeit in a very small way. However, when everyone has the mentality of “what’s one less tree in the scheme of things?”, all the small actions accumulate and cause impactful damage. Most environmental problems, such as the aforementioned ones, arise from human greed and a tendency to place individual gain over the common good. In the case of the New York Times article, people who bought conventional cars instead of hybrids put temporary monetary benefits (we all know that gas prices never change) ahead of protecting the environment. This avarice and disregard for the future state of Earth is irresponsible, and everyone sees themselves as minuscule influences when we are really all catalysts that irreparably alter the planet’s composition.

How do we protect public resources from our own individual greed? Garrett Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons proposes governmental interference in breeding, noting that commons can only be preserved when used by a low-density population. While that idea is extreme, limiting population growth is needed in order to maintain our standard of living. One way of achieving that is through education, which will pave the way for economic opportunities. Furthermore, higher wealth is correlated with less children. By limiting the population, we can ensure that commons are not depleted and can be passed onto future generations.