"The Tragedy of the Commons" Dilemma
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:05 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is an influential article written by Garett Hardin in 1968 that discusses basic human nature and behavior when acting out of self-interest. In the example of a metaphor that Hardin gave, there is a small village with one hundred families living in it that share a common grass plot. Each family owns a few cows that they raise for milk and beef. The villagers follow an unspoken law that each family is allowed to put one of their cows in the commons to graze. On an average day, there are one hundred cows happily grazing on the grass from the common land, and no one bothers to count the cows on the field, so everyone is happy.
Why is this a problem?
The "unspoken agreement" is not as binding as one might think. The grass commons can only sustain one hundred cows; any more, and the field becomes barren, leading to starvation. However, there are no laws in place to specifically allow one cow per family. In their trusting relationships, the villagers assume that everybody will follow the rule. But one day, one villager thinks to himself, "Who's going to notice if I add one extra cow to the pasture? No one's counting." So, the next day, he slips two cows into the pasture. Other villagers notice him doing it, and also think "No one will care if I put an extra cow in there." You can guess what happens next.
Another situation: Beaver skin hats were very popular in colonial America during the 1700s. The Great Lakes region had a large population of beavers to trap and skin for their valuable furs. Now, let's say that there was a general rule of thumb among the trappers: "The maximum number you should trap is ten beavers. If you trap more, the beaver population cannot sustain itself, and will eventually collapse." But who was going to enforce that rule? What if a hunter went out and trapped thirty beavers? Who would stop him? Who would stop others from doing the same?
The decision to put extra cows in the pasture and trap as many beavers as you like is totally rational when you think in terms of self-interest. In both of these cases, however, karma strikes back, leaving the grass commons void of grass and the beaver population extinct. People are encouraged to act irresponsibly because acting responsibly forces them to lose out. When they act irresponsibly (like when you put too many cows in the pasture or get greedy for beaver hats), everyone loses. Ideally, each person would follow the rules so that the common resource is preserved. But, then you will think, "How can I, an individual, make a difference?" It's true; one person acting responsibly makes no difference. When they trap ten beavers while 99 out of 100 others are trapping fifty beavers at a time, are they really doing any good? In this sense, the Tragedy of the Commons is the idea of a prophecy of self-fulfillment that often leads to the demise of the common resource due to the nature of human self-interest.
The question is: Can the principles of the Tragedy of the Commons be applied to Silkroad? Why or why not? Discuss.
Edit: Probably wrote too much. I think people tend to reply to topics that don't require a drawn out intellectual answer @_@
Edit2: Why can't I post images? o_O
"The Tragedy of the Commons" is an influential article written by Garett Hardin in 1968 that discusses basic human nature and behavior when acting out of self-interest. In the example of a metaphor that Hardin gave, there is a small village with one hundred families living in it that share a common grass plot. Each family owns a few cows that they raise for milk and beef. The villagers follow an unspoken law that each family is allowed to put one of their cows in the commons to graze. On an average day, there are one hundred cows happily grazing on the grass from the common land, and no one bothers to count the cows on the field, so everyone is happy.
Why is this a problem?
The "unspoken agreement" is not as binding as one might think. The grass commons can only sustain one hundred cows; any more, and the field becomes barren, leading to starvation. However, there are no laws in place to specifically allow one cow per family. In their trusting relationships, the villagers assume that everybody will follow the rule. But one day, one villager thinks to himself, "Who's going to notice if I add one extra cow to the pasture? No one's counting." So, the next day, he slips two cows into the pasture. Other villagers notice him doing it, and also think "No one will care if I put an extra cow in there." You can guess what happens next.
Another situation: Beaver skin hats were very popular in colonial America during the 1700s. The Great Lakes region had a large population of beavers to trap and skin for their valuable furs. Now, let's say that there was a general rule of thumb among the trappers: "The maximum number you should trap is ten beavers. If you trap more, the beaver population cannot sustain itself, and will eventually collapse." But who was going to enforce that rule? What if a hunter went out and trapped thirty beavers? Who would stop him? Who would stop others from doing the same?
The decision to put extra cows in the pasture and trap as many beavers as you like is totally rational when you think in terms of self-interest. In both of these cases, however, karma strikes back, leaving the grass commons void of grass and the beaver population extinct. People are encouraged to act irresponsibly because acting responsibly forces them to lose out. When they act irresponsibly (like when you put too many cows in the pasture or get greedy for beaver hats), everyone loses. Ideally, each person would follow the rules so that the common resource is preserved. But, then you will think, "How can I, an individual, make a difference?" It's true; one person acting responsibly makes no difference. When they trap ten beavers while 99 out of 100 others are trapping fifty beavers at a time, are they really doing any good? In this sense, the Tragedy of the Commons is the idea of a prophecy of self-fulfillment that often leads to the demise of the common resource due to the nature of human self-interest.
The question is: Can the principles of the Tragedy of the Commons be applied to Silkroad? Why or why not? Discuss.
Edit: Probably wrote too much. I think people tend to reply to topics that don't require a drawn out intellectual answer @_@
Edit2: Why can't I post images? o_O
Well said, Drew and others. 
