I previously noted that this year is the 40th anniversary of Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" article, which claimed that "freedom to breed is intolerable," and that "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" is the only way to prevent overpopulation. I suggested that I was going to try to organize a 40 year retrospective.
And now I'm actually doing it--I received approval from my Dean to go ahead and start planning it. Of course I can plan anything I want--the real question is whether I receive any financial support to make it good. Here's the fun part, the Dean suggested he could kick in about $2,000, and asked for a formal proposal. After thinking about it, I'm going to ask for $10,000!
Actually I'm going to ask that they commit the $10k up front, then go find a sponsor for it, and give them the naming rights for our symposium. Actually, actually, I'm going to ask that they find a sponsor willing to kick in $10,000 a year to do this every year, with the theme being an annual 1 day interdisciplinary, policy-oriented symposium that brings in top-name scholars, and is limited to only 40 other attendees who get lunch, dinner, and a hotel room free--all they have to pay is their travel.
Here's how I've figured it: By selecting a policy theme, we make it possible to bring in people from multiple fields. For example, a water policy theme could attract policy experts, environmental scientists, sociologists, etc. By tapping multiple fields, we dramatically expand our target audience to potentially vast proportions. By making it free we make it even more desirable. And by dramatically limiting the number of attendees, we make it exclusive and special, and make it possible for us to provide a very personalized and high-quality event that will leave attendees thinking our small College is the best-kept secret in the U.S.
$10,000 will buy a tier 3 nationally known speaker to come in and talk for an hour. (Tier 1 is $50,00 and up; Tier 2 is $15-20,000). Or we can do something that absolutely nobody else is doing.
And consider this: Within a 6 hour drive of our campus are 12 major universities, 30 regional universities, and several dozen smaller colleges and universities. I don't doubt I can get 40 people to come, and have most of them clamoring to come back next year.
And I've already secured a commitment from the world's leading expert on commons problems, Lin Ostrom of Indiana University, possibly both the world's smartest, and the world's nicest, political scientist (with apologies to my graduate advisor, John Orbell, who probably comes in second on both counts). A big name to build my first conference around--it should be good.
Showing posts with label overpopulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overpopulation. Show all posts
28 February 2008
40th Anniversary for Tragedy of the Commons
I just recently realized that this year is the 40th anniversary of Garret Hardin's seminal essay "Tragedy of the Commons" (ToC).
Hardin, who died in 2003, argued that the Earth is commons, and that we're rapidly overpopulating it. (Oddly, Hardin did not cite Malthus.) The tragedy is that there is no technical solution to the problem, that is, no way to win without radically revising the game itself. Voluntary restraint in childbearing would lead to those voluntarists being outbred by those who didn't restrain themselves. The only solution, therefore, is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon," because "the freedom to breed is intolerable." Because of ToC's environmental implications, Hardin inarguably has had more influence in the social sciences than any other biologist.
Certainly population growth since the 1960s has been tremendous, as is shown in this chart. But the rate of growth has declined, so we will stabilize at some point in the future.
Source: United Nations.
But as can be seen in the second graph, population growth is almost wholly a function of underdevelopment. As people grow wealthier, they tend to shift along the r-k reproductive continuum from a more r-type strategy, to a more k-type strategy, resulting in fewer childen, and slower population growth.
Source: United Nations. Found at Population Reference Bureau.
The critical problem in Hardin's argument appears to be his assumption that having more children is always individually rational (or, from the biological perspective, always selectively advantageous). But philosopher Stephen Gardiner persuasively argues that this assumption is both theoretically erroneous, and not supported by empirical data.
One of the predicted outcomes of overpopulation was pressure on available resources. To that end, Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted that much of the world would starve to death in the 1970s, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon, concerning the future price certain resources (Simon let Ehrlich select them, and Ehrlich chose 5 metals). If they became scarcer due to population pressure, the price would increase. Ehrlich lost the bet, and just recently economist Mark Perry has argued that if the bet had been repeated between 1990 and 2000, Ehrlic still would have lost.
Most people, including me, are worried about overpopulation of the Earth, but empirical evidence that we've reached or exceeded carrying capacity is scarce. But I think the whole issue is compelling enough that I've begun planning a 40-year retrospective symposium at my college. It's much too early to say whether I'll pull it off, but I think it would be very interesting to get a variety of perspectives on Hardin's argument with the benefit of 40 years of thought and accumulated evidence.
Hardin, who died in 2003, argued that the Earth is commons, and that we're rapidly overpopulating it. (Oddly, Hardin did not cite Malthus.) The tragedy is that there is no technical solution to the problem, that is, no way to win without radically revising the game itself. Voluntary restraint in childbearing would lead to those voluntarists being outbred by those who didn't restrain themselves. The only solution, therefore, is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon," because "the freedom to breed is intolerable." Because of ToC's environmental implications, Hardin inarguably has had more influence in the social sciences than any other biologist.
Certainly population growth since the 1960s has been tremendous, as is shown in this chart. But the rate of growth has declined, so we will stabilize at some point in the future.
Source: United Nations.
But as can be seen in the second graph, population growth is almost wholly a function of underdevelopment. As people grow wealthier, they tend to shift along the r-k reproductive continuum from a more r-type strategy, to a more k-type strategy, resulting in fewer childen, and slower population growth.
Source: United Nations. Found at Population Reference Bureau.
The critical problem in Hardin's argument appears to be his assumption that having more children is always individually rational (or, from the biological perspective, always selectively advantageous). But philosopher Stephen Gardiner persuasively argues that this assumption is both theoretically erroneous, and not supported by empirical data.One of the predicted outcomes of overpopulation was pressure on available resources. To that end, Paul Ehrlich, who famously predicted that much of the world would starve to death in the 1970s, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon, concerning the future price certain resources (Simon let Ehrlich select them, and Ehrlich chose 5 metals). If they became scarcer due to population pressure, the price would increase. Ehrlich lost the bet, and just recently economist Mark Perry has argued that if the bet had been repeated between 1990 and 2000, Ehrlic still would have lost.
Most people, including me, are worried about overpopulation of the Earth, but empirical evidence that we've reached or exceeded carrying capacity is scarce. But I think the whole issue is compelling enough that I've begun planning a 40-year retrospective symposium at my college. It's much too early to say whether I'll pull it off, but I think it would be very interesting to get a variety of perspectives on Hardin's argument with the benefit of 40 years of thought and accumulated evidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)