Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Garrett Hardin provided a new perspective on the field of ecology, emphasizing the issue of individual interests. In her research, she identifies these personal interests to be the cause of ecological problems and scarcity. In other words, people act self-interested in acquiring more resources, leading to mismanagement and subsequent shortage. Hardin argues that technological innovation cannot resolve this problem, as was believed before. Technology is only a tool that can be used to either address the issue or extract more resources. Thus, according to Hardin, the solution is to minimize the individual use of crucial and basic resources. This solution can be achieved through state intervention, as the policies and regulations can be placed to prevent overuse. Thus, Hardins argument provided a new outlook on ecological issues, stressing the need to regulate the resources collectively.
Current climate change is the greatest environmental challenge and can be examined through the lens of Hardins arguments. The causes of climate change lie in the strive for individual gain, similar to the examples of Hardin. As large corporations prefer economic growth and chase after profits, the resources are misused, and pollution increases. In other words, this growth mindset, essential for a profit-driven economy, emphasizes an increased production of goods and services. As a result, the limited nature of the resources gets ignored, as companies face a difficult decision. This dilemma stems from the fact that slowing down production means going out of business under current capitalistic conditions. Moreover, any changes to prevent the exploitation of the resources require more investment that diminishes the profits, which goes against the profit-driven nature of the economy. The same principle applies to pollution. In other words, it saves companies money to overlook the negative impacts of their production and shift its costs to society rather than lose their profit margin. This behavior parallels Hardins argument for the consequences of the individual striving for gains, with these individuals being businesses and large corporations.
As in Hardins case, technological innovations alone cannot solve climate change, as greater cooperative efforts are crucial. In recent years, many researchers and experts agree that, at the current rate of climate change, people cannot rely on the future technology that can potentially combat climate change. According to Frischmann et al., a certain level of public interest and support is needed to fund these projects. This public accountability is also crucial in ensuring that the results of these projects will serve ecological purposes rather than being reused for increasing production and profits. Therefore, collective overseeing of resources and technological advancement is the logical solution to this issue. This solution seems to align with Hardins conclusions about the need for the collaborative management of resources.
Hardins generalized solution may not suit every climate change issue. After publishing Hardins work, it was reviewed and critiqued multiple times by scholars in the field. According to Frischmann et al., the main critique of Hardins arguments is that it is too generalized and lacks nuance and details. The scholars found that, in some instances, individual use of resources led to better ecological outcomes than state intervention in the example of farmers. The reason for such results is that farmers were more knowledgeable of their products and effectively managed pollution. However, when the state intervened, the officials applied general guidelines because of the lack of expertise, which worsened the farm fields ecological situation. Thus, even though Hardins argument is valuable for the general direction in the battle against climate change, more complex and personalized solutions are necessary for such a difficult issue.
Works Cited
Frischmann, Brett M., Alain Marciano, and Giovanni Battista Ramello. Retrospectives: Tragedy of the commons after 50 years. Journal of Economic Perspectives 33.4 (2019): 211-28. doi: 10.1257/jep.33.4.211
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.