Week 7: The Tragedy of the Commons
How does the theory of Commons relate to the Internet, community or politics?
In many ways, the Internet can be likened to the ‘commons’ that Garrett Hardin refers to in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968). The cyber world is like an ‘open pasture’ free to be used by all. Everyone is free to partake of its seemingly infinite resources.
If Hardin were writing today, the explosive growth of the Internet would have really worried him and he would have promptly put it in the ‘no technical solution problem’ category.
He would advocate immediate legislation to avoid the tragedy of the cyber-commons. It seems like Hardin is no fan of human goodness or conscience. He would have turned down the idea of a self-regulated Internet where everyone has the freedom to access and use it as a resource. By everyone, I mean, the tech-savvy, economically viable section of the human populace, which is still small in number. I guess that is why we haven’t yet seen the ‘overgrazing’ syndrome afflict the Net. But once economic wealth is distributed equitably across nations and Thomas Friedman’s ‘flatteners’ really come into effect, the Internet will become ‘overpopulated’ and witness the ‘horrors of the commons’ as each person will try to maximize his/her gain. Freedom of the commons will indeed bring ruin to all. Hardin would likely have sought coercive laws or some sort of taxation that would have regulated the World Wide Web.
I think the key idea is this: The commons if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population increases, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another. So right now, the Web can be justified as a commons because the entire human race has not been ‘enabled’ to use it. But the moment a global social/economic equilibrium is attained, Internet use or access will have to be restricted.
I’m personally conflicted on this issue. I like to believe in human judgment and goodness and feel we can regulate our lives and resources and therefore dislike the idea of forcing people to give up/regulate their reproductive rights among other things. But I know this can be a utopian ideal. Today, India is suffering because of delayed/lack of/ misdirected efforts to control population. We have systematically exhausted our natural resources and eroded our environment due to ‘overgrazing.’.
Hardin’s pessimistic view does have merit especially in the way he views overpopulation.
In terms of community and politics, such regulations would have a divisive effect and polarize the population among ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Also if Hardin had his way, we would have a much curtailed commons in matters of pleasure and entertainment.
In many ways, the Internet can be likened to the ‘commons’ that Garrett Hardin refers to in the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (1968). The cyber world is like an ‘open pasture’ free to be used by all. Everyone is free to partake of its seemingly infinite resources.
If Hardin were writing today, the explosive growth of the Internet would have really worried him and he would have promptly put it in the ‘no technical solution problem’ category.
He would advocate immediate legislation to avoid the tragedy of the cyber-commons. It seems like Hardin is no fan of human goodness or conscience. He would have turned down the idea of a self-regulated Internet where everyone has the freedom to access and use it as a resource. By everyone, I mean, the tech-savvy, economically viable section of the human populace, which is still small in number. I guess that is why we haven’t yet seen the ‘overgrazing’ syndrome afflict the Net. But once economic wealth is distributed equitably across nations and Thomas Friedman’s ‘flatteners’ really come into effect, the Internet will become ‘overpopulated’ and witness the ‘horrors of the commons’ as each person will try to maximize his/her gain. Freedom of the commons will indeed bring ruin to all. Hardin would likely have sought coercive laws or some sort of taxation that would have regulated the World Wide Web.
I think the key idea is this: The commons if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density. As the human population increases, the commons has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another. So right now, the Web can be justified as a commons because the entire human race has not been ‘enabled’ to use it. But the moment a global social/economic equilibrium is attained, Internet use or access will have to be restricted.
I’m personally conflicted on this issue. I like to believe in human judgment and goodness and feel we can regulate our lives and resources and therefore dislike the idea of forcing people to give up/regulate their reproductive rights among other things. But I know this can be a utopian ideal. Today, India is suffering because of delayed/lack of/ misdirected efforts to control population. We have systematically exhausted our natural resources and eroded our environment due to ‘overgrazing.’.
Hardin’s pessimistic view does have merit especially in the way he views overpopulation.
In terms of community and politics, such regulations would have a divisive effect and polarize the population among ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’ Also if Hardin had his way, we would have a much curtailed commons in matters of pleasure and entertainment.
posted by sakina | Monday, November 14, 2005
2 Comments:
"Hardin’s pessimistic view does have merit especially in the way he views overpopulation."
I think it's most important impact is in economics, it's a significant problem in the Theory of Game and in Economics of the Environment:)
On NPR, they quoted an Algerian French man about the riots and he blamed the Internet for the Riots. The young Africans in France were able to see what they could not have. Interesting in correlation with your blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home