The Metamorphoses of the Commons by Justin

I had to read The Tragedy of the Commons for a class recently, and I found it a little disappointing in it's apparent defeatism masked by dogmatic pride in the infallibility of scientific fact. The subject of the paper is universal, and most of the discourse is illuminating.

Above all attempts at division and prerogatives of personal claims, Earth stands alone the universal, ambient commons. In terms of scale it is our link into the cosmic hierarchy. Solar systems are strewn haphazardly throughout the galaxy, revealing the epic temporal span of our Milky Way. Similarly, galaxies are strewn like a fabric across the dimensions of space and time that map our Universe. Science, through the painstaking insight of astronomers and perceptive acumen of philosophers has revealed an elegant set of simple rules to govern the creation and life of each of these classes of objects. A cloud of interstellar gas will have a precise amount of intrinsic momentum. Gravitational forces will collapse and coalesce it into the favorite solar-planetary system. To an human this genesis and situation is a fantastic poetry. To a scientist it is merely the neat result of applied laws universal. Cosmic diversity is therefore not beautiful, but chaotic, or maybe random.

With characteristic impartiality the scientist may also apply the same rigor to Earth, the Commons Universal. It is not a universal condition, but the probability of evolutionary fruition. Evolution is very attractive as an idea. It comprises a simple postulate suggested by nature itself and explains everything about biology without need for argumentative or speculative regression. As a scientific theory it is well tested and verified. As an explanation it is very elegant: a grand family tree of all organisms. In order to support his arguments, I believe that Hardin has applied the status of evolution from too early a stage; men are rational, but not intelligent. Each only cares enough to maximize his own profit. I find such a deterministic description of reality offensive. No matter at what stage of human evolution discretion developed, men are characteristically severed from their evolutionary dictates and are fully capable of self determination, that is, though humans are susceptible to instinct they also are independent agents. By his own explanation, the tragedy of the commons has no technical solution. If technology is nothing more than applied science, then this problem exists beyond the purview of scientific theory, and man is ultimately transscientific.

I also find Hardin's deterministic application of specifically Darwinian evolution a classic error of overexuberance in a theory. Scientific objectivity and impartiality always necessitate a skepticism, no matter how sure the theory. Darwin proposed his hypothesis over 150 years ago, and our understanding of evolution has been revised somewhat since then. Science as a whole has been much revised even in the last 40 years. Hardin's linear thinking in the most nonlinear of all sciences is as disappointing as his philosophical appreciation of the commons is insightful.

I, myself, have an ulterior belief in the creation of the Earth and (at least) it's immediate surroundings by an intelligent, free being, that man was created in the image of this being, that our purpose here is to gain physical experience that we have not before known, and that each person is endowed with an independent agency like unto the being that created the Earth. The express purpose of this creation, this commons is to be the scene of human experience.