Several things strike me in this essay. The freedom to procreate; the fact that you need a license to drive, you need to be a certain age to drink and fight for this country, you need a degree for most jobs, but to have a baby, you just need natural instincts. Hardin had an interesting point when he sited, "In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14):
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else." A family needs to pay room and board and taxes, however they can privately determine how large they can be...reminds me of certain corporations.
The tragedy of the commons can relate to politics, especially the politicians that are in power today, they care not about the whole but rather what they interpret as “common”, this can be identified with the bank robber Hardin mentions in the essay, that refers to the bank as the commons. Our politicians are referring to our tax money as the commons, but choosing to use it in ways that do not benefit the whole, but an elite few.
An image that came to mind that illustrated this was…
A bird covered with oil
The political side is that a politician deemed it necessary to drill for oil near that bird’s habitat. The tragedy of the commons as it relates to community, both human and bird, at one point were living in sync, until human chose that oil should be drilled and push bird out of habitat, what Hardin referred to as “overgrazing”. It seems that politicians cannot obey the rules of the commons, that public space cannot be shared, maintained and respected. One must capitalize on another’s innocence.
Maybe this is the tragedy of the Internet, that websites cannot live harmoniously side by side, and share content while users pay what the content’s worth, without stealing or illegally downloading. Public websites cannot be shared, maintained and respected, according to Hardin’s theory.
"The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious freedoms is by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon."
And I end with an image that I believe would have made Hardin happy...
posted by Andrea Mydlarz Zeller @ 6:53 PM
3 Comments:
I agree with your first paragraph. I've often thought of the irony of that -- that anyone can have a baby, there's no test to past to prove that you should or can have one -- yet so many oher seemingly trivial things you need permission to undertake. I like how you relate the idea of only taking on what you can handle to the corporate world as well -- good analogy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I thought two things about this were really interesting: 1) I really liked the way you related this article to the idea of the web as a "commons" and what that may end up meaning. You said, "Maybe this is the tragedy of the Internet, that websites cannot live harmoniously side by side, and share content while users pay what the content’s worth, without stealing or illegally downloading. Public websites cannot be shared, maintained and respected, according to Hardin’s theory." this was a great thought - I don't typically even think of the internet as "space" let alone a "commons". I have tended to see it as a form of commerce and I don't think of it as a "right". ...
The 2nd idea that I thought was interesting was this idea that you don't need a license to have a baby but you do to drive, or own a gun, or be a certain age to vote etc....So the question is - if not everyone should have the right to have a baby? Then who should? And who gets to decide? Or even if the suggestion is just to have some criteria..Do we decide on IQ? And/or age? Only people between this age and that can have children? Or only people with a certain education level? Or a certain amount of money? Or do they need to own a home? Or maybe somebody somewhere thinks we have too many of a certain race? Or should we eliminate some people based on genetic tests? Or abort some based on genetics? you know where I am going with this right? I don't really think any of us want to really make these kinds of morale decisions - because what we're saying is that only some people should have children because somehow some how some people are better than others. Its just a slippery slope. As soon as we start down it – where do we stop? Don't get me wrong - I think we should try to limit growth somehow- but I haven't met anyone that I think should be deciding who could or should have children. And countries that have limited growth have end up with too many men or women and then have put an over emphasis in on birthing one or the other type of gender - is that good?
Post a Comment
<< Home