Yes

by Sherafgan Khan

Created on: December 03, 2009   Last Updated: December 05, 2009

Being bored in Chicago one night, my roommate and I decided to head out and play some economic games with the local residents. We grabbed a bag of jellybeans from the 7-11 and went to a bar downtown. We immediately spotted the perfect targets: five college aged girls, talking at a table.

After introducing ourselves, we asked if they were willing to play a game, being in the social setting and mindset they willingly agreed. I pulled out the bag of jellybeans, and after a few seconds of awkwardness, I laid ten of them in a pile on the table. We explained that they could each take as many as they wanted, but had to take at least one to "survive".

We then explained that after each of them had taken their share, I would add one more jellybean to the table for every bean remaining. The cycle would continue as long as there was one bean left. However, we did not explicitly tell them that the game would be over if the "crop" runs out.

Round one: they each took their desired shares, leaving two more beans on the table. Cycle two came around; I added two more beans, leaving four. They each took one, with nothing for the last girl. Game over. I told them to try it again. In round two, they at least got into the third cycle, but still weren't able to sustain the beans.

It wasn't until round four that they had caught on, and each took one bean, thus allowing for an infinite number of cycles (or until my stash ran out).

Wait, so it took them four cycles to figure that out? In hindsight, one may see the solution to my jellybean game as "common sense." David Harvey however, argues that "common sense is not a single unique conception, identical in time and space" (Harvey, 2006; 84).

What he means is that this notion of "common sense" is unique to each individual's mind, as their conception of the world is modeled by a variety of social and cultural environments. That being said, it is logical to see how "common sense" is a conception within each individual, and can variably contrast in conformity with the hegemonic philosophy of "common sense" (Harvey, 2006; 84).

Common sense to the girls at the bar could have been from a rational perspective; to maximize individual gains. I argue that they may not have been thinking about long-term sustainability when their pupils widened at the sight of the delicious beans.

In this review, I aim to show that people may initially behave in ways that are unsustainable because of the acute and immediate payoffs associated with the self-interested behavior. Payoffs which seem "rational" to oneself at the time, may not be so "rational" in the long run.

Additionally, I aim to show that contrary to Garret Hardin's "Tragedy of the commons" (which I will explain briefly below), people, through mutual cooperation, knowledge, and education over time, can "change their mindset" which will allow for long-term sustainability of communal resources.

The "Tragedy of the Commons" as proposed by Hardin, is thought analogy model pioneered by W. F. Lloyd in 1833 (Hardin, 1968). This model is used to predict the "eventual overexploitation or degradation of all resources used in common" (Feeny et al., 1990; 1). Hardin's thesis was that this dilemma, the "tragedy", has no technical solution.

That is, a solution looking to simply change the techniques of science, and not the values and morals of the individuals will only cause the situation to worsen (Hardin, 1968). Hardin argues that a finite world requires a finite population, and it is not mathematically possible to maximize "the greatest good, for the greatest number" (Hardin, 1968; 1243).

He has a very strong point here, in that we know that all organisms need energy to live, however, there is a quantity/quality trade off. While one may be "rational" and self-fulfilling, thus maximizing his own good, this mindset, if applied to everyone, will have illogical quality and sustainability problems. The take home message Hardin sends is that "rational", self-indulging behaviors in a common work, only if the population is kept low.

However, as we can see from his example of herdsman, that when more and more animals are added to the common pasture by each individual, the pasture cannot keep up with the demand, and thus, leads to its eventual degradation.

Psychologist Robert Ornstein explains that our human minds, in terms of evolution, sought out more salient cues which ensured our survival. We are wired in a sense to favor short-term, rather than long-term payoffs precisely for that reason; survival (Ornstein, 1991).

When we apply this logic to modern society, "survival" in essence can be analogous to "selfishness". In order to survive, we had to select choices which favored in our immediate benefit. The girls at the bar, who initially exploited my "commons" of jelly beans, did so probably because of this reasoning.

They were in a new situation, and had no prior experience or knowledge in how to act. They were not thinking about having consistent sweets all night, they were acting on a primary process level; "this is what I want right now".

Feeny et al., published a critique of Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons", stating that Hardin's model is "insightful but incomplete" (Feeny et al., 1990; 12). They argue that his models portrayed each situation as if it were to fit perfectly into a cute little box, conforming to all his assumptions.

I agree with them in that Hardin does not fully account for the situational context, and I go further to say that Hardin underestimates the resiliency and adaptive nature of the human mind. The authors suggest that through cooperation, control, and a set of unanimous rules, individuals can utilize and adapt strategies which properly allocate each individual without a drastic impact on the resource (Feeny et al., 1990).

They use the case of Japanese meadow lands to show how developing strategies can in turn, lead to long term sustainability. In this case, they (the Japanese) implemented two-property right regimes, where meadows and irrigation works were communal, and crop lands were private.

Through this strategy, the aggregate utilization levels could be controlled while still giving people an incentive for their conscientious behavior, as regulation dates were set for when and what they can harvest (Feeny et al., 1990).

Through the process of enculturation, that is, when we share and receive new ideas and mindsets, we in a very real sense "consciously evolve". As with the girls at the bar, initially their mind set was to maximize their gains. However, through trial and error, as well as cooperation among each other, they were able to develop a strategy to utilize the resource efficiently without impacting its sustainability.

My focus here is not to throw down Hardin's theory, as his makes logical sense. I do however stand on my belief that he underestimates the true uniqueness of the human mind. Culture is a product of our minds, and it is the basis for our ideas and beliefs.

Although culture can have both adaptive and maladaptive traits, I believe that the integration of cultural knowledge and learning through past experiences, we as humans can in fact develop technical solutions to global problems.

Through cooperation and knowledge, the former "rational" and "selfish" mindset may be replaced in my opinion by a more "logical" and sustainable mindset, which is only possible as Feeny et al. states through "co-management on a large scale (Feeny et al., 1990).

It is in fact the community of individuals: those who live in a shared space, who share the same resources; it is their responsibility to ensure the maintenance and sustainability of all communal property, because if they don't, the only ones who suffer are themselves.

References:

Feeny, David, Fikret Berkes, Bonnie J. McCay, and James M. Acheson

1990 The tragedy of the commons: twenty-two years later. Human Ecology 18(1): 1-

19.

Hardin, Garrett

1968 The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1234-1248.

Harvey, David

2006 Notes towards a theory of uneven geographical development. In Spaces of

Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development, pp. 69-

116. Verso, New York.

Ornstein, R

1991 Evolution of Consciousness: The Origins of the Way We Think.

New York: Touchstone

Learn more about this author, Sherafgan Khan.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.