Recognizing the Problem(s)

Even in 1968 Garrett Hardin and other concerned scientists knew the potential danger of overusing resources. As a society, we tend to want more and more much like the herdsmen wanting to make more people. Hardin believes that having children is a form of perpetuating the tragedy of the commons. He says that having a conscience about the commons would be self-eliminating because we would limit our breeding and therefore not pass on our genes to a new person. As individuals it is part of our nature to want to have children, but as we have seen recently this causes destruction of the commons. As more people inhabit the planet, there is more overuse of resources and therefore it is important to remember that we have to act as a whole and not as individuals. Yet, it is easier said than done for most of the human race. California is an interesting example of the tragedy of the commons; there is mass consumption and mass preservation. It is what happens when there is recognition of the abuse that can occur and yet the need to maintain the quality of life that people in this state have always known.

This concept has lead many environmentalists to become alarmists. As we continue to overuse our resources and the population continues rising environmentalists jump to the worse possible outcome: The Tragedy of the Commons. Yet, these people overlook our modern day technology. We are able to mass produce many food products quickly and efficiently. These products may not be coming from your traditional mom and pop farm, but none the less we have plenty of food for everyone on our planet. It is understandable in some situations to be an alarmist to alert the rest of the population to pressing matters. Some environmentalists, not all, feel it is necessary to be alarmists in order to get the message out. Yet, for the few environmentalists that are alarmists this gives the rest of the environmentalists a negative image.

I am someone who is passionate about the environment, but I would not call myself an environmentalist mainly for the reason that I do not want to be perceived as an alarmist. It is appropriate to be an alarmist in some situations, e.g.-CO2 emissions, but in general we are not as destructive as most environmentalists believe the human race to be. We may be more destructive than other animals because we have a larger population than most animals, but on the whole we do not make it our mission to go out everyday and destroy the environment. Of course it has been argued that just by going through our daily routine we are harming the environment. So, what I say to that is the masses are put into this position and we do not elect to pollute the environment, but we have only a limited amount of viable choices to sustain our routine. Therefore, it falls on the shoulders of big business to make the right choices. Of course the masses can recycle or buy a hybrid car, but we cannot make these environmentally friendly choices without businesses producing them. Businesses are for-profit and therefore want to make what is most profitable to them. So, change can be difficult. This is why many environmentalists do not like capitalism.

In response to one of the other blogger’s comment about politicians addressing environmental issues. Unfortunately, environmental issues become political because they have to be passed through the congressional system. To create laws these issues must become political and therefore causing months and even years to go by before legistlature is passed on a particular issue. This is the problem with American government; we are not able to just put aside differences in political opinion to pass a law that will save the environment.