3. Sharayah McDonald -Reading Response 1

 As I was reading the "Humans in the Landscape" pages 45-76 for week 3, I made a funny connection to the theory of the "Tragedy of the Commons". The textbook explains that a commons is an area or thing (such as a pasture or clean air) with open access, meaning there are no rules to govern the use of that ecosystem by members of the community. The tragedy of the commons says that because of this lack of rules, people will utilize and exploit these commons as much as they can for their own economic gain. It is the conflict between the common good and individual self interest. It is also a somewhat hopeless situation, because mutual coercion that is mutually agreed to says that individuals will keep exploiting commons for their own gain even when it is obvious that all the users together are overexploiting the commons and greater shared benefits could be achieved through collective restraint. Furthermore, if one person does recognize that the collective group is ruining the ecosystem and decides to start using it less, no one else is going to do the same thing and they will just be at an economic disadvantage compared to everyone else, so it will only be impacting them negatively. On the contrary, if everyone decides to start using the commons less to preserve it except for one person, they will be at an economic advantage compared to everyone else.

The real life situation I compared this to is a simple example, but still reminded me of it nonetheless. In Regs Dining Hall during lunch, I often notice that on the few days there are brownies available, they barely last longer than 5 minutes. Last week, I noticed that only a handful of people actually got brownies, and that these people were taking 3, 4, even 5 brownies at a time just for themselves. I accepted my fate that I was not going to get any. This did however remind me of the tragedy of the commons, for the number of brownies individuals are allowed to take is unregulated by the staff or signs anywhere, so of course people are going to take as many as they can get for their own gain, regardless of if they actually need that many or not. While this example does not convey any economic gain from taking more brownies, it does show how people will take as much as they want if it is not regulated. This unfortunately is a pessimistic way of viewing humans and human nature, but it is sadly true that having no regulations results in exploitation and depletion of shared resources.

The textbook explains different ways to prevent the tragedy of the commons, such as privatization, government regulation and ownership, as well as shared social values and pressure from the community that uses the commons. With the brownies of course, it is impossible to privatize them, for they are a shared commodity purchased with a meal plan. Regs could potentially regulate how many brownies individuals are allowed to take by putting a sign up (like on Halloween with Trick-or-Treating) but this still may not solve the problem, as evident on Halloween when kids take more than the sign says to. I almost expected the last solution, the social pressure, to already be in place with food in dining halls here, however I was proved wrong. I assumed that everyone only takes 1 brownie, because that is all I take, and all someone really needs. I do not know if it is now possible to establish this social pressure about the brownies in Regs, but I feel like it goes hand in hand with mutual respect and thoughtfulness of others. There is no reason why one person realistically needs 5 brownies in one sitting, and because of that they then deprive 4 other people of getting one, which is an incredibly selfish, non-empathetic mindset.

While the tragedy of the commons is a much more complex situation with many complex factors affecting the solutions, I could not help but draw the comparison between this every day scenario. I suppose due to human greed, whenever there is an area of open access, people are going to be too focused on their own needs, wants, and economic gain to think about others who need it too, or the sustainability of the commons. If everyone only took exactly what they needed and no more, these commons or brownies would last longer and more people could benefit from them. However, it cannot be expected of people to only take what they need; in this situation, and in every situation. People are always going to take more than they need to establish excess wealth. This can also be said about huge corporations and capitalism.