Quotes from Garrett Hardin

In an approximate way, the logic of commons has been understood for a long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of private property in real estate.

The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.

Why are ecologists and environmentalists so feared and hated? This is because in part what they have to say is new to the general public, and the new is always alarming.

The morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.

To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it.

We can never do merely one thing.

The exquisite sight, sound, and smell of wilderness is many times more powerful if it is earned through physical achievement, if it comes at the end of a long and fatiguing trip for which vigorous good health is necessary. Practically speaking, this means that no one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.

In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world's goods must steadily decrease.

The Tragedy of the Commons

Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

The god who is reputed to have created fleas to keep dogs from moping over their situation must also have created fundamentalists to keep rationalists from getting flabby. Let us be duly thankful for out blessings.

Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Why are ecologists and environmentalists so feared and hated? This is because in part what they have to say is new to the general public, and the new is always alarming.

Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a population is below its optimum.

Fundamentalists are panicked by the apparent disintegration of the family, the disappearance of certainty and the decay of morality. Fear leads them to ask, if we cannot trust the Bible, what can we trust?

Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed.

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.

No one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.

A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.

Moreover, the practical recommendations deduced from ecological principles threaten the vested interests of commerce it is hardly surprising that the financial and political power created by these investments should be used sometimes to suppress environmental impact studies.

But it is no good using the tongs of reason to pull the Fundamentalists' chestnuts out of the fire of contradiction. Their real troubles lie elsewhere.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience.