Garret Hardin, 1915-2003 -- A Tribute
Ernest Partridge
The renowned biologist and author of "Tragedy of
the Commons" is dead at 88.
| Most
people fall short of their professed rules of conduct. This is
called "hypocrisy." Garrett Hardin was one of the few individuals I've known
who greatly exceeded his own expectations of human
virtue.
Some who were acquainted with Hardin only through his
writings, might well have come to suspect that this was a
misanthropic curmudgeon. After all, he had once written that
“conscience is self- eliminating,” and that humans are an
essentially self-centered species with a very limited capacity for
altruism.
In person, Garrett Hardin was a living refutation of this dark view of human
nature. His many friends knew him as a generous and perpetually
cheerful individual, with an infectious zest for life – for
knowledge, for art, and for human companionship. |
Copyright Vic Cox, Photographer
Used by Permission; All Rights Reserved
|
He was a devoted father to his four children, and a loving
husband to Jane, his wife of sixty-two years. Visits to
the Hardin home in Santa Barbara were always a delight. In fact, it
was more a "homestead," a "settlement,"
with Garrett's set-apart studio and study, Jane's garden, and the
fabled "economically irrational" redwood tree that Garrett
had planted years before. In the car port was the well-worn
station wagon with the "COMONS" vanity plate.
Usually a second or third generation Hardin was about and in
evidence.
Each time I visited Garrett, he would invite me to his study for a
conversation. He was always at work on “the next” essay or book,
and more often than not, there was a piece of sheet music open,
testifying to his lifelong devotion to his violin.
Garrett was the lead violin in the “Salsipuedes Quartet” (Salsipuedes:
“Get out if you can”). He was the lead, since, as his friends
joked, “Garrett Hardin plays second fiddle to nobody."
The annual recitals at the Hardin’s Santa Barbara home were a
festive occasions, not to be missed.
He enjoyed intelligent and informed conversation, and seemed
genuinely as interested in hearing your opinions as he was in
expounding his own. This philosopher’s encounter with the
world-renowned biologist was fated to generate many points of
disagreement. Yet he would invariably treat a contending point of
view with respect and fascination, never with hostility.
In 1968, with the publication of his essay “The Tragedy of the
Commons,” Hardin’s reputation broke free of the confinement of
his academic specialty and into public awareness. Displaying an
extraordinary breadth of knowledge, clarity, and force of argument,
the essay demonstrated how, in readily recognizable conditions,
“rational” self-interested individual behavior must lead to ruin
for all. “Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, “
he wrote, “each pursuing his own best interest in a society that
believes in the freedom of the commons.”
The solution, he argued, was “mutual coercion mutually agreed
upon” – in other words, the rule of law and regulation, which
means, of course, government. The “mutual agreement” proviso
serves as the legitimization of democrat government – i.e.,
“from the consent of the governed,” as phrased by the
Declaration of Independence.
To be sure, the central concept of The Tragedy of the Commons –
“good for each, bad for all” and “bad for each, good for
all” – is hardly unique. Political philosophers back to
Aristotle have expounded it in various forms – most notably Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke, and John Rawls. The principle is validated in
game theory (“the prisoners’ dilemma”), in military
discipline, and in labor disputes and peace negotiations. In
general, the tragedy of the commons is essential to understanding
the foundations of both political life and social morality.
And yet, however ancient. clear, and compelling, the principle
“good for each, bad for all – bad for each, good for all” is
implicitly rejected by the anarchism, egoism, and social atomism of
today’s radical right.
The unique value of Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” resides
in his application of this ancient insight to contemporary
environmental issues such as population growth, pollution, economic
policy and sustainable development. Drawn, not only from biology,
but also from philosophy, literature, political science and
economics, “The Tragedy of the Commons” has had significant and
lasting impact upon all of these disciplines and more.
That one brief essay, which I understand was for awhile the most
widely reprinted scientific paper, sufficed to establish for Garrett
Hardin an enduring mark in the history of ideas. However, it was a
peak moment in a distinguished and ongoing career that produced
twenty-seven books and 350 articles. Of his books, my personal
favorite is his Exploring New Ethics for Survival (1968,
Viking), which melds a science fiction tale with a presentation of
the further implications of the tragedy of the commons along with a
devastating critique of conventional economic theory and practice.
Garrett’s life and career exemplified the life of reason. Secure
in his scientifically empirical premises, he would would follow his
argument where logic would lead, regardless of the resulting clashes
with conventional beliefs and sentiments. Thus emerged his notorious
defenses of “lifeboat ethics” and “tough-love” – a refusal
to endorse foreign aid apart from a recipient nation’s commitment
to population control.
As his life was governed by an uncompromising allegiance to reason,
so too was the ending of it. In poor and declining health, Garrett
and Jane Hardin foresaw nothing but pointless suffering in its
continuation. And so, a week after their 62nd wedding anniversary,
they jointly decided that after an abundant life of accomplishment,
enjoyment and love, it was time to leave it.
I was shocked to learn of the passing of Garrett Hardin, but not
surprised. At age 88, and in poor health, this was not unexpected. I
was doubly shocked when I learned that he had taken his own life.
But on reflection, I came to understand. This was typical Garrett:
his final act was no doubt well thought-out in advance – calmly,
rationally, and appropriately.
Who am I to disagree with Garrett Hardin?
No more will he nourish my mind through his wise and engaging
conversation and correspondence. But his published legacy remains
for all who share his concern for the condition and the future of
humanity and of the earth’s environment.
|
