Jay Hanson wrote:
[snip]
> It's Garrett Hardin, and perhaps you should read it again.
> [ http://dieoff.org/page95.htm ]
[snip]
Well, I finally *made* the time to reread the article,
and I find it every bit as "good" as when I first read it
years ago.
I can find no clear evidence or even credible suggestions of
any Reagan/Thatcherite ideology in this essay, and I see no
way that it conflicts with existentialism, phenomenology,
hermeneutics, sociology of knowledge, psychoanalysis or
probably a large number of other endeavors to advance
human self-knowledge, self-responsibility, self-accountability,
etc.
The references to such authors as Gregory Bateson and
Paul Goodman should not give much comfort to Rush Limburger(sp?)
Oleo(sp?) North, et al. The argument seems nuanced, and
*open to the possibility that we may in future find better ways of
handling matters than we currently can imagine* (John Wild
and others': "man's openness to otherness"; the social constructoin
of reality; originary imagination; etc.). Hardin criticizes
both the working class and the capitalists. I don't find
the example of bank robbery as a problem of commons
felicitous, but nobody's perfect.
> The most important aspect of necessity that we must
> now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding.
And Hardin has the courage to assert this position not merely
in terms of "necessity" but also in terms of the perservation of the
optional goods which make *human* [symbolizing] life worth living:
> If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what
> we must do: We must make the work calories per person
> approach as close to zero as possible. No gourmet meals,
> no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no art…I think that
> everyone will grant, without argument or proof,
> that maximizing population does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is
> impossible.
I always thought that Bentham's "greatest good for the greatest number"
meant maxmizing good * number, rather than maximizing good *and*
maximizing
number, as decoupled variables (which clearly they are not). But
I have no interest in wasting energy on the target of Michel Foucault's
eloquent analysis in _Discipline and Punish_.
Where's the problem with GARRET Hardin's "The Tragedy of The
Commons"? (I have read nothing else by Hardin, so, for all
I know, it may not be representative of his thinking or he may have
written it for some "ulterior" purpose, but if the road to hell is
paved with good intentions, it is also surely possible that
even bad intentions can produce good results despite themselves.)
\brad mccormick
--
Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but
Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world.
Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA
-------------------------------------------------------
<!THINK [SGML]> Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
