Essay for my Ethics course

Hardin in article “The Tragedy of Commons” with which we are able to investigate such problems dealing with the limited in danger commons. The commons in the Hardin’s article is defined similarly to a public open source shared with people without any regulations. Hardin expressed rapidly growing population inducts an infinite request for the infinite commons. The self and collective interests are two basic groups of interest. The only concern of a rational self-interested individual is to benefit from the commons as much as possible. Self-interests in the context of our study on deforestation can be realized by the hyper usage of the forests in producing fuel, building our house structures out of wood, and planting citrus fruits.

Whereas preserving the commons as a mutual beneficial source for all human beings, is what collective interests stand for. The wide variety of ecosystems protected by forests or the role of forests in counteracting global warming are among the critical collective interests of this common resource. Hardin introduced a category of problems with no technical solutions by pointing to the overpopulation issue for which a tragedy of commons is inevitable. Besides investigating the effectiveness of the technical solutions, Hardin claims that relying only on education and appeal to conscience the problem would not be disappeared. Based on Hardin’s terminology, the common in my study on deforestation is represented by the forests.

The forests are the common when deforestation happens. Indeed, the majority of terrestrial species from plants to animals extremely rely on the forests for their life’s continuance. Not only forests are key players in nutrient and hydrological cycles, but also are the sources of economic benefits by aiding humans in managing the harvesting of products such as rubber, nuts, and fruits. By definition, deforestation is the group of activities such as grazing, agriculture, and urban development to permanently uncover the land from forests (Van Kooten and Bulte, 2000). According to Hardin’s point of view, the self-interested rationalism is considered as the leading cause of the nightmare of the deforestation. Increasing their herds (their shares of the commons) is a stimulus (drive) dictated by the system in which the individuals live (Hardin, 1969). Within the primary agents responsible for deforestation; urban development, agriculture, and infrastructure are the ones which can wipe the land out of the forests. The agricultural settlement among other activities including logging, fuelwood, and urbanization are recognized as the main cause responsible for about sixty percent of deforestation in tropical areas (Myers, 1994; Anon, 1991; 1994). The scent of rational egoism by maximizing the self -benefits is smelled in all the above-mentioned reasons which result in complete vanishing of forests. Despite self-interested rationalism, collective interests assert a public request for the commons and especially forests in this situation. Forests inherently improve mineral wealth, carbon separation, energy transporting to the atmosphere and biodiversity. The vital mission of the forests within the context of the collective interests --which require protection--is to be freely accessible to all the species. Having mentioned the significance of the collective interests now is the time to focus on reliable solutions for that.

Two major classes of solutions are studied: technical and nontechnical solutions. It is considered a technical solution when dealing only with the techniques obtained from the natural sciences. Hardin believes that the tragedy of commons is not solvable only by technical solutions. For technical solutions of any issue; nonetheless, Hardin considers two variables supposed to be optimized simultaneously, he concluded that the motto of “the greatest good for the greatest number” is doomed to failure. Although technical solutions are temporarily decreasing the severity of the issue, they are not recognized as the permanent solution to the tragedy of the commons.

  As an instance in case of deforestation, is the green business; a technical solution that has an emphasis on reusing and recycling. This approach by modifying the ways of the resources utilization, remarkably reduce deforestation. It follows seriously not only a sharp decline in consuming artificial items like paper, plastics, and woods but also recycling those materials that directly extracted from forests. For instance, gathering of chips and make chipboard is an impressive way for reusing. Bringing up ethical consumerism by magnifying the importance of recycling of these materials, will result in less dependency on the natural resources including trees. It is the process by which imports of raw materials by both the governments and the companies of the other countries will be reduced. Green business, nevertheless, turns out to impose more cost on the investors which is clearly against the scent of rational egoism. Therefore, if hypothetically there is a company motivated to take part in green businesses, due to the already mentioned reason, it will not be a promising solution by itself. The fast rate of deforestation never can be managed with only technical solutions.

In addition to green business, reforestation is another technical solution which focuses on tree planting in debased areas while having some side benefits such as providing cooking fuel, livestock’s fodder, and wood for buildings (Berry, 1983). Although reforestation is one of the basic technical solutions of deforestation, two key factors must be considered. The first concern is a long time (a few decades) it takes for forests to be recovered (Chakravarty, 2012). Also, there are technical barriers against applying the reforestation in some degraded lands. For instance in a large area of dry and semi-dry area of China, even after more than a fifty years, the implanted trees have not adapted to the environment while they might instead aggravate the situation (Cao, 2010). Unsuccessful reforestation in China can be interpreted by considering the fact that lack of annual rain caused lower levels of soil moisture which is essential for growing the plants. Consequently, reforestation may not be able to recover the ecosystem that existed before. The story mentioned above about afforestation in China clearly shows the unreliability of the real technical solution. Despite the domain and the limited effectiveness of various technical solutions, it is almost impossible to pass through the deforestation crisis by only counting on technical solutions. Hardin in his paper, shows that the human values targeted by the technical solutions are hardly improved or changed. Therefore, individuals whose personalities have been overshadowed inclusively by the rational egoism, do not have a self-stimulatory inside them to worry about the commons scarcity. Hardin explains that even if a technical solution was effective, materializing that solution would have sought a tremendous effort for which a change in attitude would be mandatory.

This attitude change will be supported and developed by education. A study about of hundred Tawahka Amerindian families in the Honduran rainforest contained the importance of education and proper nurture on the removal of old-growth rainforest. The conclusions suggest: every year of education decreases the possibility of cutting old-growth rainforest about 4% and also decreases the area cut by 0.06 ha/family every year (Godoy,1998). In many situations adding the influence of education, appeal to conscience in this case: deforestation, invites people to utilize forests in a more ethical way . Hardin also claims the request to conscience comes with two main problems. In the long period, it is self-destructing. “Society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good- by means of his conscience. To make such an appeal is to set up a selective system that works towards the elimination of conscience from the race” (Hardin, 1968). Furthermore, Hardin added in such a system an individual whether he follows the appeal to conscience or not, he will be accused by the society. For the first situation, he is condemned by the public because of not condescending the social norms, while he is blamed for being a dupe as he stands by so the others exploit the resources. The double-binding element shows a large demand for imposed law and regulations to control the use of the commons in a more efficient and better way. Absence of these regulations hastens the process of deforestation. The World Bank evaluated, illegal logging takes businesses about $10-15 billion in lost revenue every year (World Bank, 2004). It is important to know that basic roots of illegal wood trades, insufficient enforcement and government instability stand out (Abugre and Kazaare, 2010).

Due to the wide range of affected areas by deforestation, the greed’s people’s activities will never be halted without law enforcement. While the majority of the people are being informed about the aftereffects of deforestation, always there are still some rational egoists who look for their instant economic benefits even if it costs endless detriments on the environment. The idea of “mutual coercion” is suggested by Hardin to prevent this disaster. Final undoubted solution by Hardin is to mutually coerce and agree upon by most members of the society. Hardin confirms the role of education, and he also knows that people should be aware of the dangerous results of depletion.

Brazilians’ attempts in implementing the mutual coercion toward tackling the crisis of deforestation can be considered as a case study in illuminating this special class of solution proposed by Hardin. Brazil, after the United States and China, was the most important source of global warming emissions and also was named one of the pioneer countries in deforestation for the last two decades (Boucher, 2014). The first law for restriction of deforestation in Brazil was imposed at the ’90s: The Action Plan Deforestation Prevention and Control in the Legal Amazon, “PPCDAm.” The primary function of PPCDAm was to affirm the formation of protected lands and recognition of native lands. It also demanded actions against illegal trades of wood and other related activities in regards to deforestation (Ricketts et al. 2010). In 2006, the release of Greenpeace’s report Eating Up the Amazon cause to an exciting change in Brazil’s soy industry. (Greenpeace International 2006). The report caused a powerful connection between the soybean industry and global warming, slave labor, water pollution, and deforestation (Boucher, 2014). After a few weeks, a law declare against buying any kinds of soybeans produced on lands of Amazon under deforestation. The next regulation against deforestation was  “The Cattle Moratorium” as indicated in Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report. First, the relation between forest depletion of the Amazon and the cattle field was recognized like the soy industry. After that, the ban on activities is happened by the law. More impressive was the action of the four biggest slaughterhouses in Brazil. They stated for a moratorium on deforestation within the Amazon environment even before the legislation of the law. Following that action, the slaughterhouses have to buy only from enrolled farmers in the rural lands. According to this unbelievable advancement, Brazil has planned to achieve 80 percent decrease in deforestation until 2020 and its achievement considerably is better than other countries (Boucher, 2014). Brazil’s Amazon approach is now accepted as a valuable model for any kind of activities against deforestation. Brazil’s Amazon method gives an excellent example of how forests, these worthy commons should be considered.

According to the significance of deforestation, which interlocked with Tragedy of Commons, it’s solution should be a combination of both technical and non-technical solution. As non-technical solutions public education, comprehensive laws and regulations are essentially the main factors in controlling and reducing deforestation. The greed’s people’s activities will never be stopped or be controlled with education only and strong law with suitable punishment is necessary to stop them and others. In regarding the technical solution, reforestation, reusing, and recycling are considered as some valuable approaches in reducing deforestation effectively. Education and recycling as a combination of non-technical and technical solutions respectively are generally applicable in any country and these basic factors do not depend on a specific country. Moreover, the outstanding experience of Brazilian for some compatible areas with Brazil will be successful.

A third of the earth’s land surface is covered by the forests which producing many profits (Chakravarty, 2012). Therefore, the increasing environmental crisis is a result of deforestation that the world is dealing with it now. The deforestation is an instance of the Tragedy of Commons because of self-interested rationalism which menaces the collective interests and protecting forests for the future generation. The generation for which overpopulation will be more threatening so is the depletion of not only forests but also any other commons. In examining both technical and non-technical solutions for deforestation, the most powerful ones are the non-technical and the technical ones are not as functional anymore. Therefore, using the common and increasing in population are not possible because of the lack of common sources. Hence, the solutions not only need to revolutionize the consumer culture but also require mutual coercion is publically welcomed and agreed upon by most of the members of the society. The amazing fight of Brazilian against deforestation has consistency with many regulations and laws. This example proves that strong and effective actions will happen when it gains the support of the majority of people. It also shows how useful and strong a movement would be when the majority of society unanimously supports it.

Bibliography:

1. Angelsen, A., and D. Kaimowitz. “Introduction: the Role of Agricultural Technologies in Tropical Deforestation.” Agricultural Technologies and Tropical Deforestation, pp. 1–17.,