The Tragedy of the Commons: Beyond Zero-Sum

There is only so much water. Everyone wants some. And not only some, but all of it. It is in the pursuit of self-interest. But not only self-interest, but the interests of family, friends, or community. Competition is inevitable. Everyone fights for this resource, they have access, and each one gets a piece of it, some more than others, until there is no more to fight over. No more water. Everyone dies. It is a zero-sum game.

The phrase is attributed to Garrett Hardin, who is associated with racism and eugenics. His argument was based on overpopulation. Some people are having too many children. These people are using up all the resources, leaving none for the rest.

Obviously, the reality is not quite so simplistic. It is generally the well-to-do that consume much more than the average family from a peripheral society. However, given the chance, the average family from a peripheral society would replace the well-to-do.

This is also too simplistic. What God ever decreed that life is a zero-sum game? A battle to the death ending in a Pyrrhic victory?

Assuming there is 1,000 liters of water

“It is our water!”

“No, it is ours!”

“Okay, how about we divide the water?”

“Sure, since you are 5% of the population, we get 95%.”

“No, no, no. You breed too much. Have fewer babies.”

“No, no, no. You consume more than what my babies consume.”

“So if we have 10 liters of water and you have 10 children, each child gets 1 liter. If you have 5 children, each child gets 2 liters. Wait, you want your babies to consume little?”

“No, I want each child to consume as much as you do – 50 liters.”

“At 50 liters apiece, we’d have no water left!”

“Take it or leave it!”

This is called “catching-up development”. If you have everything, I want everything you have. Everyone wants a slice of the pie, or reservoir. But there is only so much resource. Clashes arise. As everyone tries to “catch up”, there are further strains on resources. Everyone wants 50 liters of water.

Just waiting in sight is the presumption that there is nothing beyond the pie or reservoir. Beyond the Malthusian paradigm there is the reciprocal society. Thomas Robert Malthus postulated that rapid population growth would overwhelm food production capabilities. There would be famine and anguish.

One cannot fully blame Malthus. Observing the non-human animal kingdom, one can see the competition for resources, the starvation, and the extinctions. Cats breed too much. Not spayed or neutered. They suffer. Quite Darwinian. One might even say Social Darwinian. Yes, the survival of the fittest. The genetically and socially most fit and superior are fit to survive. There is no room for the autistic or handicapped. You either survive or you perish. They survive, they proliferate, and they die from lack of resources. It assumes a lot about human nature, overlooking the centrality of culture.

Nonetheless, the reciprocal societies and indigenous tribes have demonstrated the value of cooperation rather than competition. In reciprocal societies, items are not enumerated. Giving a pen to a sibling is the same as the sibling giving a book. In the commercial world, a pen is worth this amount and a book worth that amount.

People used to live on scraps and with no knowledge of germ theory. Humanity has overcome insurmountable odds. From roadblocks to detours, scarcity to plentitude, and selfishness to selflessness. And back again…

In my opinion, the ills of society today is the mindset of winner-take-all. In reality, it is so much more than that. It is to go beyond the limitations of the zero-sum game, which is not possible when everyone wants more of the imaginary pie. Even if there is no actual pie.

In logic, there are necessary and sufficient conditions. Necessary means it is a prerequisite, that it is a required but does not guarantee anything. Sufficient means that it includes the necessary prerequisite and guarantees the result. Perhaps the pie is representative of something, but it is not sufficient for any result.

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. He is mortal.

Necessary is the premise that all men are mortal. Sufficient is that following that premise,
Socrates, as a man, must be mortal.

Zero-sum assumes that because you win some, I must lose some. Let us assume this is the necessary premise. It is ubiquitous from sports to politics to war. All people participate in this (A). You are a person (B). Therefore you participate in the zero-sum game (C). It is sufficient because the conclusion necessarily follows from the initial premise. Totally wrong. One need not lose because another wins. Can we go beyond this, in a win-win situation? Game theory could perhaps provide many more insights, as well as scientific innovations to extend beyond limited resources. However, insights and innovation can only go so far. More to the fact, what does it even mean to win or lose? There comes a time when people need to ask themselves: “When is enough actually enough?” and can we actually get along without enumerating wins or losses personally, politically, or economically?

In a smaller-scale society, perhaps this reciprocal society can be achieved. In a larger society, it remains to be seen. Surely, there are limited resources. Competition and corruption reigns. At the same time, cooperation can become triumphant, for better or worse.

We cannot choose the necessary. It is given to us. What is sufficient? I cannot say, since nothing is guaranteed to follow. Ideals are not enough, especially when history shows itself as imbalanced predation interspersed with humane nuance. There is no “therefore” nor “If…then.” Perhaps that is what makes the social sciences both infuriating and endearing. There is logic, but people defy logic, for better or worse. Alone, we go fast; together we go far. But if we can go far, in what manner or form could it take?

I leave with the transcendent poem of William Blake:

Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush’d away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fly_(poem)