A tragedy of commons shouldn’t need a tipping point for us to act
4 min read 07 Aug 2023, 09:03 PM ISTWe must address infractions that’ll add up to spell collective harm well before a point of no return
PremiumHave you ever waited patiently in a two-lane traffic jam and seen another vehicle overtake you to clog up the oncoming side as well? Or observed neighbours in colonies encroach on the space in front of their houses, well into the road? Or felt that although a WhatsApp group was started for a specific purpose (let’s say, a school alumni group), a few have hijacked the agenda and monopolized narratives, ruining the group’s cohesion, often driving some members away or causing the forum to splinter into sub-groups? If so, you have experienced a ‘tragedy of commons,’ a phenomenon named and studied by biologist Garret Hardin.
This phenomenon is best understood with Hardin’s example of a village that has a common grazing ground where villagers let their cattle graze and agree to tend to the fields. If all the villagers keep their promise, the system is stable. Even if a few act truant and allow their cattle to over-graze or shirk their share of tending work, the system functions. But once a tipping point of sneaky behaviour is reached, the selfishness of a few results in environmental destruction that leaves everyone deprived.
Deforestation, pollution, water scarcity, overfishing, radioactive dumping, corporate politics and even parochial politics of tribalism over nationhood are all manifestations of this phenomenon, where a few break the rules and soon everyone else follows. Another aspect of human behaviour exacerbates such deterioration. We tend to stay in our ‘comfort zones’ even while it becomes exceedingly uncomfortable. Those who alert others to the looming danger could find themselves persecuted for it, while the community ignores the red flags only because their comfort zones aren’t altered drastically—the key word being ‘drastically’. But the tipping point changes everything.
In 1994, Surat, Gujarat was struck by the bubonic plague. Notwithstanding the deaths of about 60, it was the sheer disgust factor of a medieval epidemic amid a rising India that galvanized the relevant administrative departments into action and cleaned up the city. It became a case study. But the Surat plague was not a tsunami or an earthquake. The plague didn’t strike overnight. It was the very same departments that allowed the situation to fester, with millions of rodents swarming putrid mounds of garbage dumps for years. It is not that civic groups had not complained about the health hazard and the menace of rodents before the plague. But it took that tipping point of national disgust to break the spiral of that tragedy of commons. However, it doesn’t always take a major scare like a plague to clean up a city or a nuclear holocaust to sign an arms proliferation treaty. Increased awareness of an ‘accepted’ malaise can alter mindsets over time.
Take, for example, the iconic role model Ian Fleming created—James Bond. From the chain smoking, heavy drinking, womanizing cavalier bachelor of the 60s, Bond evolved into a non-smoking, sensitive and committed father. The current generation may find it hard to believe that there was a female character in a Bond film Goldfinger named Pussy Galore. The franchise of James Bond reflects what society accepts and what it is disgusted by. Angst can also accumulate over time and erupt like the #MeToo movement or the Arab Spring. At some point, enough people come to see the status quo as unacceptable and take on powerful multi-billion dollar corporate-political nexuses, compelling them to change course. The anti-tobacco movement is an example. From being a ‘cool’ lifestyle statement till the early 2000s, tobacco consumption now faces censure and curbs, ranging from bans on smoking in public places and heavy taxation to graphic images on packets and the removal of deceptive terms like ‘mild’ or ‘light’ from cigarette branding to go with public awareness campaigns on the consequences of smoking. So much so that there are now investment portfolios that brand themselves as ‘tobacco free’, assuring investors that their wealth will never be invested in tobacco firms. All this shows that change is possible when a critical mass is achieved.
As a nation, we face many common tragedies. Climate change is literally lapping at our doorsteps, with unprecedented weather conditions causing floods and other forms of havoc, driving up prices of essential commodities. Economic indexes are alarming in terms of an uneven distribution of wealth and a chasm between youth aspirations and ground reality. The internal security situation is disturbing in multiple states. The next few months will be gripped by the cacophony of poll hustings, with tactical issues instead of strategically important ones likelier to be in focus. It all seems so overwhelming.
The irony of the tragedy of commons is that most people don’t view their personal engagement or involvement as impactful to the whole. The general thinking is: What difference does one individual’s contribution or dissent make? But, as seen in the overgrazing of grounds, pollution of the environment, deterioration of public discourse, debilitation of law-and-order and hijacking of WhatsApp groups, it all begins with a few individuals who break the rules and the many who choose to look away and condone it because it doesn’t affect them drastically—yet!
Raghu Raman is former CEO of the National Intelligence Grid, distinguished fellow at Observer Research Foundation and author of ‘Everyman’s War’.
