Part 1 - Tick-Tack-Toe

Play five games of tick-tack-toe with your partner.

• Who won?
• If no-one won, explain why?
• When the game is stale-mated what can you do to resolve the problem so that someone can win?
• It is said that the game has “no technical solution”. What do you think this means?
  Reading Comprehension
  
  Now read an extract from an article that explains defines “no technical solution” and compare your answers with it. Once you have completed reading it, answer the questions that follow.

Extract 1
At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, J.B. Wiesner and H.F. York concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race are…confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation.''

I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem…A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality. …

…Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of tick-tack-toe?" It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the conventions of game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put another way, there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by giving a radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; or I can falsify the records. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, an abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, of course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it. This is what most adults do.)

From : "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 162(1968):1243-1248

Questions

1. What is a “technical solution” to a problem?
2. In relation to the nuclear arms race what will happen if countries look for technical solutions?
3. What is required to have a “non-technical solution” to a problem?
4. According to the author how can you “win” at tick-tack-toe?

You have been reading from the article called 'The Tragedy of the Commons' by Garrett Hardin published in the journal Science in 1968. It is predominantly concerned with rising population and its impact on the environment. The article claims that global problems are often caused by one particular aspect of human behaviour: the individual placing their rights over those of the community, in other words it is an “every man for himself” attitude. In the following passages you will explore this concept and how Garrett Hardin believes it can be controlled.

Extract 2: “The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number”

Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," or, as we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the per-capita share of the world's goods must decrease. Is ours a finite world?

A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is infinite or that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical problems that we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable technology, it is clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during the immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial human population is finite. "Space" is no escape.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero. (The case of perpetual wide fluctuations above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed.) When this condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, can Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be realized? …

….To live, any organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy is utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man maintenance of life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day ("maintenance calories"). Anything that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as work, and is supported by "work calories" which he takes in. Work calories are used not only for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all forms of enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and writing poetry. 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.

…The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. The difficulty of defining the optimum is enormous; so far as I know, no one has seriously tackled this problem. Reaching an acceptable and stable solution will surely require more than one generation of hard analytical work -- and much persuasion.

We want the maximum good per person; but what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is estuaries to nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another it is factory land. Comparing one good with another is, we usually say, impossible because goods are incommensurable. Incommensurables cannot be compared.

Theoretically this may be true; but in real life incommensurables are commensurable. Only a criterion of judgment and a system of weighting are needed. In nature the criterion is survival. Is it better for a species to be small and hideable, or large and powerful? Natural selection commensurates the incommensurables. The compromise achieved depends on a natural weighting of the values of the variables…

…Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present time, even on an intuitive level? One simple fact proves that none has: there is no prosperous population in the world today that has, and has had for some time, a growth rate of zero. Any people that has intuitively identified its optimum point will soon reach it, after which its growth rate becomes and remains zero.

Questions

1. According to Malthus populations grow geometrically. Give a synonym for ‘geometrical growth’.
2. What is ‘per-capita’?
3. What is the consequence of seeing the world as limitless?
4. Although it is not stated explicitly in the text why is going to other planets not a solution to problems of population growth?
5. What is Bentham’s goal?
6. Why does Hardin think that Bentham’s goal is unachievable?
7. What is the optimum human population?
8. How can you determine what would be acceptable for everyone, as everyone has different tastes?
9. According to Hardin has any prosperous society achieved optimum population?

The following excerpt deals with how the ideal of an optimum population has become entrenched in modern economic thinking. For Hardin it is due to an interpretation of the writings of eighteenth century thinker Adam Smith. Now read the text below and answer the questions.

Extract 3: Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand

In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations (1776) [by Adam Smith] popularized the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual who "intends only his own gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible hand to promote…the public interest." Adam Smith did not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of his followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has ever since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, namely, the tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be the best decisions for an entire society. …

Questions

1. Paraphrase ‘…the individual who “intends only his own gain,”..’
2. Paraphrase ‘…"led by an invisible hand”…”
3. Paraphrase ‘…the public interest…’
4. Did Adam Smith believe his idea of the invisible hand was true in all cases?
5. What was Smith’s major influence on our way of thinking?

Extract 4

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons

…The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all [called ‘the commons’]. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy. [20]

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component. [21]

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1. [22]

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision ­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1. [23]

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. [24]

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the forces of psychological denial. The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers. Education can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the inexorable succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be constantly refreshed. [25]

1. What are the commons? Paragraph 20.
2. Each herdsman will try to increase to a maximum their number of cattle. On what conditions can this situation continue for along time? Paragraph 20
3. What happens when “social stability”is achieved through a cessation of tribal wars, poaching, and disease? Paragraph 20.
4. What are the consequences of a farmer adding more cattle to the commons? Paragraph 21-24.
5. What is the result when everyone pursues their own best interests? Paragraph 24.
6. Paraphrase the concept of 'The Tragedy of the Commons'.

ANSWERS (in prep)

Listening

To clarify your understanding of the concept of the Tragedy of the Commons you can listen to Garrett Hardin explaining The Tragedy of the Commons on Youtube.

Part 2: A Non-Technical Solution: Education

As you have discovered a solution exists through education; the transmission of knowledge and wisdom. Read an extract from the ancient Chinese philosophical text the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse (6-4th Century BCE) then answer the questions that follow.

22. Futility of Contention

To yield is to be preserved whole.

To be bent is to become straight.

To be hollow is to be filled.

To be tattered is to be renewed.

To be in want is to possess.

To have plenty is to be confused.

Therefore the Sage embraces the One,

And becomes the model of the world.

He does not reveal himself,

And is therefore luminous.

He does not justify himself,

And is therefore far-famed.

He does not boast of himself,

And therefore people give him credit.

He does not pride himself,

And is therefore the chief among men.

Is it not indeed true, as the ancients say,

"To yield is to be preserved whole?"

Thus he is preserved and the world does him homage.

http://www.galilean-library.org/tao.html

Tao Te Ching by Lao Tse (6C-4C BCE, Before the Common Era)

Questions

1) Read the following definitions from the Webster’s Online Dictionary and choose one that best describes the poem by Lao tse.

A) Contradiction
A proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something. Logical incongruity. A situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another
B) Metaphor
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money); broadly : figurative language
C) Paradox:
A statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true
D) Simile:
A figure of speech comparing two unlike things that is often introduced by like or as (as in cheeks like roses)

2) Read the first part of the poem say what message you think the poet is trying to convey to you.
3) Read the second part of the poem again and say who the poet is talking about. Then say what his message is to that person.

Answers to come in the next post

© All Copyright, 2007, Ray Genet

Return to
Nature, Art & Language