How does this lesson affect those of us who don’t need to graze our cattle? Well, like the cows, we all need food, water, and clean air to survive. The soil eroded, the plants died, then the cattle died, and, ultimately, some of the people died. Like the herdsmen in 1800s Oxford, the nomads increased their heads of cattle without planning for its impact on the greater good. Outside the fence was land used by nomads. The reason was simple: the fenced land was privately owned by informed farmers who carefully rotated their grazing animals and allowed the fields to lie fallow periodically. Outside the fence, the ground was bare and devastated. There was a large fenced area, where plenty of grass was growing. The images depicted a dark irregular area of more than 300 square miles. Satellite photos of Africa taken in the 1970s showed this practice to dramatic effect. So there was an incentive for them to add more head of cattle, and no incentive for restraint. Cattle grazers benefitted from adding more cattle to their herds, but they did not have to take on the responsibility of the lands that were being damaged by overgrazing. However, since no one was held responsible for the land (as it was open to all), no one was willing to make sacrifices to improve it. Back in the 1800s, Oxford economist William Forster Lloyd looked at the devastated public grazing commons and the unhealthy cattle subject to such limited resources, and saw, in essence, that the carrying capacity of the commons had been exceeded. But Hardin was not the first to notice the phenomenon. You might have heard the expression “the tragedy of the commons.” In 1968, an article of the same title written by Garrett Hardin described how a common pasture was ruined by overgrazing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |