Garrett Hardin Quotations

Continuity is at the heart of conservatism: ecology serves that heart.

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.

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.

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.

But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property rights.

No one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.

Indeed, our particular concept of private property, which deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors pollution.

In an approximate way, the logic of commons has been understood for a long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention of private property in real estate.

However, I think the major opposition to ecology has deeper roots than mere economics; ecology threatens widely held values so fundamental that they must be called religious.

The rational man finds that his share of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them.

Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind in the long run by an appeal to conscience.

To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are required to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it.

A coldly rationalist individualist can deny that he has any obligation to make sacrifices for the future.

In a finite world this means that the per capita share of the world's goods must steadily decrease.

But it is no good using the tongs of reason to pull the Fundamentalists' chestnuts out of the fire of contradiction. Their real troubles lie elsewhere.

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.

Moreover, the practical recommendations deduced from ecological principles threaten the vested interests of commerce; it is hardly surprising that the financial and political power created by these investments should be used sometimes to suppress environmental impact studies.

Why are ecologists and environmentalists so feared and hated? This is because in part what they have to say is new to the general public, and the new is always alarming.

An attack on values is inevitably seen as an act of subversion.

Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a population is below its optimum.

The only kind of coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the natural and fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision with regard to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, and cannot be made by anyone else.

Using the commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier conditions, because there is no public, the same behavior in a metropolis is unbearable.

The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum.

The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements that create coercion, of some sort.

Fundamentalists are panicked by the apparent disintegration of the family, the disappearance of certainty and the decay of morality. Fear leads them to ask, if we cannot trust the Bible, what can we trust?

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.

To many, the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and irresponsible bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning.

The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the tragedy of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit.

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.

In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are always welcome.

Value is a relative concept: the value of each action is determined by comparing it with other possible actions.

You can never do merely one thing. The law applies to any action that changes something in a complex system. The point is that an action taken to alleviate a problem will trigger several effects, some of which may offset or even negate the one intended.

Economists (and others) who are satisfied with nature-free equations develop a dangerous hubris about the potency of our species

The rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; 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.

Never globalize a problem if it can possibly be dealt with locally.

Throughout history, human exploitation of the earth has produced this progression: colonize-destroy-move on.

Thou shalt not transgress the carrying capacity

There is nothing more dangerous than a shallow thinking compassionate person

The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality.

Every measured thing is part of a web of variables more richly interconnected than we know.

Numeracy: 1. The art of putting numbers to things, that is, assigning amounts to variables in order that practical decisions may be reach. 2. That aspect of education (beyond mere literacy) which takes account of quantitative aspects of reality.

The three filters [against folly] operate through these particular questions: Literacy: What are the words? Numeracy: What are the numbers? Ecolacy: And then what?

Incommensurables cannot be compared.

People are the quintessential element in all technology... Once we recognize the inescapable human nexus of all technology our attitude toward the reliability problem is fundamentally changed.

The greatest folly is to accept expert statements uncritically. At the very least, we should always seek another opinion.

Every plausible policy must be followed by the question 'And then what?'

In the specific case of abortion, the matter is particularly easy in that no woman wants a late abortion. Once abortion was made legal, the age of the aborted fetus went down. The slope slipped in the other direction. If we legalize RU-486 and other similar new drugs, the age will fall to one week or less and start approaching zero. The slippery slope will slide in the other direction. The only reason we have late abortions is because we make early abortion difficult.

Ecological differentiation is the necessary condition for coexistence.

Religious reasons, which is no reason. I notice Skeptic had a review of Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Religious reasons amount to what Dennett terms "skyhooks." Do you believe in skyhooks? I don't.

The morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.

It takes five years for a willing person's mind to change. Have patience with yourself and others when treading in an area protected by a taboo.

We can't cure a shortage by increasing the supply.

The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things.

The god who is reputed to have created fleas to keep dogs from moping over their situation must also have created fundamentalists to keep rationalists from getting flabby. Let us be duly thankful for out blessings.

What features of your daily life do you expect to be improved by a further increase in population?

The only thing we can really count on in this uncertain world is human unreliability itself.

The exquisite sight, sound, and smell of wilderness is many times more powerful if it is earned through physical achievement, if it comes at the end of a long and fatiguing trip for which vigorous good health is necessary. Practically speaking, this means that no one should be able to enter a wilderness by mechanical means.

We see only what we have names for.

(Technology reliability) x (Human reliability) = (System reliability)

In a competitive world of limited resources, total freedom of individual action is intolerable

Society does not need more children; but it does need more loved children. Quite literally, we cannot afford unloved children - but we pay heavily for them every day. There should not be the slightest communal concern when a woman elects to destroy the life of her thousandth-of-an-ounce embryo. But all society should rise up in alarm when it hears that a baby that is not wanted is about to be born.

You cannot do only one thing.