Garrett Hardin

Le cas de la pollution tendrait donc à montrer que, dans certains cas, la propriété est incapable de conduire à une gestion raisonnable et durable des ressources naturelles. Le cas des externalités négatives apparaît alors comme une ¹ Hardin, « The Tragedy of the Commons », 12. ² Ibid. 12.

Πανταζίδης Σ. (Υπό Δημοσίευση). Η Παιδαγωγική των εκπαιδευτικών κοινών: Μία προσέγγιση κριτικής εκπαίδευσης. Πρακτικά του 4ου Πανελλήνιο Συνεδρίου Κριτικής Εκπαίδευσης Η Κριτική Εκπαίδευση στον 21οαι.: προκλήσεις και προτάσεις.

Η παρούσα εργασία έχει σκοπό να παρουσιάσει τη σχολική εκπαίδευση μέσα από την οπτική της λογικής και ηθικής των κοινών. Τα «κοινά» στην εκπαίδευση –ή αλλιώς τα Εκπαιδευτικά κοινά– δίνουν τη δυνατότητα προαγωγής εναλλακτικών παιδαγωγικών διαδικασιών. Στη λογική αυτή, «ανοίγει ο δρόμος» διαμόρφωσης οριζόντιων τρόπων σκέψης και δράσης, απαλλαγμένων από παγιωμένες κοινωνικές πρακτικές, συνήθειες και σχέσεις.  Βασική παράμετρος για να μετατραπεί κάτι σε «κοινό» (ή αλλιώς να «κοινοποιηθεί») είναι να ακολουθεί την τριαδική δόμηση «πόρος–κοινότητα–κανόνες». Ουσιαστικά, ο πόρος μπορεί να λειτουργήσει ως μια αφορμή ώστε τα μέλη μιας κοινότητας (οι κοινωνοί) να συνεργαστούν, να μοιραστούν και να εμπιστευτούν ο ένας τον άλλον, καθώς και να θεσπίσουν κανόνες για τη συνδιαχείρισή του. Η λογική των κοινών συνδέεται με την κριτική εκπαίδευση διότι προωθούν το όραμα της κοινωνικοπολιτικής αλλαγής και υποστηρίζουν ένα πλαίσιο επαναδιαπραγμάτευσης των καθημερινών όρων στο σχολικό περιβάλλον.

The present work aims to present school education through the lens of the logic and ethics of the commons. The "commons" in education –or otherwise Educational commons– allow for the promotion of alternative pedagogical processes. In this logic, "the way is paved" for the formation of horizontal ways of thinking and action, free from entrenched social practices, habits, and relationships. A key parameter for something to be transformed into a "common" (or to be "commonized") is to follow the triadic structure of "resource–community–rules". Essentially, the resource can serve as a pretext for the members of a community (the commoners) to collaborate, share, and trust each other, as well as to establish rules for its co-management. The logic of the commons is connected to critical education because they promote the vision of socio-political change and support a framework for renegotiating the daily terms in the school environment.

This contribution offers an historical conceptual analysis of the population question, as it was articulated by Neo-Malthusian intellectuals G. Hardin and P. Ehrlich before 1972 UN Stockholm Conference. Starting from the conceptualization of nature by T.R. Malthus, the essay then assesses the theoretical and historical continuities and discontinuities that qualify the Twentieth century environmental reappraisal of Malthus’ doctrines. In so doing, the essay also proposes a different understanding of the so-called ‘Malthusian moment’ that contributed to shape the birth of global environmentalism. It is argued that the political core of both Malthus’ and environmental Neo-Malthusianism relates to the effort of making nature an un-common ground for the people, one that legitimizes social and political hierarchies. The case made by both Ehrlich and Hardin for “coercive” birth control – in polemic with women’s claim for reproductive rights – is granted particular attention. Their environmental thinking conveys the idea that all people are passengers of “Spaceship Earth”, while they hold different responsibilities to preserve it. Thus, the environmental revival of the Malthusian law of population reshapes the understanding of the “optimum” relation between population and resources, contributing to the formation of the scientific environment that influenced 1972 UN Conference.

Critiques of the misconstrued thesis of Garrett Hardin's (1968) classic essay entitled The Tragedy of the Commons from the futility of technical solution for overpopulation crisis to concern of managing the commons are well documented. However, little is known of the remote and proximate causes of the pejorative confusion about the important essay. This article engages the discursive reconstruction of Hardin's thesis focussing on the original intent, which is the unscrupulousness of unchecked human breeding as the critical factor in the tragedy of the earth's commons. Deployed is an eloquent metaphor, the devil in the number, and thematic analysis of the (Hardin's) essay and systematic review of relevant and related literature before and after the essay was published in 1968. The texts reinvent and reinforce the illogic of overpopulating the world while simultaneously pursuing the technocratic solutions to nature's burden. The article reports four marked factors that swayed the perception of Hardin's thesis. In effect, the attempt stimulates a discourse showcasing the significance of Hardin's essay, particularly the global lackadaisical attitude towards overpopulation as a strategic, if not the single most important, factor in the overburdened ecosystem and, by extension, as the harbinger for the socioeconomic and governance crisis across the global divides.

The term "commons" is used with increasing frequency in the public debate and scientific literature in various fields (including economics and sociology). However, this term is often ambiguous and used to denote quite different things. Obviously, any concept, and therefore also the concept of "commons", does not have an "essence". Clear definitions do not serve to capture what something is in itself, but only to rigorously specify what use is made of a given expression. In other words, linguistic precision is not a value in itself, but becomes necessary when misunderstandings can arise-as happens in the case under discussion. This article critically revisits the notion itself of "commons". It is based on an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. However, the intent is not to provide an overview of the state of the art but to suggest a critical reframing of the discourse. The overall aim is not solely to distinguish different uses of the term; it is also to clarify the real scope and meaning of each definition of it-such as the one proposed by Elinor Ostrom, which is too often inappropriately invoked. As the article demonstrates, Ostrom's view on many issues perfectly aligns with the Hayekian account of the evolutionary, emerging nature of a significant number of successful institutions and forms of organization.

Elsewhere I have argued that, historically, the public and private funding of health care has been fueled primarily by four mixed motives, namely, the redemptive, the utilitarian, the prudential, and the charitable motives. In this paper, I further explore what I call the unifying moral force of the philanthropic imperative. The philanthropic imperative interfaces these four motives by potentially appealing to the consciences of wealthier Northern countries to provide medical resources to the sick and hurting in the typically poorer South. This, as a matter of our collective duty to others consistent with the teachings of Immanuel Kant, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Peter Singer, among others. Essentially, the philanthropic imperative states that we have a duty to reduce sickness and suffering and promote, as generously as possible, the health of our fellow human beings. The philanthropic imperative thus invites individuals and governments to ponder the related questions: How ought we proceed to effectively and sustainably relieve the suffering of others? And why ought we give away valuable medical resources to the hurting in foreign countries, resources that we may eventually need for the welfare of our own citizens at some future date? I conclude by confronting the twin objections from futility and from limited medical resources. At bottom, I indicate how the philanthropic imperative both transcends and overrides these objections and, in so doing, potentially strengthens the funding of both national and transnational public health care programs. Finally, the philanthropic imperative is shown to complement the environmental and public health goals of The Earth Charter.

Para apresentar respostas e posicionamentos à crise ambiental mundial, os brasileiros-ou ao menos muitos brasileiros-precisamos antes de tudo descobrir / inventar / cultivar uma identidade "ambiental". É sobre esse ponto que focalizarei a minha intervenção. Das duas, uma: (i) ou bem somos um povo que usa os seus recursos e a sua biodiversidade de forma predatória e imprevidente; (ii) ou bem somos um país que quer usá-los de forma racional, ou prudente, ou até que quer preservá-los.

Earth, the orbit, is different from any other place in the universe due to its proximity to our planet and the impact humans have on the area. Humanity needs to stop thinking of the planet's orbit as just a part of the vastness of space[.]"). 4. See Rep. of the Comm. on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space on Its Sixty-Second Session, at 50, U.N. Doc. A/74/20 (2019) [hereinafter COPUOS, Sixty-Second] ("[O]uter space should remain an operationally stable and safe environment that is maintained for peaceful purposes and open for exploration, use and international cooperation by current and future generations, in the interest of all. .. .").

This paper examines whether public perceptions of the claimed advantages and disadvantages of fracking are consistent with an evidence-based assessment of the claimed advantages and disadvantages. Public assessments are obtained from an internet-based opinion survey in 2014 in six states: California, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas. The survey presented eleven advantages and eleven disadvantages of fracking derived from local media stories, from advocacy claims made by pro- or anti-fracking groups, and from think tank pieces. Then the respondents were asked to indicate their feelings about how important each claimed advantage and disadvantage was to their support of/opposition to fracking. Scientific assessments regarding the same claims are compiled from available peer-reviewed literature and evidence-based reviews. We classify each claim as either (a) supported by the weight of the available evidence, (b) not supported by the weight of the available evidence, or ...

Ecocritics tend to think of environmentalism as a form of resistance against the anthropocentrism of Western modernity. Such a view stands in contrast to biopolitical theory, which sees modernity in terms of a naturalization of the human and a generalized effort to increase the productivity of life that cuts across species lines. Building on the work of Roberto Esposito, this process can be described as a radicalized form of ecological immunization whereby humans and their domesticates are protected from the risks that attend membership in ecological communities, resulting in an “unnatural growth of the natural” (H. Arendt). The self-destructive strategies of immunization which characterize biopolitical modernity are based on a conception of life in terms of competition over scarce resources, inevitably leading to Malthusian crises. Lynn Margulis’ understanding of evolution as symbiogenesis offers an alternative on which an affirmative biopolitics balancing the demands of immunity a...

This contribution presents a bibliographical itinerary on Twentieth century environmental revival of Malthusian doctrines. After introducing both the main conceptual strains inherent to the topic, and their scientific interest the essay takes into consideration the Post-WWII emergence of global environmentalism. A survey of the texts of 1960s and 1970s exponents of Neo-Malthusian environmentalism shows the important role played by this tradition of thought in shaping environmental concerns on both the scientific and the governmental level. The itinerary ends with an analysis of the main authors and strains of enquiry that have assessed the historical and conceptual relevance of Neo-Malthusian environmentalism. It is argued that more researches into Malthus’ legacy over time could grant significant theoretical gains both for the history of political thought, and its entanglments with the history of environmentalism.

More than 50 years ago biologist Garrett Hardin published his influential essay 'The Tragedy of the Commons'. In his essay, Hardin argued that in situations where people share resources, external intervention via governmental regulations or privatization of the resource is needed to avoid resource overexploitation. While the article is considered by many resource governance scholars as misleading and incomplete, it is one of the most assigned articles in environmental studies courses. Here, we present findings from a survey of instructors who teach undergraduate courses on sustainability within the USA on how Hardin's essay is used and what the understanding is of the instructors about the essay. The results from the survey demonstrate that there is a mixed understanding of the current state of knowledge about commons governance. In particular, instructors trained in the natural sciences have more misconceptions about commons governance than instructors trained in other disciplines.

Este trabajo busca pensar lo común en un desplazamiento de lo filosófico a lo político. Se inicia con contribuciones de Jean-Luc Nancy y Roberto Esposito para pensar lo común en términos ontológicos e impolíticos. En seguida, se comentan la teoría de la tragedia de los comunes de Garrett Hardin y su refutación por parte de Elinor Ostrom y otros. Más adelante, se aborda la nueva ola de cercamientos de los comunes y la posibilidad de su reinvención a la altura de los desafíos políticos, económicos, sociales y ambientales del siglo XXI. Para ello, se comentan las reflexiones de Hardt y Negri y de Dardot y Laval, quienes teorizan políticamente lo común enfatizando la dimensión de la praxis instituyente.

population growth have been used to justify all manner of interventions, including some, such as forced abortions and sterilisations, that are morally repugnant. The indirect effects have often also been dreadful. For example, China's 'one child' policy appears to have resulted in a significant increase in abandonment and infanticide, especially of girls (Johansson and Nygren 1991). In this issue, Randal O'Toole addresses a seemingly more prosaic issue but nonetheless one with widespread implications: policies predicated on the assumption that it is possible to impose optimum population densities on urban areas. He argues that the density which emerges from the free choices of individuals will vary across time, place and technology-and should not be subject to attempts at central planning. If nothing else, the diverse articles in this issue of the EJSD show that forty years after the publication of The Population Bomb, there remains considerable disagreement regarding the relationships between population growth, technological change, food availability, environmental impact, and human well-being. Readers are encouraged to make up their own minds about who is right and who is wrong.

issue of Science (1). Hardin questioned society's ability to manage shared resources and avoid an environmentally and socially calamitous free-for-all. In the 50 years since, the essay has influenced discussions ranging from climate change (see page 1217) to evolution, from infectious disease to the internet, and has reached far beyond academic literature-but not without criticism. Considerable work, notably by Nobelist Elinor Ostrom (2) , has challenged Hardin, particularly his emphasis on property rights and government regulatory leviathans as solutions. Instead, research has documented contexts, cases, and principles that reflect the ability of groups to collectively govern common resources. To mark this anniversary and celebrate the richness of research and practice around commons and cooperation, Science invited experts to share some contemporary views on such tragedies and how to avert them.-Brad Wible GOVERNANCE Tragedy revisited Collective actions, cultural norms

Elsewhere I have argued that, historically, the public and private funding of health care has been fueled primarily by four mixed motives, namely, the redemptive, the utilitarian, the prudential, and the charitable motives. In this paper, I further explore what I call the unifying moral force of the philanthropic imperative. The philanthropic imperative interfaces these four motives by potentially appealing to the consciences of wealthier Northern countries to provide medical resources to the sick and hurting in the typically poorer South. This, as a matter of our collective duty to others consistent with the teachings of Immanuel Kant, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Peter Singer, among others. Essentially, the philanthropic imperative states that we have a duty to reduce sickness and suffering and promote, as generously as possible, the health of our fellow human beings. The philanthropic imperative thus invites individuals and governments to ponder the related questions: How ought we procee...

Pour beaucoup de commentateurs, la récente crise financière trouve son origine dans l'évolution de la science économique depuis les années 1970. Bien sûr, va l'argument, l'appétit au gain, les comportements mimétiques ou la défaillance des régulateurs ont joué un rôle direct. Mais in fine tout ceci aurait été permis par la pensée des économistes. La proposition n'est pas banale, puisqu'en somme elle affirme un effet puissant de l'observateur ou du théoricien sur la réalité qu'il étudie. Un tel pouvoir met donc en question le statut contemporain de la science économique, tout à la fois comme la plus forte, la plus légitime et la plus politique des sciences sociales. Cette critique de l'économie et des économistes est cependant différenciée. Par exemple, les questions du libre−échange, de la privatisation ou du marché du travail ne sont pas vraiment affectées par la crise. Plus généralement, celle−ci n'est pas en soi une crise de la globalisation, même si à certains moments des scénarios catastrophe auraient pu la mettre en question. L'axe central des critiques, on le sait, porte sur la finance et ses liens avec la régulation monétaire et les banques centrales. Greenspan, donc, est Le Grand Mort de la crise : il a formalisé puis coagulé autour de sa pratique une doctrine de la politique monétaire qui a contribué à la crise, mais aussi à une réaction insuffisante face à ses signes avant−coureurs. Par des publications très nombreuses, la profession économique a aussi donné son aval à cette doctrine et elle se trouve donc mise en question aujourd'hui, sur deux plans : le travail scientifique proprement dit et les règles internes à cette communauté épistémique, qui n'a pas su accorder toute l'attention nécessaire aux analyses et aux signaux divergents. De fait c'est un certain conformisme interne qui est mis en question. Ainsi, il serait amusant, ou navrant, de relire aujourd'hui les articles autorisés qui, en 1994, ont marqué dans la presse les cinquante ans de la mort de Keynes. L'homme était remarquable, concédait− on, mais l'oeuvre irrémédiablement passée. Ceci pose donc la question de la capacité de légitimation de l'économie dans l'espace public. C'est−à−dire cette relation sans pareil entre une discipline souvent absconse, très fermée sur elle−même, et l'exercice légitime du pouvoir dans la société, que ce soit par les financiers, les experts, les politiques ou les économistes. C'est sans doute sur ce plan que le débat est resté un peu en retrait. Une discipline et ses usages publics L'histoire a désormais été racontée à de nombreuses reprises 1. Dans un premier temps, la science économique a construit une représentation hautement abstraite du marché comme mécanisme presque parfait d'autorégulation sociale −− donc une théorie radicalement non politique et non institutionnelle.

Extinction-the causes and consequences of the disappearance of species. New York, Ballantine Books, 1985 [1981]. 384p.

Resenha escrita por José Augusto Drummond.

Paul Ehrlich (1932), norte-americano, zoólogo de formação, é professor e pesquisador de biologia e ecologia. A sua esposa, Anne Ehrlich (1933), também norte-americana e bióloga, fez carreira acadêmica nas mesmas áreas, junto com o marido, na Stanford University e é coautora constante de livros e artigos escritos com ele. Os dois são escritores prolíficos, tendo alcançado fama planetária por causa do seu polêmico livro, o best seller The Population Bomb, de 1968. Ela e o marido ocuparam cargos em importantes ONGs ambientalistas dos EUA.

ABSTRACTThe exhaustion of natural resources is partly due to natural causes but is also a result of human activity. The effects of human activity depend on the type of natural resource, especially the management of biological populations. If there is free access to the resource, rivalry can to rise. For renewable resources, the rate of use or harvest must not exceed the regeneration rate, but individual rationality leads to over-exploitation. This occurs because the benefits of exploitation accrue to individuals, each of which is motivated to maximize his own use of the resource, while the costs of overexploitation are distributed between all those to whom the resource is available: it's the "Tragedy of the Commons". Prisoner's Dilemma does not to capture all the characteristics of the "Tragedy of the Commons" of renewable resources, especially the progressive scarcity of the resource, and the interaction among several people. We study in the frame of gam...

The ability to make explicit representations of the relationship between human society and the biophysical world has become increasingly critical in the face of increased human population along with desires among that population for higher standards of living, which entail increased demands on natural resources In this manuscript, we attempt to show that the thesis offered in Garritt Hardin's influential "Tragedy ofthe Commons" (1968) essay provides the basis for an integrated representation of human society and the earth. To that end, we integrate it with a conceptual model grounded in Niklass Luhmann's concept of society as communication. We first describe Hardin's thesis and common responses to it. We then describe development of a conceptual model that simulates human society based on Luhmann's (1979, 1989, 1992) concept of social function systems. Lastly, we couple this societal model with Hardin's thesis via a simplified grazing commons. We show how an interaction pattern between human society and the environment that is consistent with Hardin's recommendation that the rule oflaw, or mutually applied coercion, could offer an alternative to the dilemma that leads to the tragedy. Our attempt to explicitly integrate and simulate biophysical and societal processes, while no doubt simplistic, should stimulate both debate and further attempts to better understand how human society and the environment interact, thus furthering our understanding of environmental policy formation and implementation.

Way back in 1968, an ecologist, Garret Hardin, wrote a now-famous essay for the journal Science called "The Tragedy of the Commons." The idea Hardin presents is relatively simple: Individuals that act independently and rationally according to their own economic self-interest can behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group by taking advantage of common resources. The commons refer to resources which can be used by anyone, yet owned by no one, such as air and water. When users of the same common compete for the same resources, that leads to an unsustainable situation. And, that is a tragedy of the commons.

This essay takes the motif of ruin as an entry point for a foray into the subject of the commons. It engages Garrett Hardin’s nearly unknown discussions of literature and poetry to shed critical light on his famous idea of “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and on the general relation of the commons to questions of language and measure. To summon resources for thinking against enclosure, the essay follows an itinerary that constellates historian J. M. Neeson, the philosopher Gilles Deleuze, the poet and theorist Fred Moten, and the Romantic poetry of William Wordsworth.

Ortak mal, orta malı, ortak varlık, ortak alanlar veya müşterekler, herhangi bir mülkiyet hakkı barındırmayan, girişlerin serbest, herkesin kullanımına açık olan, tüketiciler tarafından kullanımın engellenmediği alanlardır. Ortak alanların bir bölümü devlete ait; bir bölümü ise herkese açık alanlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Atmosfer, yeraltı yerüstü suları, açık denizler, balık avlanma alanları, doğal plajlar, su rezervleri, ormanlar, meralar, parklar, kıyılar,çocuk oyun alanları, yaya kaldırımları gibi alanlar ortak alanlardır. Nüfusun artması, yaşanan teknolojik ilerlemeler bu alanlarda güçlü bir rekabet eğiliminin ve baskının ortaya çıkmasına neden olmuştur. Yaşanılan bu rekabet ve baskıların, ortak alanların kullanımı üzerinde bir trajediye yol açtığı dikkat çekmektedir. Bu trajedinin önüne geçebilmek adına önemli düşünürler tarafından koruma stratejileri
geliştirilmiştir. Ortak alanların genel olarak önemi ve koruma stratejilerini konu alan bu çalışma da, bu alanların temel değerini yitirmesinin yarattığı eşitsizliklerin önüne geçebilmek ve bu eşitsizliklerin en aza indirilmesini sağlamak adına önerilen koruma stratejilerinin incelenmesini amaçlamaktadır. Çalışma kapsamında ortak malların kullanımında yaşanan trajediyi anlatan Garrett Hardin incelemeye alınmış ve bu alanların korunmasına dair önerdiği koruma modelleri tartışılmıştır. Yine çalışma kapsamında Hardin tarafından önerilen modellere getirilen eleştiriler, Elinor Ostrom tarafından ele alınan kolektif denetim stratejisi bağlamında değerlendirilmiştir. Yapılan tüm değerlendirmeler Türkiye üzerinden ortak alanlar için uygulanan mevcut politikalar ışığında ele alınmış ve tartışılmıştır.

ABSTRACT

Common goods, common assets, common areas or commons are areas that do not have any property rights, are free to enter, open to everyone, and their use by consumers is not prohibited. Some of the common areas belong to the state; some of them are defined as public spaces. Areas such as atmosphere, underground waters, open seas, fishing areas, natural beaches, water reserves, forests, pastures, parks, coasts, children's playgrounds, pedestrian sidewalks are common areas. The increase in population and technological advances have caused a strong competitive tendency and pressure in these areas. It is noteworthy that these rivalries and pressures experienced a tragedy over the use of common areas. In order to prevent this tragedy, protection strategies have been developed by important thinkers. This study, which deals with the general importance of common areas and conservation strategies, aims to examine the protection strategies proposed in order to prevent the inequalities caused by the loss of the basic value of these areas and to minimize these inequalities. Within the scope of the study, Garrett Hardin, who tells about the tragedy experienced in the use of common goods, was examined and the protection models proposed for the protection of these areas were discussed. Again within the scope of the study, the criticisms brought to the models proposed by Hardin were evaluated in the context of the collective control strategy addressed by Elinor Ostrom. All assessments were made in the light of present policies that apply to common areas via Turkey and discussed.

El concepto toma como punto de partida la radical incapacidad del hombre para actuar desinteresadamente. Desde esa visión la única fuerza que mueve la maquinaria económica será precisamente el interés propio. La armonía social es lograda en ese contexto por referencia a la "mano invisible", que impone al hombre el cumplimiento de un fin que no está en su intención.

Günümüzde Türkiye ve dünyada orman ekosistemlerinin yöneti-minde önemli dönüşümler meydana geliyor. Bu dönüşümler arasında temel bir ögeyi mülkiyet hakları düzenlemeleri oluşturuyor. Tüm dün-yada hukuksal olarak orman sayılan 1 alanlarda mülkiyet hakları düzen-lemelerinde yeni eğilimler ortaya çıkıyor. Geçmiş dönemlerin uygula-malarında devlet veya özel sektörün arazi mülkiyetine dayalı büyük öl-çekli orman işletmeleri ağırlık sahibiydi. Günümüzde ise orman içinde yaşayan toplulukların çoklu mülkiyet hakları olarak tanımlayacağımız bir değişim sürecine girdiğini söyleyebiliriz. Bu değişimin temel be-* Yrd. Doç. Dr., İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi, İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Bölümü.

There is not doubt that all of us could lead a more efficient life. This sadly is greatly out of our control presently as we each have our ideas on how to be more conservative in our footprint on the planet's economy and resources. Corporations have begun to address pollution concerns, but by each individual refusing to cave to materialism and the unnecessary, limit production of these non essentials.
Sourced food is the most important contribution to the environment we can make, by understanding who has produced what you put in your body protects the life of not only the flora and fauna but also children. Avoiding the errors in ingesting the wrong nutrition can be deadly or minimally devastating to you and the orb we live on. In the past 20 years fat has been reevaluated to the point of understanding the micro nutrients derived from the fat of food produced in a healthy manner is essential to the healthy function of the mind particularly in the first 5 years of life.

Many of the radical ideas of present-day opponents of the growth society build upon a rich intellectual heritage of opposition to growth, stretching back to the 1960s. What’s intriguing about the works of the past opponents of growth, the ‘old dissenters’, is that their indictment of growth doesn’t rely solely on the ‘silver bullet’ of excessive greenhouse gas emissions. This means that their intellectual arguments are more comprehensive and erudite than present-day critics who rely solely on climate change to clinch their case. This essay surveys the contributions of the most eminent of the ‘old dissenters’, in the hope that readers may acquire a more nuanced appreciation of the case against growth. The contributions surveyed are from Kenneth Boulding (1966), Garrett Hardin (1968), Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (1971), Donella and Denis Meadows, Jørgen Randers and William Behrens (1972), Arne Naess (1973), Ivan Illich (1973), E.F. Schumacher (1973) and Herman Daly (1989 and 1996).

The “tragedy of the commons” is the name the biologist Garrett Hardin gave to a thought experiment in a now famous 1968 Science article. It predicted global resource
degradation and societal ruin from the net consequences of individuals acting in their short-term interests but at a long-term cost to the environment. This chapter will outline
the history of the concept and, after presenting some compelling critiques of it, demonstrate its continuing utility in helping us understand environmental problems.

To claim that "humans have become a geological agent," to worry that "humans are interrupting, refashioning, and accelerating natural processes" is to reinforce metaphysical divides-humans and nature, the cultural and the natural. It is furthermore to reinforce all the narratives from which these divides are animated: modernity, colonialization, enlightenment with their attendant discourses of progress, control, and purity. In its place I advocate Anthropocenean sensibilities. Sensibilities in which our attentiveness to influences and exchanges becomes heightened, where we learn to live in the midst of change, with a new responsiveness to uncertainties that render not-knowing animating rather than paralyzing.

Abstract: This article, originally a book review written for the first translation of Hardin' Tragedy of the Commons in French, puts in perspective Hardin's famous work with its later developments and criticisms, as well as with the " extension " to the Tragedy of the commons that is included in this volume. The review underlines the fact that Hardin, far from being one of the main contenders of the private property, argues on the contrary that defining collectively the limits of property rights is a necessity. In Hardin's thought, property therefore appears as nothing more than a social institution, and private as well as exclusive property as nothing more than contextual social arrangements.

Résumé Cette recension, publiée à l'occasion de la première traduction de l'ouvrage de Hardin en France, propose une (re)lecture de la fameuse Tragédie des communs, à la lumières de ses développements ultérieurs et des critiques dont elle a fait l'objet. Nous soulignons, entre autres, le fait que Hardin, loin de faire de l'institution de la propriété privée une fin en soi, défend au contraire la besoin de d'imposer des limites collectives aux droits de propriété. La propriété apparaît ainsi comme une institution sociale au sens fort et sa version privative et exclusive n'est que le fruit d'arrangements sociaux spécifiques. Une (re)lecture nécessaire pour les philosophes « La tragédie des communs », article de Garrett Hardin publié pour la première fois en 1968 par la revue Science, a connu un destin extraordinaire, devenant une référence dans des disciplines aussi diverses que l'économie, l'écologie, la géographie, la philosophie, l'anthropologie ou encore le droit. On mesure qui est plus est son succès au fait que son propos a pu être utilisé pour défendre des thèses parfois opposées. On pensera notamment à la façon dont il est devenu à la fois l'argument favori des défenseurs d'une conception libertarienne de la propriété exclusive et de ceux d'une limitation drastique des droits de propriété individuels pour des raisons écologiques. De telles contradictions ne peuvent être que le signe de la richesse du propos de Hardin, ouvert aux interprétations sélectives les plus divergentes. Il est alors nécessaire de (re)lire un ouvrage dont la mention est si fréquente que

This Article analyses both the role of historiography in Hardin's The Tragedy of the Commons (1968) and his paper's impact on historiographical debates of the last five decades. Concerning the role of historiography in Hardin's argument, the 'tragedy of the commons' itself derived from a pamphlet written by a nineteenth century supporter of English enclosures, who proposed a variant of Malthus' theory. If Hardin inevitably dealt with previous historical interpretations of the commons, the reverberations aroused by his paper have strongly influenced subsequent historical research on this subject. It is possible to group the historiographical production of the last decades concerning the commons into three main lines of research. The first line has developed in the field of economic history and has been influenced by Elinor Ostrom's principles for long-enduring institutions that efficaciously manage commons. The second line has focused on the conflicts caused by exogenous interferences in the management of common land, such as state or market intervention, and their social and environmental consequences. The third line has devoted attention to the role of common lands in the internal dynamics of the local communities and the conflicts over their use at the local level. The conclusion of this Article focuses on the role of Hardin's legacy in the current debate on the global environmental crisis.

Os termos sociobiologia, consiliência, biofilia e biodiversidade ligam-se ao nome de Edward Wilson, naturalista polêmico, adepto de uma base genética do comportamento humano, organizador do livro "Biodiversidade", autor de "A Natureza Humana", "Consiliência", "Naturalista", "O futuro da vida: um estudo da biosfera para a proteção de todas as espécies, inclusive a humana" e "A criação: como salvar a vida na Terra", sua última obra publicada no Brasil. Criado como menino batista no sul dos Estados Unidos, hoje ateu, o cientista desvela-se como pessoa capaz de amar a natureza e a sua diversidade, preocupada com o desaparecimento de espécies e de ecossistemas.

Regina, SK: Changing Suns Press, 2016.  A critique of neo-Malthusianism and “lifeboat ethics,” and an analysis of the moral dimensions of debates concerning world hunger, foreign aid, immigration policy, and population growth. See "Papers - English" for two articles on which this book is based.