Deforestation as an Environmental Tragedy - Essay Example

Deforestation as an environmental tragedy Introduction The current generation is facing a threat of complete destruction as a result of harmful activities on natural resources which the generation depends on (Laitos, Jan, and Sandy). The recent years have in effect experienced a worldwide propagation to recognize the importance of natural resources and the usefulness of conservation. Based on Hardin’s writings on the article ‘Tragedy of The Commons’ he predicts the ultimate overuse and dilapidation of natural resources that are utilized in common (Eccleston, 2011). These resources include forests which contribute in soil conservation, management of climate change and many other benefits. The world is currently facing destruction of forests resulting from overuse of its resources hence affecting the environment negatively. The essential idea that is communicated from the from the Tragedy of the Commons is that resources that are used by the masses are prone to massive degradation because of its overuse resulting from competing interest among the users leading to tragedy. This paper seeks to discuss the environmental problem of deforestation across the world with particular relation to Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons. Deforestation primarily refers to the alteration of forest land into other permanent use of land that does not include recovery of the forest land. The activities that lead to forest destruction include building of infrastructures, agriculture, and mining. The destruction has been mainly felt in tropical areas because it has affected the natural environment and lead to loss of bio diversity, atmospheric pollution, and soil nutrient depletion. The effects of greenhouse gases have been extremely felt through the harsh impacts of climate change. Hardin explains what influence the overuse of resources such as forests, he explains that “when many people has ownership and access to a resource, a self-interested ‘rational’ actor will decide to increase his or her exploitation of the resource because it is receiving the full benefit of the increase, but the cost will be spread among all users; the remorseless and tragic result of each person thinking this way, however, is ruin of the commons, and thus of everyone using it”. The forces that influence deforestation are; competing among human beings and other specifies for the ecological environment that is left and failure from the authoritative structure to place importance and responsibility on natural resources. Hardin explained that criterion used in nature is survival. Humans have thus exercised their authority over less competitive species by taking over the environment and using it for their own pleasure. The intent of deforestation by farmers is to provide more land for their agricultural practices. This intent can be viewed as a positive outcome since more agriculture produce will result in enough food for the growing population. Harding however argues on the basis of two components, both positive and negative where an increase in the utilization of the resource is psychologically positive though in the real context the increase results to exploitation thus the negative component. Tragedy of the Commons and Deforestation Many years after Hardin’s writings, the ideas that he rationalized on the extreme exploitation of natural resources have been accepted by a wide range of schools of thought. The writings recognized and insisted on the need to make social changes based on the practices that are currently affecting natural resources in the globe. This tragedy is primarily founded on the competitiveness of human beings and their inability to regard the consequences of their actions in a bid to gain certain standards of living. Universal property is identified as wildlife, sea life, forests, surfaces, and ground water. The features associated with these resources include the control of access practiced by the users which has proven to be the most difficult to manage and accountability where the users mind the welfare of other users through the usage of the resource in a sustainable manner. A common according to Hardin is a resource that many have ownership and access to it. The oceans of the world are a common. This is because it is a resource that can be accessed by many nations and international waters are not owned by anybody which means everybody can use it. Many believe that the resources of the seas such as fish cannot be exhausted but their exploitations are bringing the species after species of ocean living things closer to its extinction. Another common as per Hardin are national parks. These parks are open to everybody without limit. The values the visitors are looking for in those areas steadily getting eroded. In matters of deforestation, the forest is a common and life existing in a forest such as wildlife’s is also a common. A forest is part of eco system and the activities of destroying the forest by cutting down the tress to clear the land for agricultural use affects this common. Forest therefore goes through the tragedy of the commons through deforestation. Another definition of common by Hardin is looking at something as ordinary or doing something with no consciousness, for example bearing children with no control and not bearing in mind the available resources and failing to know that the resources that are available will always decrease. According to Hardin, the world is finite and it can only support finite population, which means that population growth should be always zero which is not the reality. An increasing population will always demand more resources such as food, shelter, and space to live in. A growing population means that more destruction of forest for settlement. There will be need for more food to feed the growing population. This will intense the agricultural farming and farmers will destroy the forest for farming. The destruction of the forest and farming will lead to soil erosion and reduction of water catchment areas which means less rains and extreme weather conditions. In the tragedy, individuals tend to take advantage of the commons without boundaries especially if there are no regulations pertaining to the use of the resources. The presence of regulation in itself is still contradictory as property laws allow the owner of the property to use the land in whichever way they like, for example if a person owns a land with a swamp he/she can reclaim the swamp for agricultural use. The essence of the problem is thus the lack of restraint that individuals exercise in the use of resources thus contributing to the potential disappearance of resources. The choices for the good of the society have been left upon the individual as Hardin insists. In the paper, it says the society behaves in such a way that it is dependent on the decision of the individual and assumes that the individual will act on the collective interest of the people. The paper purports this to be disastrous as every individual has their own rational self interest and it is thus difficult to determine what particular good is good for everyone. Self interest according to Hardin is something that benefits one person even if it is destructive to the society in which he/she is part of. Collective interest according to Hardin is what the majority of the people in a society believe is right and they accept it for their common good. In the forested lands, trees have been cleared to pave way for framing as a result of the increase in population (Utting and Peter, 2013). Looking at it from Hardin’s view however, the individual farmer recognizes the opportunity in the increased populace and thus decides to make a profit from it. The idea behind deforestation among farmers is thus not how to feed the growing number of people but rather how to benefit from growing number of people. Deforestation is additionally done for the construction of buildings. These buildings are rationally thought to cater for those who lack homes from the increasing population. It is however evident that the possession of luxurious property has overridden this perspective. Huge portions of land are owned by individual people while there are overcrowded slums where the society is living in poverty. The interest of the individual in these two cases overrides that of the collective interest and what is seen is the selfish interest of one person. It is therefore apparent that should very single person have the opportunity to own property then they will seek to amass as large a property as they can get. This is not feasible in world where overuse of resources will result to their disappearance. In the Tragedy of The Commons, it thus stipulated that the increase in the populace should lead to a decreased share in every individual and that the use of technology cannot provide a solution to this problem. The tragedy also admits the impossibility of increasing the number of people and satisfying every single one of their needs. Collective interest in the commons occurs when the use of resources is agreed upon by all members of the society. This means that the resources should be able to meet the individual needs of every single person. Such agreements are best made through institutions like the government. The decision should be carried out after an investigation on the effective use of resources and a plan to implement the rules. Most governments for instance have cleared trees to create companies or practice large scale agricultural activities. The large produce from the agricultural activities are supposed to help feed the entire nation and additionally provide an opportunity for the country to increase its income (Kuria et al, 2014). Furthermore, buildings whose constructions are spearheaded by the government are released effectively to the people. Following Hardin’s argument however, it is important to examine the reason behind such legislations. The basic argument would be what amount of trust is accorded to the figures that come up with these legislations. The government decisions could be influenced by one person that is working for the government for its own personal bringing it back to individual interest. For example the price of the buildings that are developed by the government to be rented or sold to the people can be influenced by an individual to increase the price for its own benefit. Furthermore, as speculated by Hardin, theses rules might be made but not followed to simply create an illusion of a society that manages its people and its resources. The loss of water catchment areas is as a result of deforestation (Bogena et al, 2015). The eco system gets a state of imbalance as well and the environment loses it biodiversity. Agricultural practices have been known to cause soil erosion and affect its quality due to incessant farming (Pennington et al, 2015). Poor farming methods for example over farming make the soil loose and during heavy rains they can be easily swept into the rivers. Another example is farming on hilly places, when it rains the soil will be easily swept into the rivers by water. This means that ultimately there will be no food for the users of the resources. The imbalance of the acquisition of resources creates a conflict of interest where every individual wants an equal piece of the share but to the selfish interests those with more tenacity get the deforested land. The law givers in this scenario have the upper hand as based on their selfishness they will choose to acquire property on the that land the government has allocated for the activities or chose to invest in their own land. What results is that politicians involved amass so much wealth leaving the local individual with little. The resultant conflict is moral decay as most people will likely resort to illegal means to acquire sustenance. At the present the rates of criminal and immoral activities have gone up as most people do not have a decent source of resources. Solutions to Deforestation In order to curb the problem of deforestation both technical and non technical solutions are required. Hardin proposes mutual coercion to solve the problem of overpopulation. Looking at deforestation, forcing individuals to stop cutting trees may result to the opposite where they defy the rules and keep up the practice. Coercion is mainly overseen by external agents who will not have specific interest in the activities. This solution involves excessive control over forests. The forests can additionally be privatized which is less extreme. Privatization of forest however still has its problems as the owners may carry out the agricultural activities owing to their rights over land (Nartey, 2014). Among the technical solutions that could be included in the move to curb deforestation in the promotion of sustainable choices. These choices are inclusive of purchasing only what an individual or a family requires and buying of sustainable wood products. Farmers should exercise agricultural practices such as agro forestry where farming goes hand in hand with forestry. In order to actively ensure that solutions to curbing agro forestry are being done, there should be boundaries that are clearly defined in terms of what forests can be used and over what coverage (Nielsen, 2013). This manages the forest land so that it is not completely exploited in a very short time. The rules that are put in place in the handling of the forest areas should go hand in hand with the conditions of the local place. These relate to time the place and the coverage of the processes. Aspects such as the culture of the community can be looked into as they are among the factors that influence either deforestation or the conservation of forests. The rules around the management of forests need to be centered on the people it affects the most. This helps in that the people themselves are aware of the problems they face due to deforestation. The rules set and the activities thereof should be monitored and audited. The process of monitoring activities in the forest will assist in determining whether the rules put forth are being implemented and correction can be done where necessary. Should these rules be broken, punishment should be accorded as agreed upon in the collective decision. In areas where tax is assigned the perpetrators could face jail term as punishment. Ultimately, there should be resolution mechanisms for conflicts as adaptation to new rules takes time. The limitation to these solutions is that the discussion on deforestation has been explored so wide that different schools of thought want to determine whether the common is a tragedy or simply means of survival. Solutions that are not technical involve looking at the moral perspective of the problem. Hardin is correct in stating that individuals benefit through denying the truth. As seen in deforestation, the stakeholders in the forestry industry only reacted when climate change was evident in the quantity of yields produced from the fields. The solution thus involves changing the politics on deforestation with enough importance. Conclusion Hardin’s representation of the commons and the tragedy therein is certainly perceptive though it undermines certain characteristics of human beings. The tragedy assumes that the users of the resources are totally lacking restraint in the use of natural resources based on the behavior of individuals and the users of the resources who lack the capability of reinforcing the regulations to ensure that these resources are protected. The tragedy may without doubt be in existence but the users of the resources may recognize the depleting resources and effects on the yield and thus choose to act on it and save the resources. It should be noted that the society still possesses the capability to enforce rules on the protection of resources. Conscience cannot be disregarded entirely as this presence of guilt is what would result to an individual doing the right thing such as protection of the resources. Social learning cannot be underestimated as well as human beings tend to copy what they see. Therefore, a move towards conservation of resources may be appreciated as seen correctly in the globe where individuals are stepping in to promote simple ideas on the conservation of resources. In conclusion thus, this paper acknowledges the existence of the commons and the tragedy resulting henceforth. The paper additionally relates to tragedy associated with greed and breeding with justified thoughts on responsibility as presented by the users of natural resources. However, it should be considered that both individuals and the society can recognize the extent of exploitation and choose to change their behavior towards the use of the commons thus saving the resources. Read More