The commons

March 16, 2019

To pick a flower, or not to pick a flower – that is the question.

Recently I went hiking at Armstrong Redwoods State Park in Guerneville, CA with some people from one of the hiking groups to which I belong. The sunny day was a welcome respite from the heavy rains that had caused the nearby Russian River to flood the towns of Guerneville and Monte Rio. At one point we stopped to take a break by a cluster of daffodils at Bullfrog Pond, and “Donna” mentioned that in a previous hike to the same spot she was about to pick those same daffodils when her boyfriend spotted a ranger and warned her to stop. It’s illegal to remove plants or animals from state and national parks. Donna explained to us that she knew she shouldn’t pick flowers in a park, but she rationalized her intended behavior by saying that the flowers would soon fade away, and besides that, few people would see them anyway due to a road closure caused by the heavy rains. I could have pointed out that had she picked the daffodils on her previous hike, we wouldn’t have been able to enjoy them on our hike that day. But, not wanting to shame or embarrass her, I said nothing.

The following week I happened to return to Bullfrog Pond with “Carla,” one of Donna’s and my hiking companions from the previous week. Once again we admired the daffodils, but since Donna wasn’t with us this time I decided to ask Carla about her views on the ethics of picking flowers on public property. To my surprise, she said that she could understand Donna’s rationalization, since it is true that the yellow beauty of daffodils is fleeting. But she also acknowledged her own anger at having flower thieves dig up decorative plants at one of her previous residences, and severely cut back ti plants at another former home.

I in turn mentioned an encounter I had a few months earlier with a homeless man in front of my local library. As I walked along the sidewalk I saw a man enter the landscaping with a pair of clippers and proceed to snip orange poppies and pink camellias from the bushes. I’ve seen the man around town many times with his dog and a shopping cart filled with his belongings, and I know that he likes to wear a garland of flowers in his hair, but never knew where he got the blossoms. Now I knew. I stopped, and debated whether as a good citizen I should say something to the man or whether I should mind my own business and leave him alone. I decided to speak up. I said to him, “Don’t you think it would be better to leave the flowers for everyone to enjoy?” He looked at me, seething, as if he was showing great restraint at my rudeness. He said nothing, and continued to clip the flowers. I thought of calling the police, but decided that since he wasn’t uprooting and stealing the plants I wouldn’t take any further action.

Why did I choose to confront the homeless man and not Donna? Probably because with Donna there were other people around, and I didn’t want to question her ethics in front of them. Also because she’s only an occasional hiking comrade, and I don’t know her well enough to risk alienating her with what could be perceived to be a holier than thou attitude. With the homeless man I had less to lose, unless he had chosen to become belligerent as a result of being accosted by a stranger.

Carla then told me of an environmental science term that I did not remember having heard of before: the tragedy of the commons. I later learned that the phrase was coined by American ecologist and philosopher Garrett Hardin in 1968 to refer to selfish individuals, governments, or corporations that take natural resources for themselves without consideration of the common good. Examples of this would be strip mining, clear-cutting forests, polluting air or water, population growth, or overfishing. Hardin later said that he should have labeled such egoistic behavior “the tragedy of the unregulated commons.”

My understanding of the concept of the commons is that, ideally, natural resources should be protected or shared via some form of voluntary cooperation, and failing that, that they should be regulated by governments to ensure that the harvesting of such resources is sustainable and shared equitably. It’s to everyone’s benefit that we all enjoy clean air and water and healthy fisheries on an ongoing basis.

But most people and institutions don’t understand the need for long term planning or for a broader planetary perspective. Even the idea of the commons is poorly understood worldwide. In my travels in India, Egypt, Morocco, Cambodia, and elsewhere, I’ve been disgusted by the garbage I’ve seen strewn everywhere. In speaking to educated locals in those countries, I’ve learned that poor people understand the desirability of keeping their own homes clean, but they view public spaces as not their responsibility, so they don’t think twice about throwing garbage out of train or bus windows or littering as they walk down the street. My informants tell me that the solution to the problem of trash in public places is to educate people about the health and social benefits of a clean environment.

Whether it’s uneducated people in poor countries, or short-sighted governments and avaricious corporations in developing and developed countries, the problem is the same worldwide: a failure to understand that we are all on this planet together, and that we need a radical adjustment of our understanding of what it means to be human. And a dramatic reevaluation of our ability to coexist with other species.

I’m not a socialist or a capitalist. I’m fine with free enterprise as long as it doesn’t exploit people or nature, and I’m fine with socialism as long as it doesn’t become totalitarian. I am a pragmatist, which means that I recognize the existential necessity of defending the common good and promoting the well being of the entire planet, not just a few wealthy individuals, countries, or businesses. The climate change that we are already experiencing will increasingly become harmful to all of us, but political, economic, and technical solutions will not be enough. In my view, what is needed internationally is a change of consciousness, a change in our collective mindset or morality, as to how we see our world and how we see each other.

How will we achieve such a psychological, social, or spiritual awakening? I don’t know. It does seem that we humans are choosing to learn these survival and prosperity lessons the hard way, at least for the foreseeable future. We may end up destroying much of the planet as part of our learning process of saving it, to paraphrase a quote from the Vietnam war. But it is my hope that eventually, consciously or unconsciously, we will evolve to the point that we will learn to live in harmony with each other and with the Earth. We really have no other viable alternative.

In the meantime, maybe a lot more individual and collective self reflection and mindfulness are in order: Where do we draw the line between mine and ours?