don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

The other day, in an essay about trends in wellness, I made a passing reference to "the commons." This was added because every so often, someone will ask if perhaps it might be just a little bit selfish to invest time and resources shaping an optimal lifestyle when there is so much misery in the world. My response to that is that there is no conflict: One can look after him or herself while doing good works for others. There is no inherent selfishness about wellness, in fact, service to the broader good is much prized and promoted via skill areas in the domain of meaning and purpose. That is exactly what I tried to imply with the phrase "the commons" when I wrote that seekers of healthy lifestyles can invest the time and energy required to enjoy lifestyle artistry while still being very much attentive to and responsible in their own small way for the commons. This is done primarily by reaching out in service to others but also by personal decisions that reflect an environmental sensitivity.

A number of visitors asked me about "the commons." "Why use this phrase?", many wanted to know. In case you wondered, too, here is a little background you might find of some interest.

The concept of looking after the common good, particularly with respect to population controls and our shared interest in such, was made famous in a 1968 book by Garrett Hardin entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons." Urban planners, among others, embraced this notion as an elegant analogy for appreciating the need for comprehensive land use planning and other regulatory tools, including eminent domain.

Before Hardin popularized the phrase, it was used in a pamphlet by William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852) in 1833! He explained "The Tragedy of the Commons" in a manner that effectively linked the issue of living well with caring about the larger community. The following excerpt appeared in a Science article: "The essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things. This inevitableness of destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents that in fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of escape can be made evident in the drama."

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision making herdsman is only a fraction of 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another... However, 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.

If we live a wellness lifestyle, we will be consciously aware of having a vested interest in the environment, in addition to much else (an effective system of laws, governance, etc.) Our individual interests are to do much for ourselves, but not to the point that we damage the commons, given that the proceeds of selling or putting into use one more goat (or RUV, home or whatever) will degenerate the commons. Thus, the more individuals we recruit and educate to adopt wellness lifestyles, the better protected the commons will be and the healthier we and our societies will remain.

Be well, take care and look on the bright side of life.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of relationships. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell