From: Subject: The Tragedy of the Commons, by Garrett Hardin (1968) Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 12:53:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC625C.D596B9C0" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6109 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC625C.D596B9C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.dieoff.org/page95.htm The Tragedy of the Commons, by Garrett Hardin = (1968)

Home   = ;     = Is the global economy =93net = energy=94=20 constrained for many decades?  3D""=20

The = Tragedy of the=20 Commons
Garrett = Hardin=20 (1968)

"The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science,=20 162(1968):1243-1248.

At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, J.B. = Wiesner=20 and H.F. York concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race = are=85confronted by the=20 dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing = national=20 security. It is our considered professional judgment that this = dilemma has no=20 technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for = solutions in=20 the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen = the=20 situation.'' [1]

I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the = article=20 (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion = they=20 reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem. An = implicit=20 and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional = and=20 semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has = a=20 technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that = requires a=20 change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little = or=20 nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality.

In our day (though not in earlier times) technical solutions are = always=20 welcome. Because of previous failures in prophecy, it takes courage to = assert=20 that a desired technical solution is not possible. Wiesner and York = exhibited=20 this courage; publishing in a science journal, they insisted that the = solution=20 to the problem was not to be found in the natural sciences. They = cautiously=20 qualified their statement with the phrase, "It is our considered = professional=20 judgment...." Whether they were right or not is not the concern of the = present=20 article. Rather, the concern here is with the important concept of a = class of=20 human problems which can be called "no technical solution problems," and = more=20 specifically, with the identification and discussion of one of these. =

It is easy to show that the class is not a null class. Recall the = game of=20 tick-tack-toe. Consider the problem, "How can I win the game of = tick-tack-toe?"=20 It is well known that I cannot, if I assume (in keeping with the = conventions of=20 game theory) that my opponent understands the game perfectly. Put = another way,=20 there is no "technical solution" to the problem. I can win only by = giving a=20 radical meaning to the word "win." I can hit my opponent over the head; = or I can=20 falsify the records. Every way in which I "win" involves, in some sense, = an=20 abandonment of the game, as we intuitively understand it. (I can also, = of=20 course, openly abandon the game -- refuse to play it. This is what most = adults=20 do.)

The class of "no technical solution problems" has members. My thesis = is that=20 the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of = this=20 class. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair = to say=20 that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to = find a=20 way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of = the=20 privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or = developing new=20 strains of wheat will solve the problem -- technologically. I try to = show here=20 that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem = cannot be=20 solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the = game of=20 tick-tack-toe.

What Shall We Maximize?

Population, as Malthus said, naturally tends to grow "geometrically," = or, as=20 we would now say, exponentially. In a finite world this means that the=20 per-capita share of the world's goods must decrease. Is ours a finite = world?=20

A fair defense can be put forward for the view that the world is = infinite or=20 that we do not know that it is not. But, in terms of the practical = problems that=20 we must face in the next few generations with the foreseeable = technology, it is=20 clear that we will greatly increase human misery if we do not, during = the=20 immediate future, assume that the world available to the terrestrial = human=20 population is finite. "Space" is no escape. [2]

A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, = population=20 growth must eventually equal zero. (The case of perpetual wide = fluctuations=20 above and below zero is a trivial variant that need not be discussed.) = When this=20 condition is met, what will be the situation of mankind? Specifically, = can=20 Bentham's goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" be = realized?

No -- for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a = theoretical=20 one. It is not mathematically possible to maximize for two (or more) = variables=20 at the same time. This was clearly stated by von Neumann and = Morgenstern, [3] but the principle = is implicit=20 in the theory of partial differential equations, dating back at least to = D'Alembert (1717-1783).

The second reason springs directly from biological facts. To live, = any=20 organism must have a source of energy (for example, food). This energy = is=20 utilized for two purposes: mere maintenance and work. For man = maintenance of=20 life requires about 1600 kilocalories a day ("maintenance calories"). = Anything=20 that he does over and above merely staying alive will be defined as = work, and is=20 supported by "work calories" which he takes in. Work calories are used = not only=20 for what we call work in common speech; they are also required for all = forms of=20 enjoyment, from swimming and automobile racing to playing music and = writing=20 poetry. If our goal is to maximize population it is obvious what we must = do: We=20 must make the work calories per person approach as close to zero as = possible. No=20 gourmet meals, no vacations, no sports, no music, no literature, no = art=85I think=20 that everyone will grant, without argument or proof, that maximizing = population=20 does not maximize goods. Bentham's goal is impossible.

In reaching this conclusion I have made the usual assumption that it = is the=20 acquisition of energy that is the problem. The appearance of atomic = energy has=20 led some to question this assumption. However, given an infinite source = of=20 energy, population growth still produces an inescapable problem. The = problem of=20 the acquisition of energy is replaced by the problem of its dissipation, = as J.=20 H. Fremlin has so wittily shown. [4] The arithmetic = signs in the=20 analysis are, as it were, reversed; but Bentham's goal is unobtainable. =

The optimum population is, then, less than the maximum. The = difficulty of=20 defining the optimum is enormous; so far as I know, no one has seriously = tackled=20 this problem. Reaching an acceptable and stable solution will surely = require=20 more than one generation of hard analytical work -- and much persuasion. =

We want the maximum good per person; but what is good? To one person = it is=20 wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousands. To one it is = estuaries to=20 nourish ducks for hunters to shoot; to another it is factory land. = Comparing one=20 good with another is, we usually say, impossible because goods are=20 incommensurable. Incommensurables cannot be compared.

Theoretically this may be true; but in real life incommensurables = are=20 commensurable. Only a criterion of judgment and a system of weighting = are=20 needed. In nature the criterion is survival. Is it better for a species = to be=20 small and hideable, or large and powerful? Natural selection = commensurates the=20 incommensurables. The compromise achieved depends on a natural weighting = of the=20 values of the variables.

Man must imitate this process. There is no doubt that in fact he = already=20 does, but unconsciously. It is when the hidden decisions are made = explicit that=20 the arguments begin. The problem for the years ahead is to work out an=20 acceptable theory of weighting. Synergistic effects, nonlinear = variation, and=20 difficulties in discounting the future make the intellectual problem = difficult,=20 but not (in principle) insoluble.

Has any cultural group solved this practical problem at the present = time,=20 even on an intuitive level? One simple fact proves that none has: there = is no=20 prosperous population in the world today that has, and has had for some = time, a=20 growth rate of zero. Any people that has intuitively identified its = optimum=20 point will soon reach it, after which its growth rate becomes and = remains zero.=20

Of course, a positive growth rate might be taken as evidence that a=20 population is below its optimum. However, by any reasonable standards, = the most=20 rapidly growing populations on earth today are (in general) the most = miserable.=20 This association (which need not be invariable) casts doubt on the = optimistic=20 assumption that the positive growth rate of a population is evidence = that it has=20 yet to reach its optimum.

We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size = until=20 we explicitly exorcise the spirit of Adam Smith in the field of = practical=20 demography. In economic affairs, The Wealth of Nations (1776) = popularized=20 the "invisible hand," the idea that an individual who "intends only his = own=20 gain," is, as it were, "led by an invisible hand to promote=85the public = interest." [5] Adam = Smith did=20 not assert that this was invariably true, and perhaps neither did any of = his=20 followers. But he contributed to a dominant tendency of thought that has = ever=20 since interfered with positive action based on rational analysis, = namely, the=20 tendency to assume that decisions reached individually will, in fact, be = the=20 best decisions for an entire society. If this assumption is correct it = justifies=20 the continuance of our present policy of laissez faire in = reproduction.=20 If it is correct we can assume that men will control their individual = fecundity=20 so as to produce the optimum population. If the assumption is not = correct, we=20 need to reexamine our individual freedoms to see which ones are = defensible.

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons

The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be = found in a=20 scenario first sketched in a little-known Pamphlet in 1833 by a = mathematical=20 amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). [6] We may well call it = "the=20 tragedy of the commons," using the word "tragedy" as the philosopher = Whitehead=20 used it [7]: "The = essence of=20 dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the=20 remorseless working of things." He then goes on to say, "This = inevitableness of=20 destiny can only be illustrated in terms of human life by incidents = which in=20 fact involve unhappiness. For it is only by them that the futility of = escape can=20 be made evident in the drama."

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture = open to=20 all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many = cattle as=20 possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably = satisfactorily=20 for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the = numbers of=20 both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. = Finally,=20 however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the = long-desired goal=20 of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic = of the=20 commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. = Explicitly or=20 implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility = to me=20 of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and = one=20 positive component.

1. The positive component is a function of the increment of one = animal. Since=20 the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional = animal,=20 the positive utility is nearly + 1.

2. The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing = created=20 by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are = shared by all=20 the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular = decision­making=20 herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational = herdsman=20 concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add = another=20 animal to his herd. And another.... But this is the conclusion reached = by each=20 and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. = Each man=20 is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without = limit --=20 in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men = rush,=20 each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the = freedom of=20 the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a = sense, it=20 was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection favors the = forces of=20 psychological denial. [8] The=20 individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth = even=20 though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers. Education can = counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing, but the = inexorable=20 succession of generations requires that the basis for this knowledge be=20 constantly refreshed.

A simple incident that occurred a few years ago in Leominster, = Massachusetts=20 shows how perishable the knowledge is. During the Christmas shopping = season the=20 parking meters downtown were covered with plastic bags that bore tags = reading:=20 "Do not open until after Christmas. Free parking courtesy of the mayor = and city=20 council." In other words, facing the prospect of an increased demand for = already=20 scarce space, the city fathers reinstituted the system of the commons.=20 (Cynically, we suspect that they gained more votes than they lost by = this=20 retrogressive act.)

In an approximate way, the logic of the commons has been understood = for a=20 long time, perhaps since the discovery of agriculture or the invention = of=20 private property in real estate. But it is understood mostly only in = special=20 cases which are not sufficiently generalized. Even at this late date, = cattlemen=20 leasing national land on the Western ranges demonstrate no more than an=20 ambivalent understanding, in constantly pressuring federal authorities = to=20 increase the head count to the point where overgrazing produces erosion = and=20 weed-dominance. Likewise, the oceans of the world continue to suffer = from the=20 survival of the philosophy of the commons. Maritime nations still = respond=20 automatically to the shibboleth of the "freedom of the seas." Professing = to=20 believe in the "inexhaustible resources of the oceans," they bring = species after=20 species of fish and whales closer to extinction. [9]

The National Parks present another instance of the working out of the = tragedy=20 of the commons. At present, they are open to all, without limit. The = parks=20 themselves are limited in extent -- there is only one Yosemite Valley -- = whereas=20 population seems to grow without limit. The values that visitors seek in = the=20 parks are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the = parks as=20 commons or they will be of no value to anyone.

What shall we do? We have several options. We might sell them off as = private=20 property. We might keep them as public property, but allocate the right = to enter=20 them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an = auction=20 system. It might be on the basis of merit, as defined by some = agreed­upon=20 standards. It might be by lottery. Or it might be on a first-come, = first-served=20 basis, administered to long queues. These, I think, are all = objectionable. But=20 we must choose -- or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we = call=20 our National Parks.

Pollution

In a reverse way, the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of = pollution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the = commons, but=20 of putting something in -- sewage, or chemical, radioactive, and heat = wastes=20 into water; noxious and dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting = and=20 unpleasant advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of = utility=20 are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share of = the cost=20 of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less than the cost of = purifying=20 his wastes before releasing them. Since this is true for everyone, we = are locked=20 into a system of "fouling our own nest," so long as we behave only as=20 independent, rational, free enterprisers.

The tragedy of the commons as a food basket is averted by private = property,=20 or something formally like it. But the air and waters surrounding us = cannot=20 readily be fenced, and so the tragedy of the commons as a cesspool must = be=20 prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that = make it=20 cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them=20 untreated. We have not progressed as far with the solution of this = problem as we=20 have with the first. Indeed, our particular concept of private property, = which=20 deters us from exhausting the positive resources of the earth, favors = pollution.=20 The owner of a factory on the bank of a stream -- whose property extends = to the=20 middle of the stream -- often has difficulty seeing why it is not his = natural=20 right to muddy the waters flowing past his door. The law, always behind = the=20 times, requires elaborate stitching and fitting to adapt it to this = newly=20 perceived aspect of the commons.

The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not much = matter=20 how a lonely American frontiersman disposed of his waste. "Flowing water = purifies itself every ten miles," my grandfather used to say, and the = myth was=20 near enough to the truth when he was a boy, for there were not too many = people.=20 But as population became denser, the natural chemical and biological = recycling=20 processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition of property = rights.

How to Legislate Temperance?

Analysis of the pollution problem as a function of population density = uncovers a not generally recognized principle of morality, namely: = the=20 morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time = it is=20 performed. [10] = Using the=20 commons as a cesspool does not harm the general public under frontier=20 conditions, because there is no public; the same behavior in a = metropolis is=20 unbearable. A hundred and fifty years ago a plainsman could kill an = American=20 bison, cut out only the tongue for his dinner, and discard the rest of = the=20 animal. He was not in any important sense being wasteful. Today, with = only a few=20 thousand bison left, we would be appalled at such behavior.

In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be=20 determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an = elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one = knows the=20 total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand = words,"=20 said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate = it. It=20 is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to = persuade=20 others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an = argument=20 cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -- in words. =

That morality is system-sensitive escaped the attention of most = codifiers of=20 ethics in the past. "Thou shalt not=85" is the form of traditional = ethical=20 directives which make no allowance for particular circumstances. The = laws of our=20 society follow the pattern of ancient ethics, and therefore are poorly = suited to=20 governing a complex, crowded, changeable world. Our epicyclic solution = is to=20 augment statutory law with administrative law. Since it is practically=20 impossible to spell out all the conditions under which it is safe to = burn trash=20 in the back yard or to run an automobile without smog­control, by = law we=20 delegate the details to bureaus. The result is administrative law, which = is=20 rightly feared for an ancient reason -- Quis custodies ipsos = custodes?=20 --Who shall watch the watchers themselves? John Adams said that we must = have a=20 "government of laws and not men." Bureau administrators, trying to = evaluate the=20 morality of acts in the total system, are singularly liable to = corruption,=20 producing a government by men, not laws.

Prohibition is easy to legislate (though not necessarily to enforce); = but how=20 do we legislate temperance? Experience indicates that it can be = accomplished=20 best through the mediation of administrative law. We limit possibilities = unnecessarily if we suppose that the sentiment of Quis custodiet = denies=20 us the use of administrative law. We should rather retain the phrase as = a=20 perpetual reminder of fearful dangers we cannot avoid. The great = challenge=20 facing us now is to invent the corrective feedbacks that are needed to = keep=20 custodians honest. We must find ways to legitimate the needed authority = of both=20 the custodians and the corrective feedbacks.

Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable

The tragedy of the commons is involved in population problems in = another way.=20 In a world governed solely by the principle of "dog eat dog" --if indeed = there=20 ever was such a world--how many children a family had would not be a = matter of=20 public concern. Parents who bred too exuberantly would leave fewer = descendants,=20 not more, because they would be unable to care adequately for their = children.=20 David Lack and others have found that such a negative feedback = demonstrably=20 controls the fecundity of birds. [11] But men are not = birds, and=20 have not acted like them for millenniums, at least.

If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; = if the children of improvident parents starved to death; = if thus,=20 over breeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line -- = then there=20 would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But = our=20 society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is = confronted=20 with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, = the=20 race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) = that=20 adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the = concept of=20 freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right = to the=20 commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.

Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued = by the=20 United Nations. In late 1967, some thirty nations agreed to the = following: "The=20 Universal Declaration of Human Rights describes the family as the = natural and=20 fundamental unit of society. It follows that any choice and decision = with regard=20 to the size of the family must irrevocably rest with the family itself, = and=20 cannot be made by anyone else.'' [14]

It is painful to have to deny categorically the validity of this = right;=20 denying it, one feels as uncomfortable as a resident of Salem, = Massachusetts,=20 who denied the reality of witches in the seventeenth century. At the = present=20 time, in liberal quarters, something like a taboo acts to inhibit = criticism of=20 the United Nations. There is a feeling that the United Nations is "our = last and=20 best hope," that we shouldn't find fault with it; we shouldn't play into = the=20 hands of the archconservatives. However, let us not forget what Robert = Louis=20 Stevenson said: "The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest = weapon=20 of the enemy." If we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of = the=20 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even though it is promoted by the = United=20 Nations. We should also join with Kingsley Davis [15] in attempting to = get=20 Planned Parenthood-World Population to see the error of its ways in = embracing=20 the same tragic ideal.

Conscience Is Self-Eliminating

It is a mistake to think that we can control the breeding of mankind = in the=20 long run by an appeal to conscience. Charles Galton Darwin made this = point when=20 he spoke on the centennial of the publication of his grandfather's great = book.=20 The argument is straightforward and Darwinian.

People vary. Confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people = will=20 undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more = children=20 will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with = more=20 susceptible consciences. The differences will be accentuated, generation = by=20 generation.

In C. G. Darwin's words: "It may well be that it would take hundreds = of=20 generations for the progenitive instinct to develop in this way, but if = it=20 should do so, nature would have taken her revenge, and the variety = Homo=20 contracipiens would become extinct and would be replaced by the = variety=20 Homo progenitivus. [16]

The argument assumes that conscience or the desire for children (no = matter=20 which) is hereditary-but hereditary only in the most general formal = sense. The=20 result will be the same whether the attitude is transmitted through germ = cells,=20 or exosomatically, to use A. J. Lotka's term. (If one denies the latter=20 possibility as well as the former, then what's the point of education?) = The=20 argument has here been stated in the context of the population problem, = but it=20 applies equally well to any instance in which society appeals to an = individual=20 exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good -- by = means of his=20 conscience. To make such an appeal is to set up a selective system that = works=20 toward the elimination of conscience from the race.

Pathogenic Effects of Conscience

The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be = enough to=20 condemn it; but it has serious short-term disadvantages as well. If we = ask a man=20 who is exploiting a commons to desist "in the name of conscience," what = are we=20 saying to him? What does he hear? -- not only at the moment but also in = the wee=20 small hours of the night when, half asleep, he remembers not merely the = words we=20 used but also the nonverbal communication cues we gave him unawares? = Sooner or=20 later, consciously or subconsciously, he senses that he has received two = communications, and that they are contradictory: 1. (intended = communication) "If=20 you don't do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a = responsible citizen"; 2. (the unintended communication) "If you = do behave=20 as we ask, we will secretly condemn you for a simpleton who can be = shamed into=20 standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons."

Every man then is caught in what Bateson has called a "double bind." = Bateson=20 and his co-workers have made a plausible case for viewing the double = bind as an=20 important causative factor in the genesis of schizophrenia. [17] The double bind = may not=20 always be so damaging, but it always endangers the mental health of = anyone to=20 whom it is applied. "A bad conscience," said Nietzsche, "is a kind of = illness."=20

To conjure up a conscience in others is tempting to anyone who wishes = to=20 extend his control beyond the legal limits. Leaders at the highest level = succumb=20 to this temptation. Has any president during the past generation failed = to call=20 on labor unions to moderate voluntarily their demands for higher wages, = or to=20 steel companies to honor voluntary guidelines on prices? I can recall = none. The=20 rhetoric used on such occasions is designed to produce feelings of guilt = in=20 noncooperators.

For centuries it was assumed without proof that guilt was a valuable, = perhaps=20 even an indispensable, ingredient of the civilized life. Now, in this=20 post-Freudian world, we doubt it.

Paul Goodman speaks from the modern point of view when he says: "No = good has=20 ever come from feeling guilty, neither intelligence, policy, nor = compassion. The=20 guilty do not pay attention to the object but only to themselves, and = not even=20 to their own interests, which might make sense, but to their = anxieties.'' [18]

One does not have to be a professional psychiatrist to see the = consequences=20 of anxiety. We in the Western world are just emerging from a dreadful = two=20 centuries-long Dark Ages of Eros that was sustained partly by = prohibition laws,=20 but perhaps more effectively by the anxiety-generating mechanisms of = education.=20 Alex Comfort has told the story well in The Anxiety Makers; [19] it is not a = pretty one.=20

Since proof is difficult, we may even concede that the results of = anxiety may=20 sometimes, from certain points of view, be desirable. The larger = question we=20 should ask is whether, as a matter of policy, we should ever encourage = the use=20 of a technique the tendency (if not the intention) of which is = psychologically=20 pathogenic. We hear much talk these days of responsible parenthood; the = coupled=20 words are incorporated into the titles of some organizations devoted to = birth=20 control. Some people have proposed massive propaganda campaigns to = instill=20 responsibility into the nation's (or the world's) breeders. But what is = the=20 meaning of the word conscience? When we use the word responsibility in = the=20 absence of substantial sanctions are we not trying to browbeat a free = man in a=20 commons into acting against his own interest? Responsibility is a verbal = counterfeit for a substantial quid pro quo. It is an attempt to get = something=20 for nothing.

If the word responsibility is to be used at all, I suggest that it be = in the=20 sense Charles Frankel uses it. [20] "Responsibility," = says this=20 philosopher, "is the product of definite social arrangements." Notice = that=20 Frankel calls for social arrangements -- not propaganda.

Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon =

The social arrangements that produce responsibility are arrangements = that=20 create coercion, of some sort. Consider bank robbing. The man who takes = money=20 from a bank acts as if the bank were a commons. How do we prevent such = action?=20 Certainly not by trying to control his behavior solely by a verbal = appeal to his=20 sense of responsibility. Rather than rely on propaganda we follow = Frankel's lead=20 and insist that a bank is not a commons; we seek the definite social=20 arrangements that will keep it from becoming a commons. That we thereby = infringe=20 on the freedom of would-be robbers we neither deny nor regret.

The morality of bank robbing is particularly easy to understand = because we=20 accept complete prohibition of this activity. We are willing to say = "Thou shalt=20 not rob banks," without providing for exceptions. But temperance also = can be=20 created by coercion. Taxing is a good coercive device. To keep downtown = shoppers=20 temperate in their use of parking space we introduce parking meters for = short=20 periods, and traffic fines for longer ones. We need not actually forbid = a=20 citizen to park as long as he wants to; we need merely make it = increasingly=20 expensive for him to do so. Not prohibition, but carefully biased = options are=20 what we offer him. A Madison Avenue man might call this persuasion; I = prefer the=20 greater candor of the word coercion.

Coercion is a dirty word to most liberals now, but it need not = forever be so.=20 As with the four-letter words, its dirtiness can be cleansed away by = exposure to=20 the light, by saying it over and over without apology or embarrassment. = To many,=20 the word coercion implies arbitrary decisions of distant and = irresponsible=20 bureaucrats; but this is not a necessary part of its meaning. The only = kind of=20 coercion I recommend is mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the = majority of=20 the people affected.

To say that we mutually agree to coercion is not to say that we are = required=20 to enjoy it, or even to pretend we enjoy it. Who enjoys taxes? We all = grumble=20 about them. But we accept compulsory taxes because we recognize that = voluntary=20 taxes would favor the conscienceless. We institute and (grumblingly) = support=20 taxes and other coercive devices to escape the horror of the commons. =

An alternative to the commons need not be perfectly just to be = preferable.=20 With real estate and other material goods, the alternative we have = chosen is the=20 institution of private property coupled with legal inheritance. Is this = system=20 perfectly just? As a genetically trained biologist I deny that it is. It = seems=20 to me that, if there are to be differences in individual inheritance, = legal=20 possession should be perfectly correlated with biological = inheritance-that those=20 who are biologically more fit to be the custodians of property and power = should=20 legally inherit more. But genetic recombination continually makes a = mockery of=20 the doctrine of "like father, like son" implicit in our laws of legal=20 inheritance. An idiot can inherit millions, and a trust fund can keep = his estate=20 intact. We must admit that our legal system of private property plus = inheritance=20 is unjust -- but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the = moment,=20 that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons = is too=20 horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.

It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the = status=20 quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard. Whenever a = reform=20 measure is proposed it is often defeated when its opponents triumphantly = discover a flaw in it. As Kingsley Davis has pointed out, [21] worshipers of the = status=20 quo sometimes imply that no reform is possible without unanimous = agreement, an=20 implication contrary to historical fact. As nearly as I can make out, = automatic=20 rejection of proposed reforms is based on one of two unconscious = assumptions:=20 (1) that the status quo is perfect; or (2) that the choice we face is = between=20 reform and no action; if the proposed reform is imperfect, we presumably = should=20 take no action at all, while we wait for a perfect proposal.

But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of = years=20 is also action. It also produces evils. Once we are aware that the = status quo is=20 action, we can then compare its discoverable advantages and = disadvantages with=20 the predicted advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reform, = discounting=20 as best we can for our lack of experience. On the basis of such a = comparison, we=20 can make a rational decision which will not involve the unworkable = assumption=20 that only perfect systems are tolerable.

Recognition of Necessity

Perhaps the simplest summary of this analysis of man's population = problems is=20 this: the commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under = conditions=20 of low-population density. As the human population has increased, the = commons=20 has had to be abandoned in one aspect after another.

First we abandoned the commons in food gathering, enclosing farm land = and=20 restricting pastures and hunting and fishing areas. These restrictions = are still=20 not complete throughout the world.

Somewhat later we saw that the commons as a place for waste disposal = would=20 also have to be abandoned. Restrictions on the disposal of domestic = sewage are=20 widely accepted in the Western world; we are still struggling to close = the=20 commons to pollution by automobiles, factories, insecticide sprayers,=20 fertilizing operations, and atomic energy installations.

In a still more embryonic state is our recognition of the evils of = the=20 commons in matters of pleasure. There is almost no restriction on the=20 propagation of sound waves in the public medium. The shopping public is=20 assaulted with mindless music, without its consent. Our government has = paid out=20 billions of dollars to create a supersonic transport which would disturb = 50,000=20 people for every one person whisked from coast to coast 3 hours faster.=20 Advertisers muddy the airwaves of radio and television and pollute the = view of=20 travelers. We are a long way from outlawing the commons in matters of = pleasure.=20 Is this because our Puritan inheritance makes us view pleasure as = something of a=20 sin, and pain (that is, the pollution of advertising) as the sign of = virtue?=20

Every new enclosure of the commons involves the infringement of = somebody's=20 personal liberty. Infringements made in the distant past are accepted = because no=20 contemporary complains of a loss. It is the newly proposed infringements = that we=20 vigorously oppose; cries of "rights" and "freedom" fill the air. But = what does=20 "freedom" mean? When men mutually agreed to pass laws against robbing, = mankind=20 became more free, not less so. Individuals locked into the logic of the = commons=20 are free only to bring on universal ruin; once they see the necessity of = mutual=20 coercion, they become free to pursue other goals. I believe it was Hegel = who=20 said, "Freedom is the recognition of necessity."

The most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is = the=20 necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding. No technical solution = can=20 rescue us from the misery of overpopulation. Freedom to breed will bring = ruin to=20 all. At the moment, to avoid hard decisions many of us are tempted to=20 propagandize for conscience and responsible parenthood. The temptation = must be=20 resisted, because an appeal to independently acting consciences selects = for the=20 disappearance of all conscience in the long run, and an increase in = anxiety in=20 the short.

The only way we can preserve and nurture other and more precious = freedoms is=20 by relinquishing the freedom to breed, and that very soon. "Freedom is = the=20 recognition of necessity" -- and it is the role of education to reveal = to all=20 the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed. Only so, can we put an = end to=20 this aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

Notes

1. J. B. Wiesner and H. F. York, Scientific = American=20 211 (No. 4), 27 (1964).

2. G. Hardin, Journal of Heredity 50, 68 = (1959), S. von=20 Hoernor, Science 137, 18, (1962).

3. J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of = Games and=20 Economic Behavior (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., = 1947), p.=20 11.

4. J. H. Fremlin, New Scientist, No. 415 = (1964), p.=20 285.

5. A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Modern = Library, New=20 York, 1937), p. 423.

6. W. F. Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to=20 Population (Oxford University Press, Oxford, England, 1833).

7. A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern = World=20 (Mentor, New York, 1948), p. 17.

8. G. Hardin, Ed., Population, Evolution, and = Birth=20 Control (Freeman, San Francisco, 1964), p. 56.

9. S. McVay, Scientific American 216 (No. 8), = 13=20 (1966).

10. J. Fletcher, Situation Ethics = (Westminster,=20 Philadelphia, 1966).

11. D. Lack, The Natural Regulation of Animal = Numbers=20 (Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1954).

12. H. Girvetz, From Wealth to Welfare = (Stanford=20 University Press, Stanford, Calif, 1950).

13. G. Hardin, Perspectives in Biology and = Medicine 6,=20 366 (1963).

14. U Thant, International Planned Parenthood = News,=20 No. 168 (February 1968), p. 3.

15. K. Davis, Science 158, 730 (1967).

16. S. Tax, Ed., Evolution After Darwin = (University of=20 Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960), vol. 2, p. 469.

17. G. Bateson, D. D. Jackson, J. Haley, J. = Weakland,=20 Behavioral Science 1, 251 (1956).

18. P. Goodman, New York Review of Books 10 = (8), 22=20 (23 May 1968).

19. A. Comfort, The Anxiety Makers (Nelson, = London,=20 1967).

20. C. Frankel, The Case for Modern Man = (Harper &=20 Row, New York, 1955), p. 203.

21. J. D. Roslansky, Genetics and the Future of = Man=20 (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966), p. 177.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMON = REVISITED
by=20 Beryl Crowe (1969)
reprinted in MANAGING THE COMMONS
by Garrett = Hardin and=20 John Baden
W.H. Freeman, 1977; ISBN 0-7167-0476-5

"There has developed in the contemporary natural sciences a = recognition that=20 there is a subset of problems, such as population, atomic war, and = environmental=20 corruption, for which there are no technical solutions.

"There is also an increasing recognition among contemporary social = scientists=20 that there is a subset of problems, such as population, atomic war,=20 environmental corruption, and the recovery of a livable urban = environment, for=20 which there are no current political solutions. The thesis of this = article is=20 that the common area shared by these two subsets contains most of the = critical=20 problems that threaten the very existence of contemporary man." [p. = 53]

ASSUMPTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID THE TRAGEDY

"In passing the technically insoluble problems over to the political = and=20 social realm for solution, Hardin made three critical assumptions:

(1) that there exists, or can be developed, a 'criterion of judgment = and=20 system of weighting . . .' that will 'render the incommensurables . . .=20 commensurable . . . ' in real life;

(2) that, possessing this criterion of judgment, 'coercion can be = mutually=20 agreed upon,' and that the application of coercion to effect a solution = to=20 problems will be effective in modern society; and

(3) that the administrative system, supported by the criterion of = judgment=20 and access to coercion, can and will protect the commons from further=20 desecration." [p. 55]

ERODING MYTH OF THE COMMON VALUE SYSTEM

"In America there existed, until very recently, a set of conditions = which=20 perhaps made the solution to Hardin's subset possible; we lived with the = myth=20 that we were 'one people, indivisible. . . .' This myth postulated that = we were=20 the great 'melting pot' of the world wherein the diverse cultural ores = of Europe=20 were poured into the crucible of the frontier experience to produce a = new alloy=20 -- an American civilization. This new civilization was presumably united = by a=20 common value system that was democratic, equalitarian, and existing = under=20 universally enforceable rules contained in the Constitution and the Bill = of=20 Rights.

"In the United States today, however, there is emerging a new set of = behavior=20 patterns which suggest that the myth is either dead or dying. Instead of = believing and behaving in accordance with the myth, large sectors of the = population are developing life-styles and value hierarchies that give=20 contemporary Americans an appearance more closely analogous to the=20 particularistic, primitive forms of 'tribal' organizations in geographic = proximity than to that shining new alloy, the American civilization." = [p.=20 56]

"Looking at a more recent analysis of the sickness of the core city, = Wallace=20 F. Smith has argued that the productive model of the city is no longer = viable=20 for the purposes of economic analysis. Instead, he develops a model of = the city=20 as a site for leisure consumption, and then seems to suggest that the = nature of=20 this model is such is such that the city cannot regain its health = because the=20 leisure demands are value-based and, hence do not admit to compromise = and=20 accommodation; consequently there is no way of deciding among these = value-=20 oriented demands that are being made on the core city.

"In looking for the cause of the erosion of the myth of a common = value=20 system, it seems to me that so long as our perceptions and knowledge of = other=20 groups were formed largely through the written media of communication, = the=20 American myth that we were a giant melting pot of equalitarians could be = sustained. In such a perceptual field it is tenable, if not obvious, = that men=20 are motivated by interests. Interests can always be compromised and = accommodated=20 without undermining our very being by sacrificing values. Under the = impact of=20 electronic media, however, this psychological distance has broken down = and now=20 we discover that these people with whom we could formerly compromise on=20 interests are not, after all, really motivated by interests but by = values. Their=20 behavior in our very living room betrays a set of values, moreover, that = are=20 incompatible with our own, and consequently the compromises that we make = are not=20 those of contract but of culture. While the former are acceptable, any = form of=20 compromise on the latter is not a form of rational behavior but is = rather a=20 clear case of either apostasy or heresy. Thus we have arrived not at an = age of=20 accommodation but one of confrontation. In such an age = 'incommensurables' remain=20 'incommensurable' in real life." [p. 59]

EROSION OF THE MYTH OF THE MONOPOLY OF COERCIVE FORCE

"In the past, those who no longer subscribed to the values of the = dominant=20 culture were held in check by the myth that the state possessed a = monopoly on=20 coercive force. This myth has undergone continual erosion since the end = of World=20 War II owing to the success of the strategy of guerrilla warfare, as = first=20 revealed to the French in Indochina, and later conclusively demonstrated = in=20 Algeria. Suffering as we do from what Senator Fulbright has called 'the=20 arrogance of power,' we have been extremely slow to learn the lesson in = Vietnam,=20 although we now realize that war is political and cannot be won by = military=20 means. It is apparent that the myth of the monopoly of coercive force as = it was=20 first qualified in the civil rights conflict in the South, then in our = urban=20 ghettos, next on the streets of Chicago, and now on our college campuses = has=20 lost its hold over the minds of Americans. The technology of guerrilla = warfare=20 has made it evident that, while the state can win battles, it cannot win = wars of=20 values. Coercive force which is centered in the modern state cannot be = sustained=20 in the face of the active resistance of some 10 percent of the = population unless=20 the state is willing to embark on a deliberate policy of genocide = directed=20 against the value dissident groups. The factor that sustained the myth = of=20 coercive force in the past was the acceptance of a common value system. = Whether=20 the latter exists is questionable in the modern nation-state." [p.p. = 59-60]

EROSION OF THE MYTH OF ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COMMONS

"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one = writer=20 postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop = regulatory=20 policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and = demanding=20 that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of = a=20 regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational = distribution of=20 the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase = is=20 followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes = into=20 operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great = majority=20 of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. = Once this=20 political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and = specifically=20 interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring = sufficient=20 pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency = to the=20 protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even = staffing of=20 the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency = administrators from=20 the ranks of the regulated." [p.p. 60-61]

------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC625C.D596B9C0 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://www.dieoff.org/flame2.gif R0lGODlhGAAxAIcAAAAAAAAAMwAAZgAAmQAAzAAA/zMAADMAMzMAZjMAmTMAzDMA/2YAAGYAM2YA ZmYAmWYAzGYA/5kAAJkAM5kAZpkAmZkAzJkA/8wAAMwAM8wAZswAmcwAzMwA//8AAP8AM/8AZv8A mf8AzP8A/wAzAAAzMwAzZgAzmQAzzAAz/zMzADMzMzMzZjMzmTMzzDMz/2YzAGYzM2YzZmYzmWYz zGYz/5kzAJkzM5kzZpkzmZkzzJkz/8wzAMwzM8wzZswzmcwzzMwz//8zAP8zM/8zZv8zmf8zzP8z /wBmAABmMwBmZgBmmQBmzABm/zNmADNmMzNmZjNmmTNmzDNm/2ZmAGZmM2ZmZmZmmWZmzGZm/5lm AJlmM5lmZplmmZlmzJlm/8xmAMxmM8xmZsxmmcxmzMxm//9mAP9mM/9mZv9mmf9mzP9m/wCZAACZ MwCZZgCZmQCZzACZ/zOZADOZMzOZZjOZmTOZzDOZ/2aZAGaZM2aZZmaZmWaZzGaZ/5mZAJmZM5mZ ZpmZmZmZzJmZ/8yZAMyZM8yZZsyZmcyZzMyZ//+ZAP+ZM/+ZZv+Zmf+ZzP+Z/wDMAADMMwDMZgDM mQDMzADM/zPMADPMMzPMZjPMmTPMzDPM/2bMAGbMM2bMZmbMmWbMzGbM/5nMAJnMM5nMZpnMmZnM zJnM/8zMAMzMM8zMZszMmczMzMzM///MAP/MM//MZv/Mmf/MzP/M/wD/AAD/MwD/ZgD/mQD/zAD/ /zP/ADP/MzP/ZjP/mTP/zDP//2b/AGb/M2b/Zmb/mWb/zGb//5n/AJn/M5n/Zpn/mZn/zJn//8z/ AMz/M8z/Zsz/mcz/zMz/////AP//M///Zv//mf//zP///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwHo AwAh+QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAfqogBYIWBiAJjxFARgGPE FRoBGJiIcYUKkSRLGjB5EuNFkQYOPLwIEmbEEgAmbjRAoqRGjxJPlri4cWbIiwZ2OiwR4yJOAzCa AujJcMVAA1CbBni50MBTrDBgOAUQYKFJrGhhqCBKUaBVgyNHxhA7UW5RhWCrbFQRFuvEtQZxWpVb JWzYtTrXDr16NWvhw1APwyiIEybUwnxVaN6sGYbFxmirbBF7uPPapCJTo/UrWq2KLaNHKvYKYOhq vrANb8GMNrXA2ypEj4axm3fvl2g3Ew8LO/fp3paVb/lD3RD10c+x/vZr+I8h67SFqP/puzo68+nf w4sfL/Y4WOLT/wBKr556e+3cH6M3VKh//fFxJdfadIXQ598f4VWh2W3wVccfguH194dzq0VWnSr8 HdhffGoxOB0gqoQooir9WWdfhXyJ5h1/IxaiCiAFbnGaZcxB6GKIB+amnUXcEdifiBJCpp15Vcgn IogSxgZdcmH9EWKG9Q035FsWEWcIjgdOCJuCFRXE14rr1ffdbi0NBFJzaKIpXEgGJdaZa+UZFBAA IfkEAQUAAAAsAAAAABgAMQAHCPwAAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGixYsYM2rcyLGjx48g ExogYUBggIcHAJQAEIBEABUOWyZcAaDkwZcCDejcqZPgSpE8g/YEKtRACQMwjpbcSdCAiqI8YQgd 6BSG1Z1WpSK9GrSmChgxYmhFGkOLlqxZg34Fe1arVbNZ4Vp9amBF1i1t0cJou2WLVb9S18LoW2hL oUJmtRxejHfv3LWGFxf6I1nV4j9aGiPNHPmw2cmHDUlOHENnZsqSU6dO7HbLH1KiVafGCxerYcuy QePFK9b2H1W4FwMHjtnxWKSuhwNfbEjVH79fhQ5OPlzy8+NLdapIXKh5IVVKkf/AoAtV52DZxXmq 3Pn0q+vKk7XQzVmTZ1nXfyg3p7yld8mfOanwXH4EDshffzZRtUIMh/XlIG0OxrACgDktGJaEaH1F XoIABAQAIfkEAQUAAAAsAAAAABgAMQAHCPwAAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGixYsYM2rc yLEjwRIADAgECQDkioQgRY4UqFKhSAMkQ7I0QJPmyoIxa+rc+bHgTp0wgvKc+fMnDCowDAhVWVRp 0KRBkcKokrRpVCpYnx49irSp0i1/Cv3ZouUpFS1btiytyVWLFj9hx7rF+pbsWqVu3xba68dPIT9I 8wJeGhSs30Kq/h7Oq9ct1CpUtvD1G7av2L2Y506FrOWPob+FPv+xbEiVacBapLbFzFqsodKwVAGW qhQrldZ7wxoCFFq26tqpw4J+bVksIENbfmsNqwpWbNOvDQFOS5um1kKMnqsyJNBQ2a1+Va0/3XJc FYDYsQupfVr0KVpAA0X/qW50vCFYA9V39QpV8mv8AHgXHn+3MXIffrCItR+Bf4SVHYLqDdheg53t 1VxiZXlVW4OHIZZYhEOF9NVYnhWH2R8DDrTCVGJJpthroe1VBVUAnMTSjJilBVaMac1oU0GbzQhV UFT9WFBAACH5BAEFAAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEixosWLGDNq 3MgwgAGKKgaWmOjxo0ASByIagBHDpMCRIxUaMLCCJYySBl0WNKCC5ZafMGYKBUDzI4mdKmLE+LkF hlOhM0ukLKhiplMYQJ0yYCDU6QqdJXtivUp2q4oSRQka2MrAqY23NrQ0haGCwdkYU4nWnLkVRly5 Nshi3fIVQFWbfa9uCdxWMF2BNGu2fetXLgy2ghkILMlz8GIbi7VifrzT58/AV9maNakigGGeS7dY 1gp1psGSY39qCUrUNkqCAUJ+tMm0JWQDeXcOD6x7i/GTB0kEOOqZadOPydUKPIBVrtyfhyGPJpwO YHAhLYV+Yk+IluhSLX+0yI0REoD4hAbi/o1voz5C4SqoINtf5+2mU0GuraDUgPIVkp5x2Q200oJa xOVgIX/YsFBSYqFnw4XnVQVATFS15BR8Fjq42IESOtUTaIV8iJ6KvBmk4ILWpbeFjiuIWFBN1jnn WQykIbTCkTH0KFCAPhoUEAAh+QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAj SpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaNHgSs2BqBooKQBACUemjSgAkBJAC0bslShAgYMlwBGxlTI0iYMFStfAgiJ sCSMGD+DCj140uXRpAWJJjS5BUbThyt+wqi61CHSrVWAQjQQA2kVrmN9brWa9uxZtg5Nwviz5Q9c mSfn1q1yVWFIFVX1VhXbcOuWLVoSa7Hat6gBw4r/LJYpEEZiyZJvLgT6eKvixHcRarX5WXHog18t l0arsKxq1YmrnCZo1OcfyZ+RNhbYucri0rEZH1QRo8pZxKTpHoZqcEWMw3UPa1G+3IDUgsSfFzce 2ObuqQYvT3YdGBAAIfkEAQUAAAAsAAAAABgAMQAHCO0AAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGi xYsYM2rcyLGjx48gQ4ocSbKkyYgGHqZcaaBlABUNDaxQAaNmTQA0UzI0QNMmDAM3dwKtSWULlZ9A YS60WVTL0ZpbYiw0ECPqlkJGa2qJCkOpwZYxYsDY8keLUypaqtT0WrClzUJlzW7VsjYhTxhU/mzR EneLX7E6C67gSQWt2UJysaotcVCFiip/4mophJjslq5tB/olmxhxYaSBCcIApHfvYax/Qxcc/adK YbRwI/+JoUK1wBUxAG12uvUPIEBqZSKsGVaszSpiYdpWmHIFgOUAAgIAIfkEAQUAAAAsAAAAABgA MQAHCPwAAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGixYsYM2rcyLGjx48gQ2IkgfEASZMRDawQuKIl xJUqDUhcYaCmzIkGVJSoOVEFDAAqAewUWGJhAJ8waiYFoOLmQhVIlTaFKnMlwpYwtmyBAcMnUqgK V8CoknUrUi1blyrkqoXtFi1wt1apEiAhVxhwtRTKi3ZrwhVn9f4p5EeLH60/7eKFW6gx4UJ//F5l W9jP4L1bIltFSNlw48Ja/lRBedAAVz97URPGKxnhWcJ+LBfOmhhhFa15YxuO3DWhittvcxtGHPTg Cq3I4Rb+w7t4wZZb5mZGnlm0irBVWs69y3Vzw5UE3hMGBAAh+QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AAB CBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzatzIsaNHjSQoBhBooKIKgSUmjiQZcQWAkysjGph5 AACJkQZSMjSwAsaBkCRnuky4YkUMEjFSzpxZAgaAnAh5xjgQA8ZSoSpmPo0ao6dVGGBhBBC7NGrY sDGqwkgbIwDQgitmno1RZQtYKluqWE1oIAaVKlq2bKECg0rgvE4NujRQxbDgLVoi+3kco2RBuXbx bvkD2Y+fw3oPynVcqNAWz4YDw4hreaDcwH9KQ9bi2K6BkwRZw9hSuhDqyJv1Bmjt2gAMLaUDF9Li h7NtADGDGt88e3lyKgFwX8b85zNzP1WlCQvUXnwt7+7g02sBC93gzMexe5fmXKUKcdcA6saO31tw la4J6SdYIfE5B9Z9A61Q12O9/UGfVQg+RdeCmxHoXxWsIWgcWxOqBaFlQykGgEskMhQQACH5BAEF AAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEixosWLGDNq3Mixo0ePBlYEeGhA YImBJR2uKGggZUqFJVasUFGyJYwqMWgulFllpc0qQHO+NNhS5oqWKm7CUBEjp0KkMVoagLEFhlIV Co8aaGpzSxUqQHUmDLki6tQtaLdQgTGUqFSaKrb8SVulLUupNqn8mYsWgF0AR/1KtUqV75+ZB0uq WJz0K5W0XlWMZAlgcQylcucSXvx3sVXIfwpVDVBy8sCjKlbAuEw1s2aBLd2y/ro3dKo/bBXfBVDF aui9hQqlSsUWgGmULatSCS58eCrRMCrfbWk4uPNCfKMfF6ziN/DnVrf/PK7iljr22reFi/e6kqBW A1vO/xkuH20VrJThn7+OvSpiogHENZdt2EFXE0IxoAWcdXtFBptBKlTRYG3zKdjTSu25twJQPHl1 HwwzYZWhQSOOmFBAACH5BAEFAAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEix osWLGDNq3MgxYgkDFEFaLAHAwEeSDkWKJIgyoUqBJks2BEkTQEsDIlsexNlSRQyaNV0OxBkjhoqj KhgC9Ym0aE6EOEGq2AIIhgEVVaqoWInwo9EYMGCogAEohkyhAI5qgbFWy5akH6FuLTn2j921QXf6 FFv3TyEtQA+uiBpjS1gYhfwChgkVJ9vHif/iBLBC8FUVWtbaTfxHy1auAiuXLLplixa7nf8YnowQ q2m2fhObfhu6YGUDMEpn9ts5c9mklA9O5WzXUOctht6CDn21dKHnhQxFNgSoCkjRBK8Wfm6o+2bq WVuqILydO7rx08nDm90pVQsg6X/9Ir2+M20M6LILzZWb1jn8zGLVZpBPBsQACCDQbVHIFkYtB5MK 1ZVWWHJadPfWUa11BwiDVDF4YHhaOYhVVkiVeBRrGwUEACH5BAEFAAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEI HEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEixosWLGDNqvGgggEUSAg9UNGCAoscVAFA6VAGDREkAL0u8XLhC RQAVBlTgJPkwp04YMHTCdFjiZ5UqQW2qaJgTqBYtSR2iZKllyxagKlQyZAmjKtSgD1lWeQpV58yD K0o27fp0aYCzBs1SJVtlKQC7BtOm/bnFK1YAHhU2tWoVKNi7gQtOVVG10JZCUKGW9HhW5QoYVf4U 2gy56mG3BXNmLmRIs2OrR0ETVKmiCmnOm/9sOQpDIN6BBjBXIey495/WkxXf7Wqa85Y/SOsmNFDz Mey+OoVqFYiyJGPThqzi3L5c9GZAWtl/3xWYmDp1ln8Avf7zp/Z0hLnVvy7UfuB76i9VHIddf+jB kpeN5dwWhhRCW0poDUcYduFVodBR7EVYYGmZVXFfSjAAoiEgRx2nGXIHHqQbbT9hFtRhND0UEAAh +QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFiwQNaJSoUSOMGCsi alQRIAZIiAZUwFChMoYBlDBitizhMGRKGFRWwjjwUiFNACOpCGWpokRPhD09UtmiRafJkAk7GoCh 5c+WLTBeroBqsKNKFVT+/NGCtWNUAyU+Ci1UCKuKjQhtxrxatZCWt0ADqECqkqkWLWzvCtwbFcYW q3UNbdn7MsDBFUqr/jFkqK3ZsympFKIc+PJBrzg3c/6TFSiJgjY94gQMmG1ZAAGODuwYk0rVv38A WRZ4miBkjTGETh671OrGA71nRx6ec2mM0qiBAp26RfTfqzHw/vTttTplxZ5bnvOUPhCqVO+FrK4s ARlA8tnTDRw2pF6qAce+y2sMW3nxZdn6jTRfW29ttF150mlU3XD+bQSgciltQV96ZSUFIHIArBDD VWK1NVaBAh3o21WH/WGXWFhBF52CTJlol2tXwZCQCiQCZshfNpL20oNTwSCWiZX9xZaOAIiIFk4/ uoijVS49FoNVQ3ZIIXYqlmfShuHVllNMMLSH0UABAQAh+QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxI sKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSoQYYKKBgSoiGigBgCOAihFXXAygoiSAiw4NoCypwuNDAypgqFCp0QCM GDIzPiwRs+RNnS9jxFC5AuJFAzG2oIRY4qKKGEUhinQKtGHUmQCELm0Ic6jNjCAXclSxZYvMGFUZ Ii1r1iwAEg5LJC0LQ6ZRsnTrGgib8KjNLYXqDo170kBZmDAMkNi7cCMAvIlVHngJo9CWmTThKiwK E7BSlTz59oXh+ehJhpxJWx5JQjTCxaovY1RIsuLfP2Zpuj6IGHAhr2+3FqQJU4vnyyh3A1hhUmXZ Qpb1CnRpELNh6H+01E2MsChznFpaoEPXfpN737nixxtHe5Az3vTi2aYlKPS5eC3howsXWPSp2UJ/ qAedbFENN5dq4w0YWEJ4bYHffeO5xRt69sVHlwEFYsTWhhyaVdJ+SD2VFE7bbUfTQt45FBAAIfkE AQUAAAAsAAAAABgAMQAHCPwAAQgcSLCgwYMIEypcyLChw4cQI0qcSLGixYsYMwJYodEix4ofP0rk KDIiSY8lOz5MCbEEy4clDMR42dDAihgVS8TASfEmz5EqNpaQaECFgaITdxalmdAAgCoxDMCI6rQh iQAkYsCQCsNo1YUHjMLYSmWsV4EBEK64qQLGFipatJQ9q1CFVrdbthQqtKWrUxJqAbSFEbdwWSo4 0yKU2lZLIcMwoH49OHWslj+F5UpuGuMtlceZt1QJujhGlbxatsgtvCVqwhVVYsPNHBcqU5mnqcAF XfvnwaO5d+/l23rj75264f55vPet0d+R/2z5s3w4X7ljjxpUEfs09bgkhajnhUq6IG7vf6qknp4+ horyBNfONA11LICpz2lWXeH0ZcqAACH5BAEFAAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiw ocOHECNKnEixosWLGDNq3ChRhUUVHiuCvBiSooGSE09aVCnRgEsVMFqChAGDigGIJ2nStIkTJpWd Km46zLlFC80qMIQCWJEQJMwtW3bSDKrw5EsYUY3CqEKFakKXObVohaGFSlelB3NiLaqzLFK0BmvS LCp2blSUcauI3VKokFgtUH8ivIkVcN/DULcIPqgicVFDhwFDRZq2imMth/tuqfKWaUEDa2mKhVzo Lgy8Al1iPb0XctSbLg2CrWLI7uHTIeECONm4NuZChiCfxs2YZnCofYMX+vnztEEVnIOTJl3a7evP TzNrR26oClyiJNu1l076vGbizIahkn/O2bF79UHhwuTMWafUqS+xOw0KEqzCgAAh+QQBBQAAACwA AAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIsKHDhxAjSpxIsaLFixgzVjTAcaKBFR8NQFwBgOOBEiJL RDRQIoYKkStXxIABo+PDjypo1oQZYCDMgwZizNRZUyCJhSBnbtmi82XJngplLt2ipSlMFQhJCl36 54+WrzCwAghwNGvOLV2rfo3x8yBJjjC+gv3K1OlCFV/T5mXa1uBbmloKpY3LlGZfgSINnC0kWG1V GC4PIy4Z2GtcLYVn9n0Lt7JOzJCFHv4YIK6hPzo55hSKUiDJtytobjH0eCfHkEBXLFZru+Nm1zG0 GKINOrHNgZxvawF0uhDVsLcBqCxJULGK2YYYP3eauDpInYWzGf9xzhfmdIEzh8IYL5593b5Bw+aM y77QV+1a2FYnGlfw+LRdLaUFVsbFQJUWXWUXGGMM/sGXdD7BwFUhCjJooSFbbHbWcBZaiBp01PlG GIcdemXXdD8FhV1XgjUGnWQqYjcVgphtIZR+BEm1FHNKzXUjSAV9FMMKMg2pgm4vvXScQAEBACH5 BAEFAAAALAAAAAAYADEABwj8AAEIHEiwoMGDCBMqXMiwocOHECNKnEgxYoCJBlRolFhCIwwYGSWq gKFFy0cDDlcAMEByyxaTKiCqcOmyZMwSDVm+LGmz4QoDBrTs5KkCJQCcCTNuKcTzj5aiRgGoRCpQ ZUahPAsVAgk0alSBXUmW1Mp0y8quKwuG5amF7BaNKFGW+PpzpMmshbbEgAv0INCPYse+hKG3r9SB PzPaZcvTJVSDXe1qLSmWJlfEZ/+2ZWryo1C9b792vbp0smeXhPcaHX2VM2eNQj/GgBGTNWnGtEnC mF00c2SsbLkCfew77NC8T22DtS20LHLhaIu3JksZatzVrAmrUmX6ZEagjSqLjyy0fTLl6ANHwyZf nrPj0QJHeiTJnjt1LXvPxp8vdHt76oWhZNVwLrFH1oGfGZYZDFr9d2BZoS2nVIP2IehWb4lN2OCD BxZGUFcFkmfgfcKpRVhpHJYE34DDtXRghaEpuNpIKN4nFG9fxUeYiHmV9lmPMRGkQgw0FUlTDES6 FMNBGjX5kXxFbWRQQAAh+QQBBQAAACwAAAAAGAAxAAcI/AABCBxIsKDBgwgTKlzIUKCBhgcfEpQI cSIAihUvqlihwgDGijFirDDQMSNJkR1XxDAJYKNHFSszXny4sSREiSU9fkz40IDKjipk0vzpsSJN AyiLAgiwkGTJjiIH7izoM0bPjTCmHoQZtCcMjlqpHrjY8iRJsmgNkuzpMUZKmhEdulyrAgbQkEEB rIgIdEVWpCo2uqX4kCnZwDDw1m3wcnDannJjVIHRoO7dwZDJ6gwsObFdA1ndVh6rWWBHGJMDM1Cx 2q7dwJCBeqyyJSuM1wzAAobMdvafrCq21DawWsWBpxqdwhB+ezmVz7Kl6lxNuzYVLVUm/81Z9DTr 5fswtAjH/vlsUBIzWdfVAugPIENa/myxAbuozrUxYFAxVMjQn0J/gPEbcDrJBdp1W/zBH4AJxncb UDMpJ9wfWqiiSiGFpPLHf7+tddVtMTzHXn/+YSjgFoUAJxtMWlCRYCGq/JEKgAByWIV6pjHg4oT8 9ViIFhjKV1t0dcHwnyGwYKgkhwmKUZ5Ht41ooYWwpHJhfwACQiBQqCW4oCpIXmhhf1tAWFaI8dEI y5j8CflahKcJpySYrwT5YEe8kYQajIyosuaVfgx3EQlwgXbbH2sGWYgfQj5nn0MaoTimkmHI5+Jk mvXk13v+AQJIIe39EYYhqmxxI1stxZCgcBKstlqdSgcQlqpbbj2o4lkYBQQAIf5rRklMRSBJREVO VElUWQ0KQ3JlYXRlZCBvciBtb2RpZmllZCBieQ0KYW4gdW5pZGVudGlmaWVkIHVzZXIgb2YgYW4g dW5yZWdpc3RlcmVkIGNvcHkgb2YgR0lGIENvbnN0cnVjdGlvbiBTZXQAIf7/VU5SRUdJU1RFUkVE IFNIQVJFV0FSRQ0KDQpBc3NlbWJsZWQgd2l0aCBHSUYgQ29uc3RydWN0aW9uIFNldCBmcm9tOg0K DQpBbGNoZW15IE1pbmR3b3JrcyBJbmMuDQpQLk8uIEJveCA1MDANCkJlZXRvbiwgT250YXJpbw0K TDBHIDFBMA0KQ0FOQURBLg0KDQpodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm1pbmR3b3Jrc2hvcC5jb20NCg0KVGhpcyBj b21tZW50IGJsb2NrIHdpbGwgbm90IGFwcGVhciBpbiBmaWxlcyBjcmVhdGVkIHdpdGggYSByZWdp c3RlcmVkIHZlcnNpb24gGG9mIEdJRiBDb25zdHJ1Y3Rpb24gU2V0LgAh/wtHSUZDT05uYjEuMAIS AA4VAAIAAwAAAAAAAAAAABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTAxLkdJRgAOFQACAAUAAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpc RmxhbWVzXE5ldy0wMi5HSUYADhUAAgAHAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMDMuR0lGAA4V AAIACQAAAAAAAAAAABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTA0LkdJRgAOFQACAAsAAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpcRmxh bWVzXE5ldy0wNS5HSUYADhUAAgANAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMDYuR0lGAA4VAAIA DwAAAAAAAAAAABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTA3LkdJRgAOFQACABEAAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpcRmxhbWVz XE5ldy0wOC5HSUYADhUAAgATAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMDkuR0lGAA4VAAIAFQAA AAAAAAAAABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTEwLkdJRgAOFQACABcAAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpcRmxhbWVzXE5l dy0xMS5HSUYADhUAAgAZAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMTIuR0lGAA4VAAIAGwAAAAAA AAAAABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTEzLkdJRgAOFQACAB0AAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpcRmxhbWVzXE5ldy0x NC5HSUYADhUAAgAfAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMTUuR0lGAA4VAAIAIQAAAAAAAAAA ABVEOlxGbGFtZXNcTmV3LTE2LkdJRgAOFQACACMAAAAAAAAAAAAVRDpcRmxhbWVzXE5ldy0xNy5H SUYADhUAAgAlAAAAAAAAAAAAFUQ6XEZsYW1lc1xOZXctMTguR0lGAAA7 ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC625C.D596B9C0--