Indiscriminate hunting of whales in the Antarctic-Tragedy of the commons
Garret Hardin (1968) proposed the study "The
tragedy of the commons" featuring the story of a pasture open to all. It
is assumed that each herdsman will try to keep the common pasture cattle as
many as he possibly can. There will be no problems with this behavior when
tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of people and animals below
the carrying capacity of the land. The day may not work this regulating agent,
when there is social stability, a tragedy is generated.
How? Every shperd, a rational being, try to maximize
their profit. Consciously or unconsciously, he asks, what is the benefit to me
of adding one more animal to my herd? The utility has one negative and one
positive component.
1. Positive: It depends on the number of animals where
the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale, the positive utility is
nearly +1.
2. Negative; It depends on the additional overgrazing
created by one more animal. As the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the
herdsmen, the negative utility of any decision made by a herdsman is only a
fraction of -1.
Therefore, the rational herdsman concludes that the
only sensible course for him is to add another animal to his herd, and another.
When everyone thinks alike, tragedy occurs because the intention of increasing
livestock unlimitedly collides with the reality of a limited world. Ruin is the
destination of all who seek the greatest personal gain, believing in freedom of
common resources and infinite capacity to support human actions.
Now the validity of the "tragedy of the
commons" is in question, but for the case that interests us, is still in
force (Note 1)
Currently, the world's oceans are devastated by the
validity of the principle of common resources; by the belief that "freedom
of the seas" gives right to operate without control on "inexhaustible
resources of the oceans," even knowing that this behavior leads to
extinction or degradation to all species of fish and whales.
Japan is the "shepherd" who believes that
whaling rate as it may not affect others. The Japanese do not hesitate to hunt
even species that common sense should be respected, pregnant females and calves
to allow restocking. The rationale is to obtain the maximum weight to ensure
the selloff.
But this rationality is spurious because it was found
that by ethical pressures of the world, the Japanese have markedly reduced
preference for whale meat. In addition the false Institute of Cetacean Research
has recognized that just sold 25% of the meat. The argument that eating whale
meat is part of Japanese culture is no longer living. So why so avidly by
overhunting? They do feel the sickening passion wayward hunters in Africa pay
thousands of dollars to kill a lion in a national reserve and take some
pictures?
It adds to this inconsistency, ethical condemnation of
the cruel methods and indiscriminate hunting, the International Court of The
Hague, a supranational organization, in 2014 banned Japanese whaling grounds
that rely on rules a scientific seudoprograma JARPA. In addition to cruel,
predators are liars and mock the international community.
In March 2016, Japanese fishing hunted 333 whales,
where 200 pregnant females, with the tragic situation that 75% of the meat of
these animals will not be bought by the Japanese. Why and for 75% waste?
The following figure shows as "false
rationality" of this "pastor" affects the future welfare of
others "shepherds" in this case pro be the only ones with such
behavior (other countries have fleets or motivation to do but if they could and
they did the tragedy would be fulfilled, ruin). High profit, beyond tolerable
in the short term for Japanese affects the long-term benefit of others
including themselves.
In the short term, the excess profits wins Japan is
very high for being the only country. Over time, this margin is reduced. If you
continue with the predatory practice that undermines the potential for recovery
of whales (the hunting of females and calves), the overall benefit for all is
greatly reduced in the future. The period of growth and maturation of whales is
not measured in weeks or months, but in years
Fortunately no more countries like Japan, with three
or four like them, whales would be
history or significant reduction would have caused severe damage or alter the
ecosystem.
Truly "scientific reasons". Business and money
Video showing the decision of the Hague Court banning japanese pseudoscientific hunting of whales.
Whales reading is recommended: Their Emerging Right to
Life
Anthony D'Amato, Northwestern University School of
Law, and Sudhir K. Chopra, Cambridge University East Asia Forum (2010) where an
impeccable legal support that helps to question the Japanese practices exposed.
Note 1
The
theory of the "tragedy of the commons" their works
When you land, resource or common good, is not the
possession of someone, is used regardless despite the resulting disadvantages.
They are in the position to appropriate the profits, wood and hunting the
forests, fish, whales in the Antarctic, they do not worry about the
aftereffects of their exploitation. Soil erosion, depletion of non-renewable
resources, species extinction are external costs, externalities, which are not
included in its calculations of income and production. In fishing and hunting
them do not hesitate to use methods that harm the ability to restock supplies
fishing or hunting (hunting pregnant whale, whale calves or calves).
The solution of the tragedy (the situation that leads
to overexploitation and exhaustion "irrational" use of the resource)
has been the subject of discussions. The proposed solutions depend on the
implementation of measures restricting access to resources controlled by any
superior to the same community or some external agent (national or
international organizations, etc.) authority restriction.
Elinor Ostrom (Nobel Prize in Economics 2009)
says that the belief that common property is poorly managed, it is comprised
results showing better results than those predicted by previous theories
(including Garret Hardin). He says that resource users frequently develop
sophisticated mechanisms for decision and implementation of rules for handling
conflicts of interest and relies on rules that promote positive results. "
Along with Ostrom, some claim that the "tragedy
of the commons" does not correspond to reality and that the solution does
not necessarily require external actors to impose rationality because the
community is able to find their own solutions. Apparently Ostrom and Hardin's
detractors are not aware of their existence and their Japanese practices
whaling for their pseudo-scientific projects.
References
Garret Hardin
(1968) La tragedia de los comunes
Artículo
fue publicado como “The Tragedy of Commons" en Science, v. 162 (1968), pp.
1243-1248. Gaceta Ecológica, núm. 37, Instituto Nacional de Ecología, México,
1995. http://www.ine.gob.mx/
Japan kills 200 pregnant whales
Saturday 26 March 2016 16:53 BST
Tribunal
ordena a Japón frenar temporalmente caza de ballenas
La Haya, Holanda (31/mar/2014)
Tragedia
de los comunes
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
Nota: solo los miembros de este blog pueden publicar comentarios.