Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
At Last, A New Story for the Future
Bill McKibben's introduction to OTC's book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons
It was two years before the first Earth Day in 1970 when Garrett Hardin penned the famous essay “The Tragedy of the Commons,” and it fit a certain bleak and despairing mood of the time. Paul Ehrlich had just published The Population Bomb, a Malthusian account of a world overwhelmed by sheer numbers of people. Against the backdrop of that gloom, Hardin’s theory came as another dose of bad news, “proving” that we also had no hope of controlling our appetite for natural resources. Because no one owned the oceans or the atmosphere, we would inevitably fish and pollute them into oblivion. Hardin offered a few suggestions, but his title summed it up: we were witnessing a tragedy whose script could not be revised.
Oddly, a decade later, his argument fit just as easily the exuberant, privatizing mood of the Reagan years. No one owns the sky or the sea? Well, then, let’s sell them! The race was on to privatize everything, from fishing rights to kids’ playgrounds, on the theory that this was the only way to manage them well. Society was the problem, the individual was the solution.
The only thing that Hardin’s argument didn’t fit was the facts, at least not all of them. For eons communities had managed to protect all kinds of resources without private ownership. In America and in England, it’s true, a couple of centuries of enclosure and corporatization made this harder to recall. But around the world, most of the pasture lands, forests, and streams had long been controlled by communities, drawing on deep traditions of custom and collective wisdom. Even in the United States, we had classic examples—the acequia irrigation systems of New Mexico, which may be the only sustainable water systems in the American West, or the lobster fishery of Maine, protected from overfishing less by law than by long custom.
And in the years since “The Tragedy of the Commons” appeared, even a cursory glance around the landscape reveals that Hardin’s gloom has been disproven a thousand times. For example, I’m willing to bet that many of the people reading this turned on their local public radio station this morning. Here’s how public radio works: give away your product for free with no advertising, and then twice a year wheedle people to make a donation to pay for it. Turn that in as your business plan at some bank and they’ll laugh you out the door, but public radio has been the fastest-growing sector of the broadcast industry for years. And now we have low-power FM and community radio, not to mention the explosion of free content on the Internet.
I’ve spent most of my life as a writer—and one of the sweetest parts of that job is knowing that whatever I produce ends up in a library, an institution dedicated to the idea that we can share things easily. There are innumerable other examples—and they are the parts of our lives that we usually care most about. They don’t show up on balance sheets because they’re not producing profit, but they are producing satis¬faction.
These things we share are called commons, which simply means they belong to all of us. Commons can be gifts of nature—such as fresh water, wilderness, and the airwaves—or the products of social ingenuity, like the Internet, parks, artistic traditions, or the public health service. But today much of our common wealth is under threat from those hungry to ruin it or take it over for selfish, private purposes.
The most crucial commons, perhaps, is the one now under greatest siege, and it poses a test of whether we can pull together to solve our deepest problems or succumb to disaster. Our atmosphere has been de facto privatized for a long time now—we’ve allowed coal, oil, and gas interests to own the sky, filling it with the carbon that is the inevitable byproduct of their business. For a couple of centuries, this seemed mostly harmless—CO2 didn’t seem to be causing much trouble. But two decades ago, we started to understand the effects of global warming, and now each month, the big scientific journals bring us new proof of just how vast the damage is: the Arctic is melting, Australia has been on fire, the pH of the ocean is dropping fast.
If we are to somehow ward off the coming catastrophes, we have to reclaim this atmospheric commons. We have to figure out how to cooperatively own and protect the single most important feature of the planet we inhabit—the thin envelope of atmosphere that makes our lives possible. Wrestling this key prize away from Exxon Mobil and other corporations is the great political issue of our time, and some of the solutions proposed have been ingenious—most notably the idea put forth by commons theorist Peter Barnes and others that we should own the sky jointly and share in the profits realized by leasing its storage space to the fossil fuel industry. For that to work, of course, we would have to reduce that storage space quickly and dramatically. Barnes’s cap-and-dividend plan offers one way to make that economically and politically feasible.
But for this and other necessary projects to succeed, we need first to break the intellectual spell under which we live. The last few decades have been dominated by the premise that privatizing all economic resources will produce endless riches. Which was kind of true, except that the riches went to only a few people. And in the process they melted the Arctic, as well as dramatically increasing inequality around the world. Jay Walljasper performs the greatest of services with the book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons. It is—choose your metaphor—a bracing slap across the face or the kiss that breaks an enchantment. In either case, after reading it, you will be much more alive to the world as it actually is, not as it exists in the sweaty dreams of ideologues and economics professors. The commons is a crucial part of the human story that must be recovered if we are to deal with the problems now crowding in on us. This story is equal parts enlightening and encouraging, and it is entirely necessary for us to hear it.
OTC’s new book All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons will brighten the hopes of everyone on your gift list who cares about equity, the environment, democracy, communities and the world we leave for future generations. This book will inspire them to see the world in a new way.
A gathering of stories, cartoons, photos, lists, manifestoes, personality profiles, success stories, essays and investigative reports, it presents a broad ranging portrait of what the commons is and how it can guide us to create a better world. Contributors include Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Nobel-prize winner Elinor Ostrom, Winona LaDuke, Robert Reich and DJ Spooky.
As Bill McKibben says here in the book’s introduction, All That We Share “is—choose your metaphor—a bracing slap across the face or the kiss that breaks an enchantment. In either case, after reading it, you will be much more alive to the world as it actually is.”
Order the book here




21 Comments so far
Show AllAfter yesterday's article on methane I'm wondering about the relevance of selling books.
Does anyone know of a good website dedicated to dealing with and surviving the impending disasters?
transitionus.org -- building communities for a post-oil, post-civilization world
carolynbaker.net -- support on all levels for navigating the coming chaos
glb, it's time to go deep, release the fear enough to stay in this present moment and respond to this entropic correction from Nature with all the wisdom, creativity and courage you have. Stay light, stay clear, get simple and be ready to respond to what the moment requires. Gather your tools and skills on all levels and make sure they're in working order. Gather with others who understand what's happening. A skill I recommend most right now is meditation -- we all need a calm, focused mind and the ability to know when to act and when to let go. Love to all -- junebug
thank you junebug!
Want to survive the early die out? Here's my scenario of what we have to look forward to:
Billions of displaced, starving, thirsty mobs in combat survival mode. Governments become irrelevant and with it civilization. No way to maintain the hundreds of nuke plants and their deadly waste. Nuke plants explode. Radiation spewed. Survivors who don't starve or get killed for some water, die of radiation sickness. That's it for life on this planet for a few billion years. But on the bright side, unemployment claims will be way down.
Someone correct me and tell me my scenario is wrong. Please.
I hadn't considered the long term maintenance of nuclear plants in a chaotic world. I realize now after reading a lot about Fukushima that you can't just throw the switch and turn off a reactor.
I may have to reconsider my isolationist attitude and get involved in the anti-nuke movement. Shutting them down now before things go to hell may be the only chance for the human race.
It is true- most of our lives are dominated by thought forms that are nothing more than byproducts of social conditioning. To live authentically is to question "common sense" and to realize most of what is common sense is common nonsense.
The rights of the commons is integral to the functioning of healthy community. We don't need a Nobel laureate to tell us this.
The notion of infinite resources driven by a technological dystopia- collective nonsense. We don't need a theologian to tell us this.
I offer one bit of advice - question everything. Only by doing so does one become fully human.
from the article:
~ Commons can be gifts of nature—such as fresh water, wilderness, and the airwaves—or the products of social ingenuity, like the Internet, parks, artistic traditions, or the public health service. ~
this sentence shows Bill's dangerous misdirection...
he declares the airwaves as a 'common', a 'gift of nature', but completely ignores that, to do anything with such waves, one needs to create all kinds of devices, the manufacturing of which is deadly to our world...
ignoring this infrstructure rather implies the devices that take advantage of such common airwaves arrive from 'out there', at no cost to the environment he claims to wish to protect, which is not true...
if he truly wishes to protect the environment, he would not list airwaves as a common, and would warn against the manufacturing of devices that use them...
same with the internet...
he tries to sound controversially avant garde, to posit himself as a frustrated leader of vital movements of change, while obviously supporting the status quo..
as do so many...
will you ever discuss private property, or the need to shut down industry, Bill?
the evils of the car (even electric ones) or the cell phone?
I try to avoid Bill, anymore, and try even harder to not comment on his stuff, as I have nothing positive to say about him...
as we semi-joke in the dojo:
there is the easy way, and the karate way...
Bill tries to make the easy way appear the karate way...
that is not what we need at this time...
Hi there, dubet! I have one word for you: spectrum! :)
Assuming that you don't claim to be the ultimate when it comes to living one with nature, with the smallest of ecological footprints (sorry, that was nothing personal, just a preamble! :), I suppose you can see that we all fall somewhere in a spectrum or a scale of things. In the spectrum of nations, the USA is pretty much at one end, and I'm sure you know which end that is. And Bill McKibben is trying to work in THIS kind of a country, with THIS kind of a population with THIS kind of a mindset. So what if he is not radical enough for you? I look at how many people he has managed to attract to his cause (which is everyone's cause, btw) and their level of commitment. Yes, it is not enough, but on the spectrum of awareness and readiness to take action, Bill McKibben and his fans/followers are way better than MOST Americans.
This doesn't mean you should settle for the mediocre or half-way solutions. But I'm just pointing out the larger reality out there.
That said, please do not stop saying what you've been saying. Otherwise this place will be one big echo chamber. People here, by and large, do not seem to want simple and direct solutions which will have the fastest effect on the crisis. Most seem to want their cake and eat it too. So voices like yours are very much needed here.
hey, Alcyon!
yes, thank you...
my concern surrounding Bill is not limited to him, by any means...
there are a number of published individuals that receive high marks for courageous revealing of social injustices who are actually saying things that only appear to be confrontational...
things that actually endorse current trends and behaviors...
I no longer believe timelines allow for such gentle approaches to change, and am cautioning against letting our desire for an easier way find us entertaining the directionless ramblings of those we should question, if not shun...
I know, the word directionless is harsh, but to your comment regarding Bill's readiness to take action...
it is the actions he chooses to take with which I take issue...
rather than get arrested to stop a pipeline, I would have him confront the social conditions that foster the use of the fuel...
the relationship between land and power, and the victims of such...
in the future, we will all be acting much more of our own volition than we may wish to accept, with any remaining viable resources the prize...
more in spite of Bill, and those of his ilk, than at their behest...
joy to you on this lovely day, Alcyon!
It would help Bill McKibbon's cause if he directed his readers away from supporting the Democrats and Republicans. Wagging our finger at Obama et al is a colossal waste of time and energy. Maybe an endorsement of Rocky Anderson would be a good start for Bill. Being aware of the problem does not lead to an automatic resolution. It is also neccessary to provide a realistic road map for the enlightened to follow.
I agree with you completely. Awareness means nothing without action. And yes, endorsing Rocky Anderson would show that he's serious about the environment. A quote from Rocky:
"And it seemed that the notion of justice—economic justice, social justice, environmental justice—that’s what the people in this country want."
Rocky Anderson, The Justice Party
2012
The space around us also is an electromagnetic commons, a wireless commons. It is easy to talk about the molecular contamination of the commons, but what about microwaves and other EMF that is possibly carcinogenic and toxic in other ways (increasing the toxicity of many substances).
We are living in electropollution, in an atmosphere filled with hundreds of millions of times more EMF than just a few generations ago. And because it is invisible, we can ignore it.
But people are getting sick. Some don't know it, yet. And so are animals and plants.
Would you give up your wireless phone, notebook, laptop, or WiFi Internet connection as easily as you might give up a gasoline-burning car or coal-burning power plant? Think about it. Each cell phone call from here to there sends toxic microwave signals though our invisible commons. And it goes on from there...
For what it's worth, my emf meter says to stay a few feet away from electic panels and electric clocks (e.g. do not sleep with a clock right next to your bed).
It is good of you to blow the whistle on this insidious and little-known problem, NobodySpecial.
Electropollution is an elephant in the room that is not getting the attention it deserves. It is estimated that today 3% of the population is adversely and overtly affected by these emissions. It is possible that the other 97% are being affected more subtly.
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2011/07/are_you_unwittingly_being_affected_by_electromagnetic_radiation.html
has this to say:
"Worldwide, a rapidly increasing number of people are becoming sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cell phone towers, cell phones, WiFi,
WiMax, TETRA2, Smart Meters, etc. In fact, several European scientists have predicted that by 2017, 50% of the population may be electro-sensitive (ES) 3.
If you experience any of the following "unexplained" symptoms, you may in fact be unknowingly exhibiting the symptoms of ES yourself:
•Headaches •Nausea •Brain Fog •Memory Problems • Fatigue
•Dizziness •Insomnia
•Heart Pain/Palpitations •Swollen Lymph Nodes
•Intestinal Disturbances •Eye Pain •Dry Eyes •Vision Problems
•Night Sweats •Excessive Thirst
•Increased Allergies/Sensitivities"
But EMF includes higher frequencies which extend large distances. How far can you get from a cell tower, or WiFi antenna, or someone using their wireless phone or Internet connection? There are few clean safe places anymore. The Federal Communications Commission is not composed of health caregivers and public health researchers. It is the Telecomm industry.
The commons includes frequencies which are largely artificial and extremely powerful. They cannot be filtered out like air pollution. They might be reflected from one area only to increase it somewhere else.
Some environmental organizations see the truth about wireless proliferation, but others feel that wireless technologies will save us. They are invisible. Who is to know?
"The last few decades have been dominated by the premise that privatizing all economic resources will produce endless riches. Which was kind of true, except that the riches went to only a few people." (from the article)
-------------
No, it's not true in any sense.
Money is not true wealth - it is at best a medium of exchange, but even here, if the things or services being proxied for through money are not of true value, then it is just smoke and mirrors.
And I am not speaking metaphorically.
The current economic model is not about economy at all - it is about the accumulation of money, largely devoid of true value.
If you doubt this, consider the state of the planet - moving inexorably towards a change of state which will cause the extinction of so many more species that it is already regarded by the biological community as very probably the beginning of an extinction event.
We are technically insane - unable to discrimiminate between reality and fantasy.
If you believe, as Abraham Lincoln did, "that public sentiment is everything", then the first order of business would be to drastically reduce the percentage of insane citizens.
Now that the US Constitution has been declared null and void, there may be a window of opportunity, as representative government, trial by jury, the balance of powers between the Executive, Judiciary and Congress is extinct.
Find a river - and follow it upstream to its source.
Climb a mountain - and discover yourself.
Nature does really bat last - maybe it's time to get to know the ringer of all ringers again - one to one - and never mind for the time being delusional thoughts of fixing everything in a world where citizens don't even know what the word economy is, and is not.
Manysummits
=====
I agree with everything up to the line about reducing the percentage of insane citizens. Really? Do you really mean that? Who decides who they are?
Also I don't think Bill is talking about fixing everything, but stopping the forward momentum of self destruction. It doesn't look good, but sometimes the lost causes don't lose.
I would define "insane" in the present context as those who would insist on their right to consume, and their right to maintain such large ecological and carbon footprints compared to the rest of the world, even after the consequences of their choices and actions are pointed out. These are the real enemies, along with the greedy 1% and the corporations, of course. Because their choice and their arrogant insistence on their right to consume is killing the planet. And these are also the people standing in the way of change, and it is NOT JUST the 1% and the corporations. Only when the people who are willing to change their ways (or who have already changed) and are open to a different kind of society, a different kind of system that is not so destructive, so as to avert a disastrous future, far outnumber those who are refusing to see and refusing to change, do we have any hope for a future. As simple as that.
The relatively saner people should outnumber the insane ones. So it is important to talk to as many people as we can, make them understand the need for change, and try and move them over to the "saner" side. And that is how we reduce the percentage of insane citizens.
Pie in the sky. The transition town movement offers hope in an ideal world. We don't live in that world. Everything would be great if there weren't 7 billion hungry desperate people coming our way. We tried the commie commons, didn't work. McKibbon hopes to change the world. Won't happen. His intentions are good but the 1% control most of what we see hear and think and can do so because we want to believe what they tell us. The great awakening won't happen until it's too late. The isolated transition town won't remain isolated. The future is going to be really hard and there are no easy fixes. Hope is almost as unreal as denial and who the hell wants to hear that?
I am a great admirer of Bill McKibbon as well as Garett Hardin's seminal essay. However, Bill ignores the major theme of Hardin,s essay which was exponential population growth and whether humans have the right to reproduce as irresponsbly as they want. When Hardin wrote "The Tragedy of the Commons" in 1970 the population of the planet was barely 3 billion,recently our numbers surpassed 7 billion. Until we have a discussion about the growing impact of sheer numbers of human beings on the commons, or planet as I like the visualize an otherwise too abstract notion, our efforts at remediation, restoration, and the implementation of social, economic justice, and ecological justice will remain farcical. The human tragedy will spread from the metaphorical pasture to the ultimate and final degradation of the biosphere.