In a system where all are free to choose to reproduce or not to reproduce, and all children will be supported by the social collective, but space is limited, what is the effect of Person A choosing not to reproduce? The effect is principally that Person A will have less genetic, and probably also memetic, effect upon the future than those who chose to reproduce. Thus, the logic of the game will select for those who wish to reproduce without worrying about the limited carrying capacity of the system.
"... the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests."
In order to resolve the tragedy short of a Malthusian collapse, it is necessary to change the rules. Either the economy must grow so that the resource limitation is no longer relevant (but this by itself is not an indefinite solution, as humans could theoretically breed with sufficient rapidity to outstrip any plausible rate of economic growth), or forcible limits must be imposed on reproduction (politically very difficult to enforce), or the decision must be taken that all children will not be supported by the social collective (thus re-imposing the costs of having children upon the couples choosing to have them, which is the historic reason why human populations don't usually suffer Malthusian die-backs).
However, personally choosing not to have children doesn't help the situation, because other persons who understand how to play the game better will just have more children, and thus more influence over future generations. This is implicit in the logic of biological and cultural evolution.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-28 10:19 pm (UTC)In a system where all are free to choose to reproduce or not to reproduce, and all children will be supported by the social collective, but space is limited, what is the effect of Person A choosing not to reproduce? The effect is principally that Person A will have less genetic, and probably also memetic, effect upon the future than those who chose to reproduce. Thus, the logic of the game will select for those who wish to reproduce without worrying about the limited carrying capacity of the system.
This is called the "Tragedy of the Commons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
"... the depletion of a shared resource by individuals, acting independently and rationally according to each one's self-interest, despite their understanding that depleting the common resource is contrary to the group's long-term best interests."
In order to resolve the tragedy short of a Malthusian collapse, it is necessary to change the rules. Either the economy must grow so that the resource limitation is no longer relevant (but this by itself is not an indefinite solution, as humans could theoretically breed with sufficient rapidity to outstrip any plausible rate of economic growth), or forcible limits must be imposed on reproduction (politically very difficult to enforce), or the decision must be taken that all children will not be supported by the social collective (thus re-imposing the costs of having children upon the couples choosing to have them, which is the historic reason why human populations don't usually suffer Malthusian die-backs).
However, personally choosing not to have children doesn't help the situation, because other persons who understand how to play the game better will just have more children, and thus more influence over future generations. This is implicit in the logic of biological and cultural evolution.