The tragedy of common

[meatround (尼姑蛋狗~于娟叫我改的)]

Tragedy of common

公眾的悲劇

作者Garrett Hardin, 加州大學 聖塔芭芭拉分校 人類演化學教授

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

在一篇關於未來世界核子戰爭而深令人省思的文章的結尾，J.B. Wiesner 和
H.F. York兩位先生以一段話做結尾『身為這場軍備競賽的參與者雙方…都陷入
一場進退兩難的困境，一方面穩定的增加可嚇阻對手的軍事力量，並且穩定的
損傷國家安全。根據我們專業的判斷，就是像諸如此類的兩難困境是沒有所謂
的科技解答的。假如強權一直在科學和科技的領域尋求一個科技解答，往往只
會走到更壞的處境。』

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

我現在嘗試轉移你的注意力由上文（核子戰爭陰影下的國家安全）聚焦到他所
觸及的類題，關於沒有科技解答能真正的解決的問題。常人接觸到的暗示或是
一種被廣為接受觀念的是，在像這種專業或是半普及的科學雜誌上探討的議題
背後都有個科技解答可供採用，進而解決問題。而大眾所認知的科技解答是像
這樣的，在只需要一點點或不需改變人們價值觀或道德觀下，經由科技的改變
現況而解決問題。

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

在近代，科技解答總是倍受歡迎。然而現在對於這些科技解答的能力的疑惑，
導致出現了一種宣稱尋求科技解答是不合時宜的。Wiesner 和 York在科學性月
刊發表了如此的論點，想從科學中找尋答案是不可能的。他們對此主張還很慎
重的修詞成『根據我們專業的判斷』。不管他們的文章是對或否，更進一步的，
在這裡觸及一個更重要的觀念，關於人的問題，是不可以以科學的眼光視為一
種『沒有科技解答的問題』的定位而被辨認及討論的。

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

但這也是很容易去說明這種定位並不是完全沒有價值的。以井字遊戲為例，當
我們問到『我要如何在井字遊戲中獲勝呢？』，答案很明顯的是不可能的，因為
我假定我的對手是個完美的遊戲高手（在遊戲理論的架構下進行），是找不到科
技解答的。然而我們還是可以透過對贏的定義的改變，或偷偷打昏對手，或竄
改記錄，我還是可以『贏』的。還有些人贏的定義是完全不玩井字遊戲（不是
必輸即算贏），而這是可以想見的。

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

像這種沒有科技解答的問題有很多類型。我最常討論到的是人口問題。對於這
個議題為何常常被作為討論的話題，因為有很多對人口問題感到憂心的人試著
去找尋不用損及現在人類所享有的特權而能解決人口過多問題的解答。他們想
像著，由海洋中獲取食物，培育新品種的穀物，就能解決人口過多的罪惡，是
可以靠科技解答解決的。我再來要反對這個論點，試著說明在科技中是找不到
人口問題解答，而這是一件比贏得井字遊戲還困難的事。

What Shall We Maximize?
我們要什麼達到最大？

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

馬爾薩司說人口常是呈現幾何成長模式的，或是現在人說的指數成長。以人口
成長的方式在一個資源有限的世界裡意味的是，存在個體所能獲的的資源必會
減少。然而我們的資源是有限的嗎？

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

雖然我們不知道這世界的資源是否真的無限，但保守的估計世界是資源有限的
總是較少風險的。但是在可預見的未來，人類人口一代代的增加，人類遭遇痛
苦的機會跟著增加；假定地球上人類所能獲得的資源是有限的，人將無路可逃。

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

有限的資源只能支持有限的人口。假定哪一天我們達到了資源利用的盡頭，人
口的成長必須要趨近於零（短期的波動在這是不被討論的），那我們的生活將會
如何呢？哲學家邊沁所說的『最多數人的最大的幸福』會實現嗎？

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

答案是不可能的。有兩個充分的理由可以說明。第一是von Neumann 及
Morgenstern提出的，在數學理論上是不可能使兩個變數同時達到最大。然而這
種認知最早可以追溯至D'Alembert的偏微分方程式所隱含的內容告訴我們的。

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

第二個無法達到最幸福的理由是很生物性的。任何生物要存活就必需要有能量
（如食物），而這可以分為兩種，僅僅維生和工作為生用。人類為維持生命延續，
一天大約需要1600千卡熱量（維生卡路里），然而人類要繼續存活就必需要工
作，依靠的是『工作卡路里』的功效。工作卡路里不僅僅用來支持我門尋找食
物等等行為，還包括了游泳、賽車到音樂、歌劇寫作等等的享樂行為，假如我
們的目標是讓人口達到最大化則我們對工作卡路里的需求必需儘可能的小，而
這將是一個沒有美食宴會、假期、運動、音樂、文學和藝術的世界，Bentham
達到最大的幸福的目標就無法實現。

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

我在此下個短論，能源的獲得是造成人人幸福的目標不能達成的問題，然而核
能科技像是已經解決有限資源的問題，但J. H. Fremlin指出人口的增加還是會
遭遇另一個問題，能源的耗散取代能源取得的問題，成為人口增加的限制。
Bentham的目標還是無法達成。

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

在這前提下，最適的人口數應是比最大的人口數少。然而去知道什麼是最適人
口數是很困難的，據我所知，沒有人認真的追尋答案，而達到最適人口數是需
要很多世代的分析和大眾勸說才能達成。

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

當我們致力於追求個人最大的幸福時，卻往往忘記去探知什麼是幸福？對某
個人來說，未開發的荒野是一種幸福；對其他人來說是擁有一棟滑雪小屋。一
些人的幸福則是有個河灣滋養打獵用的鴨子，有些人則認為工廠的生產才能帶
來幸福。比較各種對幸福的定義後，我們知道是不可能達到每個人最大的幸福，
因為幸福是無法一般標準化而去達成的。

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

理論上上文所說的是真的，然而現實生活中只需要一個判斷系統的價值即可
將不可一般標準化的事物一般標準化了。自然界中最普遍的價值判斷是可生存
與否。物種是小而隱蔽還是大而力量強大較適生存。天擇已經成功的將不可一
般標準化的事物標準化了。而我們也可利用此一價值判斷觀點來衡量一般人最
大的幸福。

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

人類必然會模仿這個路徑，相信這個觀念已經在人和人之間實行，只是常常隱
悔不顯而已。當人們開始爭論時，價值觀念的衡量特質就會顯現出來。真正困
難的是要如何撰出一個大眾都可接受的價值判斷系統。協同作用、非線性變異、
連接世代不連續性的困難度都使的這工作變的困難，但並不是基本的無解。

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

然而並沒有人或是團體對此問題真的關心：因為之前的人類並沒有遭遇到想我
們今天如此多的人口問題，且有時候人口成長率是接近零，也就是說人口問題
是被現代人第一次遇到的。所以現代的人毫無警覺，直覺的認為人類的最適人
口可以很快就會達到，然後成長會自發的降為零。

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

當然，現實的人口成長率可被視為我們仍然還沒達到最適人口的一項證據。但
經由了解更多的證據顯示，現在地球上的人口成長不啻是一種痛苦。一些團體
開始懷疑所謂的人口成長代表未到達最適人口的說法，而認為其實地球人口已
經超出最適人口了。

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

我們可經由驅除在人口統計學裡的Adam Smith的幽魂，來改進一下我們對最適
人口數的迷失。在經濟潮流中，國富論提出了『看不見的手』的觀念。這觀念
下個體是『只關心自身的利益的』，和『由看不見的力量來驅使公眾事物的行使』。
亞當.史密斯和其追隨者並沒有宣稱這觀念是絕對正確的，但卻也促成了一種時
代潮流，個體是經由理性的判斷來達成自身最大的利益，稱為個體意願，一般
相信對個體有益的決定對整個社會就是有益。我們可以由自由放任法案中探知
一點端倪，若這潮流是正確的話，我們應該可以看見個體會控制他們的生育以
符合最適人口數。若不是，我們就應該對此個體意願再加討論。

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons
公眾裡的自由悲劇

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

然而亞當.史密斯所說的看不見的手還是有顯現出來的時候，在哪本業餘數學逸
事家William Forster Lloyd所寫的小冊子『公眾的悲劇』（the tragedy of the
commons）就看得到。那些哲學家也許會說『悲劇的本質並不是不快樂，而是
一種對事情無止境悔恨的莊嚴態度』，然後接著說『然而悲劇卻無可避免的導致
人類不快樂，這劇本中的人類始終無法逃脫這命運』。

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

而這本書的劇本是這樣的。在一個對每個牧羊人開放的草原（commons），預測
每個牧羊人都會在牧場上儘可能放牧最多的羊隻，而這系統會因為部族間的戰
爭、侵佔、疾病的發生而使人和牲畜的數目不致大增而使系統平穩的運作。然
而在某一個時代來臨，據推測應該是一種社會長期的穩定，人和牲畜的數目會
超過一個起始點，啟動了公眾（以下都用公眾代表commons）的悲劇程式。導
致公眾的悲劇產生。

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

作為一個有理性能力的生物，牧人或多或少，有意識或無意識的都會計算多增
加一頭牲畜是好處多還是壞處多？

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

1. 多增加一頭牲畜的好處的正增強效果是，牧人多增加一頭牲畜賣得的總和前
多於以往。我們以+1表示。

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

2. 多增加一頭牲畜的壞處的負增強效果是，牧人多增加一頭牲畜所造成的損失
總和。我們以-1表示。

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

將兩者正負的效應相加，對牧者有意義的決定變成儘可能在他的畜群中，多增
加一頭牲畜。但這是所有分享這牧場的人所會做的決定，這就是一種悲劇。所
有的牧人被迫不停的增加牲口，在有限的草原資源下，公眾的毀滅是唯一的路。
在公眾領域裡追求自心而發的行使權力被視為自由，然而公眾的自由卻帶來的
毀滅。

Some would say that this is a platitude. Would that it were! In a
sense, it was learned thousands of years ago, but natural selection
favors the forces of psychological denial. [8] The individual
benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even
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 succession of generations requires that the basis for this
knowledge be constantly refreshed.

有人說這是一種陳腔濫調不值得一提，然而真的是這樣嗎？這是一種累積數千
年的經驗沒錯，但天擇是比較喜愛那些心理上忽視的人，忽視這教訓的人總是
可以得到較多的利益和優勢。教育是可以用來矯正這種天性，但是一代代的人
類仍須不斷的提醒。

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

然而有幾個例子可以顯示這種教訓是如何的容易變質。在那快樂的耶誕購物季
中，麻塞諸瑟州的Leominster市中心的停車收費表罩個袋子，上面寫著『耶誕
節不要收費吧！市長和議會的最好禮物』。換句話說，那些市議員已經講有限的
停車空間變成一個公眾空間。（可笑的是，那些市議員可能是這種退化行為的最
大利益獲得者。）

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

追溯相近的源流，這種公眾的運作方式有許多面貌。也許伴隨農業和私有財產
制而形成。然而大眾認識的只有其中一些而已。直至今日，還是有在美西放牧
的畜牧業者不斷的抗議示威，要求增加在聯邦土地土上的放牧量，而無視於過
度放牧造成的草地破壞和草種改變的矛盾情節。而海洋也被如此的對待，海
洋國家總是說『海洋對每個人而言是開放的』，在『海洋有無限的資源』認識下，
人們領著一種又一種的物種，走向滅絕。

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

而國家公園的運作又代表另一種公眾悲劇的運作形式。現在的國家公園是無限
制的開放給大眾，但其實國家公園是有限的資源，我們只有一個優勝美地而
不是無限多個。隨著人口的增加，國家公園的一景一物隨著觀光客的腳步而磨
耗，公園很快的將因為毀滅而變的毫無價值。

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

我們該怎麼做呢？我有幾個意見。我們可以將他賣給人做私有財，或當作公有
財，但是分配進入的機會。這分配法也許是根基一些大眾同意的標準，如根基
於於拍賣機會、抽籤、先到先服務制、車輛管制限制。這都是會招來反對的聲
音。然而我們必需選擇，或眼看著我們的國家公園漸漸毀壞。

Pollution
污染

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 of putting something in -- sewage, or
chemical, radioactive, and heat wastes into water; noxious and
dangerous fumes into the air; and distracting and unpleasant
advertising signs into the line of sight. The calculations of utility
are much the same as before. The rational man finds that his share
of the cost of the wastes he discharges into the commons is less
than the cost of purifying his wastes before releasing them. Since
this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of "fouling
our own nest," so long as we behave only as independent, rational,
free enterprisers.

倒轉這種情形，污染是另一種公眾的形式。這不是那種藉由由公眾領域獲得某
種東西的形式而獲利，而是放某些東西到公眾領域。廢水、化學物質、放射物
質、熱廢水、有毒和危險的空氣，和一些令人不愉快的廣告、標誌，這類的污
染是越來越多了。當一旦人們發現處理廢物的花費經然比排放到公眾場所的花
費高時，理性的人們和企業家就陷入了公眾悲劇發生的模式而『家醜外揚』了。

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

由於私有財產制出現，人們的食物籃免於成為下一個公眾的悲劇，然而水資源
的有限卻無時不刻的威脅著我們的農田。而廢水坑可藉由嚴厲的法律和高稅率
使未處理廢物的排放，而造成污染環境的花費增高。然而我們並沒有長久的解
決第一次遇見的問題。私有財產制只阻止了地球現有的資源的毀滅，而對污染
束手無策。上游一家工廠的擁有者總是將他的權力行使到中游去，一般人很難
說服自己去說他沒有攪混他門前河水的權利。但法律總是慢人一步，且需要精
心的策畫去跟上公眾悲劇發生的腳步。

The pollution problem is a consequence of population. It did not
much matter 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 near enough to the truth
when he was a boy, for there were not too many people. But as
population became denser, the natural chemical and biological
recycling processes became overloaded, calling for a redefinition
of property rights.

污染問題是人口增加才顯現出來的，污染對邊遠稀少的居民是沒有威脅的。如
同我爺爺說的『河水每十哩就會淨化』，這神話在當他是個小孩時是個不折不扣
的真理，因為那時候沒有這麼多的人口。隨著人口密度增加，水中的化學和生
物循環早已超載，我們必需重視這現象。

How to Legislate Temperance?
如何立法來節制？

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

分析這一類的污染問題通常表面都帶著一種不常被辨認出來的道德觀念，被稱
做行為的道德，用來描述當事情進行時的心態。將公眾領域當作後院的污水坑
是不損及公眾權益的，但是這行為不發生在人口稀少的邊遠地區而發生在首都
時，變成了一種不能忍受的行為。一百五十年前，平原上的住民可以殺了一隻
美洲野牛，只割下舌頭做晚餐，他也不會對自己的行為感到浪費。今天只剩
下幾千隻野牛，上述行為變成了驚世駭俗的事。

In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be
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 total system in which his act appears. "One
picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it
may take ten thousand words to validate it. It is as tempting to
ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others
by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an
argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -
- in words.

順便一題的是，行為的道德與否很難單單由照片去辨別。一個殺大象的人和放
火燒了草原的人並不知道這會損害其他人，直到這現象顯現出來。中國有一句
諺語『一圖勝千言』，但我們通常要花費更多的言語去闡述這背後隱含的東西。
這句古諺對生態學家和熱心改革者總是有種鼓勵用真實圖像說話的意圖。但爭
議的本質很難清楚的圖像化，他還是較合用適合理性的語言陳述。

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

從前道德是一種極敏感易受傷害，且訴諸於倫理學法典以外的東西。傳統的道
德觀念總是別無例外的告訴人們『你們不應該做什麼….』。而由古代道德觀念
衍生而來的現代法律也就失去了管理現代複雜、多變、擁擠的現代社會的彈性。
而我們自圓其說的解決方法則是儘量擴充行政法規的管理範圍，但一旦我們遭
遇像這樣的問題。我在我家後院燒垃圾是很安全的，或是要執行汽機車空氣污
染管制時，我們只是把大眾的責任委任到某些機關而已。而這種委任責任的作
法是經不起一個古老的考驗的『誰去監督監督者呢？』。John Adams說我們要
建立一個『法治的政府，而不是人治的政府』，遺憾的是，政府中的人事、貪污、
賄賂總是打擊著這個脆弱的架構，只會產生人治的政府。

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

立法去禁止人民做某事事很容易的（雖然不一定要執行），但立法能使人民節制
嗎？經驗告訴我們，人是可以被行政法規的握旋而妥協的。但若我們放不下『誰
來監督』的心結，我們將會限制所有的可能性，而陷入一種永無止境的懷疑中。
現在最大的挑戰即是去正視這種現象的反餽和建立監視者的公信力，我們須要
好好劃歸職權以符合兩者的需求。

Freedom to Breed Is Intolerable
生殖的自由不能再忍而不視

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

公眾的悲劇是人口過多問題所衍生出來的複雜體制。假如這世界是所謂的『狗
吃狗』法條統治的世界，一個家庭有更多的孩子只會存留下更少的子代，因為
父母無法養育；而就會傾向控制子代數目。David Lack等發現一些種類的鳥的
世界就像這樣的世界，這種負回饋有助於控制族群的數量。但人不是鳥，行為
上也不像，至少這幾千年來的表現並不是這樣。

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

假如人們會依自己的能力決定生多少孩子，假如孩子會因無先見之明的父母而
餓死，假如…生育過多變成自我懲罰的導火線，大眾那麼根本不會對控制家庭
生育感到興趣。但是我們的社會還是一直對社會福利那麼忠誠，儘管我們將會
遇到悲劇的發生。

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

在一個福利國家，我們要如何處理由於家庭、宗教、種族、團體將生育自由
權視為壯大自己的政策，和將每個人生而平等的觀念和生殖自由結合起來所會
引發悲劇的課題呢？

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

不幸的是，這觀念已經剛被聯合國政府所採納了。1967年底，一些第三世界也
開始接受這種信念『人類權利的普遍性宣言必須跟基於最自然且基本的社會單
位，家庭。任何決定和選擇必須著重於家庭意願，家庭是不容侵犯的。』

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

全然且清楚的反對權利的正當性是很痛苦的，忽視這現象並不比那些17世紀麻
賽諸塞省Salem居民忽視女巫的存在來的好過。而在一些自由的人群中，正著
迷的反對一切不利於聯合國的言論。他們覺得聯合國是『最後且最好的希望』，
聯合國是不會錯的；但老實說我們不應該跟著聯合國的華爾滋起舞。別忘了
Robert Louis Stevenson說的『朋友的隱瞞事實，就是敵人的立即武器』，假如我
們真愛事實，我們就應該反對人類權利的普遍性宣言，即使這是聯合國的政策。
我們也該贊同Kingsley Davis的家庭計畫，以看清人口悲劇的危險。

Conscience Is Self-Eliminating
道德良心常常自我消失

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

將控制生育的解決訴諸於道德良心是注定失敗的。Charles Galton Darwin達爾文
的孫子嘗試以此句話解決自物種始原發表一世紀以來所延宕多年的爭議。

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

人是善變的。當一旦遭遇限制生育的問題時，一些人就會直覺的多要求別人一
點，而那些易受道德召喚的人所生下的子代就會比那些生大量孩子的人少，一
代代的累積其差異性，道德的召喚就會愈困難。

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

C. G. Darwin是這樣說的『人類的生殖力本能應該可以帶領我們闖過幾百個世
代的時間，然而大自然會因為不正常的現象而反撲，那麼所謂的避孕人種將會
被所謂的多產人種所取代。』

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

這些爭議都繞著道德良心或生孩子的渴望是否可遺傳而打轉，但探討形式仍很
形式化的，如態度可以由配子傳遞嗎？或是由外細胞物質形式傳遞？套句A. J.
Lotka的口吻『假如一個人由初生嬰兒的無知來否定成人的知識，那什麼是教育
呢？』。而這爭議也不只限於人口問題，在很多社會問題也有其影子，如以道德
良心為引子要求個人勿剝削大眾的權益。而這種選擇系統只會造成大家的道德
灰心還有道德良心的毀滅。

Pathogenic Effects of Conscience
道德良心的變態

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

不論長期或短期的對道德良心的不利地位都會導致他的毀滅。假如我們以『自
我的道德良心』要求一個人不去壓榨公眾領域，我們該說些什麼呢？他又會聽
什麼呢？而不止限於白晝長日，還有夜晚的獨處片刻，或是所謂的精神感召。
遲早，有意識或無之間，他將會遭遇到矛盾1.（可預期的）『假如你不照我言而
做，你將會公開的被敵視為不負責任的市民』。2.（難預期的）『假如你尊循我
們所說的話，那你會被暗地裡當成傻瓜，竟會對大家一起壓榨公眾領域而感到
羞恥。』

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

這就是人們落入Bateson所稱的『兩難』。他和一些人認為，兩難是精神分裂的
一個重要的引發因子。兩難也許並不是那麼的有害，但總是對心理健康很危險。
如同Nietzsche說的『壞的道德良心』是『一種病態』。

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

對於希望延伸自己的權力到他人的身上的人，對於出來大聲疾呼道德是極有興
趣的。那些高級官員就經常迷失在裡面。有任何總統自願的拒絕工會增加薪資
的要求嗎？或強迫公司自願的接受售價的指導方針？我說這是從沒發生的事。
他們在那種場合的修辭總是會被設計成使不合作者感到羞愧的語句。

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

世紀以來，這總是不證自明的假設罪惡是有其價值的，有時是不可或缺的，人
的一部份。現在，已是後佛洛伊德時代，我要對這說法感到質疑。

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

Paul Goodman由現代觀點剖析這說法『沒有美好是由罪惡而生的，也不是由智
慧、政策、憐憫而來，罪惡只對扮演他自己有興趣，但即使只是他的興趣而已，
也會使得我們憂慮。』

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

當然不必每個人都是個專業的精神病理學家才能感知到憂慮的重要性。我們西
方世界才剛剛從致死的兩世紀的黑暗時期中甦醒過來，就持續的被法律教條壓
制著，但也許這還比不上教育這憂慮產生機器來的更有效率。Alex Comfort的
故事The Anxiety Makers，這可不是令人討喜的。

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

因為很難證明，有時我們不得不妥協於憂慮在某些方面是有利用價值的。而我
們該問的是，在這情形下，何種情形（無意圖的）才能利用這種心理病態的傾
向。我們聽聞了非常多有關『父母親的責任』相關的事，有些團體用這個複合
字當作推行節育的標題，有些人還大力的宣傳要將父母親的責任納入國家（世
界）的生育政策內。但是他們所強調的道德良心到底意味著什麼呢？當我們任
意的使用『責任』而無任何許可時，這難道不是一種對生活在公眾領域個人的
恫嚇行為嗎？責任是一種真實索償的假冒修詞而已，他總是想由無中再榨出有
來。

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

假如責任這詞要用到全人類身上。我建議採用Charles Frankel使用的『責任』，
一種『明確社會約定的產物』，而不是作為壓榨的宣傳工具。

Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon
相互牽制，相互協調

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

社會約定產生的責任有時會變成一種強制力，以銀行搶劫為例。銀行搶匪將搶
劫銀行視為在公眾領域的行為，我們要如何避免這種情形的發生？應不是單單
只是靠言辭上責任的勸說，也不是像Frankel大力的宣傳，堅稱銀行不是一個公
眾領域；我們尋求的是一個明確的社會定位，使銀行不至淪為一個公眾領域，
而不去侵犯到那些意圖搶劫的人的自由。

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

關於反對搶銀行的道德標準很容易被接受，我們都可以毫無例外的說『你們
不應該搶銀行』。但是節制的行為就必須有強制力的介入。高稅率就是一個強制
力介入的好例子，罰鍰使得購物者節制購物時間使得停車時間縮短。我們不可
以真的限制一個人停多久的車，只是將做這行為的代價變高。不是禁止，而是
有限制的自由選擇權。麥迪森大道的廣告人會說這是勸說，我個人是比較喜歡
強制力這詞。

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

自由主義者認為強制力是個骯髒的詞彙，但這總不必如此。如同猥褻字，骯髒
總是可以被清潔而可以一遍又一遍的說出來，不用道歉或感到羞愧。許多人認
為，強制力暗示許多不負責任的官僚武斷的決定，但強制力終會有還諸清白的
一天，我所謂的相互牽制，相互協調是必須經大眾同意的結果。

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

互相牽制不代表我們需要去享受他，甚至假裝享受。誰享受納稅？我們都抱怨
著這制度，但我們都義務的接受他，因為我們認為自願繳稅出自於良心不安。
然後我們喃喃抱怨著設立這制度，和其他強制制度來避免公眾悲劇的發生。

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

對於公眾的運作我們常要他完美或可以完美這兩非此即彼，二則一的境地。處
理地產和有形物品上，我們將私有財產制和法律的繼承結合。但這系統完美嗎？
以我這個老練的生物學家來說，法律的繼承必須根基於生物的遺傳，生物的遺
傳應該使得繼承者更適合當財產的管理者。但基因重組總是一次又一次的嘲弄
這那法律教義『有其父必有其子』。一個智能障礙者可以繼承百萬元，一個信託
基金會可以管理他的財產。我們必需要說的是將私有財產制和繼承結合是不正
當的，但是我們還是一直遵循，因為我們不確定哪一天發明的更好系統會不會
領著我們趨向毀滅，不正當比全部毀滅好。

It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the
status quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard.
Whenever a reform 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 quo sometimes imply
that no reform is possible without unanimous agreement, an
implication contrary to historical fact. As nearly as I can make out,
automatic rejection of proposed reforms is based on one of two
unconscious assumptions: (1) that the status quo is perfect; or (2)
that the choice we face is between reform and no action; if the
proposed reform is imperfect, we presumably should take no action
at all, while we wait for a perfect proposal.

這就是一種改革和維持現狀發生戰爭的奇特現象，總是被雙重標準操控著。每
當提出改革時，維持現狀者總是耀武揚威的宣示其改革方法的缺點，像Kingsley
Davis指出的，現狀的崇拜者說，沒有總體的同意，是不能改革的，追溯歷史源
流，維持現狀者無意識的陷入兩個假設中，1.現狀是完美的。2.我們要改就要改
成最好的，所以我們現在還在等待。

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

但人不能什麼事都不做，因此人們也就這樣的做了幾千年。因此產生了罪惡。
一旦我們知道了這事，我們揪應該經由理性的分析其現狀的有利和不利，改革
的有利和不利，猜測總是會因經驗不足而打折扣，但也是優於上述兩個不能使
用的假設來的好。

Recognition of Necessity
必要的認識

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

也許人口問題可以簡單的分析成：公眾領域，假如是正當的，也是得在使用人
口數少的情形下成立。一旦人口增加，情形就得易位。

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

我們第一個放棄的公眾領域是農田，圈圍農地和限制放牧、打獵、打魚範圍。
但世界上仍有公眾農田的存在。

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

然後在公眾空間傾倒廢物是人類第二個要放棄的。限制家庭廢水隨意排放到公
眾領域是西方世界普遍接受的，但我們現在仍掙扎於限制汽車、工廠、殺蟲劑、
冷媒、核能廢料的排放限制。

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

而認識隱藏於快樂面貌後的公眾的邪惡還是處於初生階段。我們幾乎沒有對公
共場合的音量、噪音、干擾50000人的超音速飛機、廣告污染、圖像污染等，
揪出躲在快樂背後的邪惡是困難的，有時候，我們就必需將之視為一種痛苦。

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

當我們想限制一些在公共場所的不當行為時，總是會引起一些人對自由權損害的質
疑。在我們提出對不當行為限制之前，不當行為是被接受的，因為沒有人對此提出
抗議自身權益受損。而現在，已經有人激烈的反對這種放任的風氣；另一方面我們
檢視這時代已經被"權力"和"自由"所充滿，但自由是什麼？當人們都互相同意立法
來抑制搶劫的行為時，人類的自由權是更好還是變壞了。當人們陷入一種在"公眾"
自由裡，往往會導致公眾領域的毀滅。只有一但人們看見相互限制的必要性，他們
才掙脫出對"達到最大的自由"迷思的限制。我相信這就是黑格爾說的『自由是一種
必需性的認識』

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

而有一種必需性的認識是現在必需被認識的，也就是放棄生育自由是個公眾領
域的認識。沒有科技的解答可以解救人類過度繁殖的罪惡。人自由的繁殖會帶
來滅絕。也許這時候你會衝動想投入，大聲疾呼道德良知和父母親的責任。請
抑制這種衝動，這種訴諸良心抉擇只會使良心消失和憂慮增加。

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

唯一能保存和滋長我們的自由的只有限制人類生育的自由。而且『自由是一種
必需性的認識』將會扮演一個重要的角色。而教育就是帶領著我們認識各種必需性
認識和扭轉現實公眾的扭曲的目的。如此，我們人才不會掉入公眾的悲劇裡。

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
     如果相遇是一種緣份
           那是不是遇不到，也是種緣份呢？

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 140.119.146.138
→ YURY::D
→ fanru:我的天阿！肉圓你哪找的阿，太強了
→ mmgorilla:感動啊～～～！！
→ ShinyPan:硬食不太下ㄝ...看進去但寫不出來...棍!
→ garylys:哇靠  你貼了多久阿
→ Motherfucker:喔耶 于娟生日快樂!!
→ garylys:+1
→ waiwai:+2
→ garylys:你不要學我啦張維羽