您当前位置:网站首页 >> 其他荟萃 >> 公地的悲剧 Tragedy of the Commons  

公地的悲剧 Tragedy of the Commons

来源:作者:

学术名篇中英双语 高级翻译,同声传译,交替传译 学习资料


The Tragedy of the Commons 公地的悲剧
by Garrett Hardin, 1968
Published in Science, December 13, 1968

At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, Wiesner and York (1) 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."

J.B. Wiesner和H.F. York在一篇关于核子战争前景的发人深省文章结尾时说:「武器竞赛的双方都是…面对持续增强的军事力量和持续减弱的国家安全。深思之下,我们的专业意见认为这困局没有技术性的解决办法。如果大国只是在科学和科技这方面找寻解决办法,结果只会令情况恶化。」

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.

希望各位不要集中注意文章的主题(核武世界的国家安全),而是要留意作者的结论,即是问题没有技术性的解决办法。专业和半通俗科学期刊的评论,差不多都隐喻评论的问题是有技术性的解决办法。技术性解决办法可以定义为只要改变自然科学的技术,无需或只是稍为改变人的道德价值或概念。

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. It is easy to show that the class is not a null class.

我们现在一般都欢迎有技术性解决办法(以前并非如此)。因为以前的预言往往失准,要有莫大勇气才会断言没有预期的技术性解决办法。Wiesner和York表现出勇气,在科学期刊发表文章,坚持问题不能在自然科学找到解决办法。他们小心翼翼为声明加上以下的批注:「深思之下,我们的专业意见…。」本文所关注的。不是他们是否正确,而是一个重要的观点:有一组关乎人的问题可以称为「没有技术性解决办法的问题」,或是更明确地说:认定和讨论这些问题是其中之一。

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 drug him; 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.)

要表明这类问题不是空号很容易。还记得划井游戏。想一想:「我如何赢划井游戏?」假设(依照赛局理论的惯例)我的对手是个中能手,大家都知道我不可能赢。换句话说,问题没有「技术性解决办法」。要赢,我只能把「赢」的意义根本改掉。我可以打对方的头,可以弄虚作假。每一种我要「赢」的方法,都是某种意义上放弃了我们认知了解的游戏。(我当然可以公开放弃—不玩。大多数成年人都这样。)

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.

「没有技术性解决办法的问题」有其它的命题。我的论题:大家惯常认知的「人口问题」是这样的命题。要说明一下大家是怎样惯常认知的。持平的说,大多数人为人口问题苦恼,要找出方法避免人口过多的邪恶,但不放弃他们正在享受的特权。他们以为海洋养殖或发明小麦新品种会解决问题—从技术方面。我尝试证明他们不能找到解决办法。人口问题正如要赢划井游戏,不能技术性解决。

What Shall We Maximize? 我们要最大化什么?
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 steadily decrease. Is ours a finite world?

如马尔萨斯所言,人口自然地以「几何级数」增加,或是我们现在的说法是函数增加。在一个有限的世界,这即是说世界物品的人均份额必然减少。我们的世界是否有限?

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).

一个中肯的抗辩说法:世界是无限的,或是我们不知道世界不是无限。但是,从实际问题角度来看以后几代人和可见的科技,有一点很清楚,如果我们不是实时假设陆上人类可用的世界是有限的,我们会大大增加人类的痛苦。「太空」不是逃生门。

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?

有限的世界只能养活有限的人口;因此到了最后,人口增长必然是零。(零增长的永恒大幅度上下波动是无关宏旨的变动,不在此讨论。)当条件符合,人类的情况会是怎样?明确地说,边泌 的目标:「最大数目的最大好处」能否实现?

No--for two reasons, each sufficient by itself. The first is a theoretical 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).

不可能——理由有二,单是一个已足够。第一个理由是理论性。数学上,两个函数是不可能同时最大化。Neumann和Morgenstern已经清楚说明 ,其中的绝对原理是起码可以追溯至D'Alembert (1717-1783) 的偏微分方程式。

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.

第二个理由是直接源于生物事实。任何生物要生存,必须有一个能源来源(例如食物)。能源用于两个目的:维生和工作。人要维持生命,每天需要1600 千卡路里(维生卡路里)。维生以外所做的一切可以定义为工作,由摄取的「工作卡路里」支持。工作卡路里不是只用于我们日常谈到的工作;所有享乐形式都需要:游泳、赛车、音乐,吟诗。如果我们的目标是人口最大化,我们要做什么是很明显。我们要每个人的工作卡路里最接近零。没有可口美食,没有度假,没有运动,没有音乐,没有文学,没有艺术……我以为无需争议或实证,大家都同意人口最大化不会使物品最大化。边泌的目标是不可能的。

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 still unobtainable.

我在达成以上的结论时,作出一贯的假定,问题就是取得能源。有了核能,有些人会质疑这假定。但是,即使有无穷能源,人口增长依然带来不可逃避的问题。正如J. H. Fremlin机智表达,取得能源的问题,被能源消散取而代之 。分析的算术符号正负倒转;但边泌的目标是不能达到。

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.

因此,最合适的人口是少于最大。定义最合适的困难大;依我所知,没有人曾郑重处理这问题。要达致一个可接受和稳定的解决办法,需要多过一代人的辛勤分析——和更大说服力。

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. Incommensurables cannot be compared.

我们期望每个人有最大好处;但什么是「好处」?某人的好处是荒原,另一人是大众的滑雪小屋。某人的好处是河口盛产水鸭,供猎人射击;另一人是工厂用地。我们一般说比较各人的心头好是不可能的,因为物品是不配比较。不配比较就是不能比较。

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.

理论上这可能是对的;但实际生活中不配比较是可以衡量的。只需要一套判断的标准和比重的制度。大自然的标准就是生存。何等物种较好:小而可掩藏,或是大而有劲力?物竞天择会比较不配比较的。达成的妥协是视乎大自然为众多变量的价值作出比重。

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.

人必须模仿这过程。无可置疑地,他事实上不自觉地已是如此。只有当隐藏的决定表面化时才有争端。未来的工作难题是要作出一个可接受的比重理论。这项智力难题因协同作用,非线性变化,和考虑将来而变得困难,但(原则上)不是不可能解决。

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.

至今,是否有任何文化组群解决了这实际问题,即使是直觉层面?一个简单事实证明还没有:现今世界没有繁荣人口在一段时期内达致零增长。只要任何人在直觉上认定最佳点,就可以很快达到,之后增长率为零,其后亦保持为零。

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.

当然,增长率为正数,可以作为人口在最佳点之下的证据。但是,以任何理性标准来看,今天世上增长最快的人口,(一般而言)是最悲惨的。这种连系(无须是一成不变的)令人对所谓正数增长率表示人口还没有达致最佳点的乐观假定感到怀疑。

We can make little progress in working toward optimum population size until we explicitly exorcize 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.

迈向人口最佳数目,我们要驱逐亚当‧史密的实践人口学的幽灵,才可以取得寸进。「国富论」 (1776) 广为宣扬「无形之手」,这概念即是个人「只是追求自己的利益」,因而「被无形的手指挥,推动…公众利益。」 亚当‧史密没有宣称这是一成不变的真理,甚至他的追随者也没有。但他带动的主导思想趋势自此干扰着基于理性分析的积极性行动。这种趋势就是假定个人决定事实上是整个社会的最佳决定。如果这假定是正确的,现在的自由放任生育政策是有据可依。如果这假定是错误的,我们重新检视种种个人自由,看看那些是可以辩护的。

Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons 公地自由的悲剧
The rebuttal to the invisible hand in population control is to be found in a scenario first sketched in a little-known pamphlet (6) in 1833 by a mathematical amateur named William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852). 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."

无形之手控制人口的反驳论点,最先见诸1833年一位业余数学家William Forster Lloyd (1794-1852) 撰写的一本鲜为人知的小册子,可称之为「公地悲剧」;「悲剧」一词借用自哲学家Whitehead :「戏剧性的悲剧要素不是不快乐,而是蕴藏于事物无懊无悔运作的严肃性。」他续后又说:「命运之无可避免,只能以人生不如意事引证,只有这样戏剧才可显现逃避是徒然的。」

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.

公地悲剧是如此发展的。想象草原对大众开放,估计每个牛郎都会在公地饲养最多的牛只。数百年来,这样的安排都是相安无事,因为部族战争,偷猎,和疾病把人和动物的数目保持在土地承载能力之下。最终,人们长久渴望的社会稳定的一天到来,是醒悟的时候了。这时,公地的内在逻辑无情地导致悲剧。

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.

作为理性人,每名牛郎追求取得最大得益。或明或暗,有意无意,牛郎抚心自问:「牛群多添一头,对我有什么效益?」 这效应有正、负成份各一。

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.

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.

(1)多一头动物的函数是正成份。出售牛只的收益全归牛郎,所以正效益接近+1。

(2)负数部份是多一头动物造成的过度放牧的函数。因为过度放牧的效果由全体牛郎承担,所以任何一位牛郎作出决定,负效益只是 -1的小部份。

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; 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.

把这些效益成份相加,理性牛郎总结他只有一个理性选择:多养一头牛。再多养一头…但这也是分享公地的每一位牛郎的结论。悲剧因此而起。每个人都是被制度束缚,驱使他无限制地增加牛只—而世界是有限的。在一个信奉公地自由的社会中,每个人都追求本人的最好利益,而整体是走向毁灭的终点。公地自由带来整体毁灭。

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.

有人会认为这是陈腔滥调。这不是吗?某程度上来说,我们几千年前就学会了,但物竞天择偏向于心理否认 。纵使个人也是成员的社会受损,个人会因为取得私利而否认真相。

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.

教育可以对衡做错事的自然倾向,但必须持续才可以对抗一代传一代的无情力。

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 red 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.)

几年前,在马萨诸塞州莱明斯特市有一件小事足以说明知识逐渐消失。圣诞节购物期间,市中心的停车计时器用胶袋遮掩,上有告示:「圣诞节后重开。免费停车由市长和市议会提供。」换句话说,面对本来已是短缺的停车位的需求增加,城市之父再建立公地制度。(嘲笑一句,我们怀疑他们这倒退的行为是得(选票)大于失。)

In an approximate way, the logic of 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).

大概是同样道理,我们长久以来已明白公地的逻辑,可能是自从发现农业或发明私人房地产的产权。但了解的大都是特殊个案,不足以一般而论。即使到了现在,租用西部山区国家土地的牧人证实这样矛盾的了解;他们向联邦机关施压,要求增加牛只数目,几乎因为过度放牧导致侵蚀和杂草丛生。全球海洋依然因为公地哲理残存而受害。海洋国家依然听从「四海自由」的口令。他们声言相信「海洋有无穷资源」,令多种鱼类和鲸鱼几乎灭绝。

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 the parks are steadily eroded. Plainly, we must soon cease to treat the parks as commons or they will be of no value anyone.

国家公园是公地悲剧的另一个例子。现今是对外开放,没有限制。公园范围是有限的—只有一个优胜美谷 —但人口增长没有限制。公园访客享乐的价值逐渐减弱。很简单,我们要尽快不要把公园当作公地,否则对任何人都不会有价值。

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 enter them. The allocation might be on the basis of wealth, by the use of an auction system. It might be on the basis 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 the reasonable possibilities. They are all objectionable. But we must choose--or acquiesce in the destruction of the commons that we call our National Parks.

我们可以做什么?有几个方案。可以出售为私人产业;可以保留为公共财产,但分配进入的权利。分配可以是以财富为基础,用拍卖方式。亦可以根据一些彼此同意的标准来定优劣。可以是彩票。或是先到先得,由人龙决定。我以为以上提到的都令人反感。但我们必须选择—或是默许我们称为国家公园的公地被毁。

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-enterprises.

公地悲剧的反面是污染问题,不是从公地拿走,而是放入——往水中排放污水,或化学、放射性、和热力废物;往空气排放有害和危害的气体;在视线所及树立令人分神和不悦目的广告。计算效益和前述一样。理性人发觉他向公地排放废物的成本,是少于排放前洁净废物的成本。每个人都是一样;只要我们这些独立,理性,自由的投机者自作妄为,大家都受缚于「自家弄脏自家」的制度。

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.

食物篮子的公地悲剧,因为私产或类似的正式安排而避免了。但我们周围的空气和水不能轻易地分隔,所以要用不同的方法防止污水坑公地悲剧:强制的法律或税务措施,做成污染者在排放前处理污染物成本比不处理为低。我们解决这问题的进展,不如解决第一个问题。停止我们耗尽地球的直接资源的私产概念,实际上助长污染。小河岸边工厂的主人—他的产权伸延到小河的中央—不容易明白弄脏流经门前的河水不是他的自然权利。法律永远赶不上时代,需要修修补补来适应这「公地」的新意识。

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 10 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.

污染问题是人口的后果。未开发地区的孤独居民如何弃置废物,没有所谓。祖父以前常说:「水流十里,自我净化。」当他是小孩时,这神话可能近乎真理,因为没有太多人。但人口变得密集,大自然的化学和生物循环过程负荷过重,呼唤产权要重新定义。

How To Legislate Temperance? 如何为节制立法?
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.

分析污染问题作为人口密度连带产生的事物,带出一项不是普遍了解的道德原则:行动的道德是其进行时体制情况连带产生的事物 。把公地用作污水池,在未开发情况不会危及大众,因为没有大众;在大都市这样做就不能忍受。一百五十年前,平地居民杀死野牛,只割下牛舌头做晚餐,其它的弃掉。他不是浪费。今天只余下几千头野牛,同样的行为会令人惊骇。

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 10,000 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.

顺带一提,不能由一张相片决定行动的道德。除非知道某人行动时的整体体系,我们不知道某人杀象或放火烧草是否危及他人。中国古人有言:「一张图画可代千言万语」,但可能要用千言万语来证实图画。生态学者和改革者一般试图用相片快捷方式来说服他人。但相片不能摄影辩论的要义;这必须用文字理性表达。

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 custodiet 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.

以前编理道德,没有注意到道德是和体系有紧密关系。传统的道德指令形式:「汝不得…」没有顾及特别环境。我们社会的法律依循古老道德的模式,所以大大不适用于复杂,人多和可改变的世界。我们的团团转解决办法是用行政法扩大法定的法律。实际上是不可能列出在后园烧垃圾或是没有烟雾管制开车的全部情况,我国立法把细节下放给官僚。行政法就是这样来的;有一个古老的理由令我们担心——谁来监管监管者?John Adams说过,我们必须有「法治的政府,不是人治。」行政官僚尝试评价处于整个体系的行动的道德,容易变得腐败,贪污;产生人治的政府,不是法治。

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.

立法禁止容易(但执法不一定如是);但我们如何为「节制」立法?经济指出用行政法来仲裁可以达到目的。如果我们对「谁来监管」的感受妨碍利用行政法,我们是不必要地限制了可行的办法。我们应当保留这一句话来提醒我们不能避免可怕的危险。我们面对的大挑战,是发明矫正的回馈,保证监管者大公无私。我们必须找出方法,为监管者和矫正的回馈立法,赋予所需权力。

Freedom To Breed Is Intolerable  自由生育是不能容忍
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.

人口问题在另一方面涉及公地悲剧。在一个由「狗吃狗」原则管治的世界——如果曾经有这样的世界——一个家庭有多少子女不会受公共关注。为人父母生育过多子女,存活的后裔只会少,不会多,因为他们没有能力照顾子女。David Lack和其它人发现这样的负面回馈控制了鸟类的生育力。 但人类不是鸟类,超码在过去几千年都不是如此。

If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if, thus, overbreeding 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.

如果每个人类家庭都是依赖本身的资源;如果眼光短浅父母的子女饥饿致死;如果过度生育为生殖细胞带来自我的「惩罚」—那么管制家庭生育是不涉公共利益。但我们的社会是深深地受福利国家所约束 ,因而面对公地悲剧的另一面。

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 overbreeding 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.

在一个福利国家,我们如何应付以过度生育来保证扩大本身的家庭,宗教,种族,或阶层(或是任何可以识别和有凝聚力的社群) ?自由生育的概念,连同人人生而平等的信念,足以令世界逃脱不了悲惨的行动。

Unfortunately this is just the course of action that is being pursued by the United Nations. In late 1967, some 30 nations agreed to the following (14): 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.

不幸地,这正是联合国要采取的行动。1967年后半年,约三十个国家同意「人权宣言描述家庭是社会的自然和基本单位。因此家庭人口的任何选择和决定,无可置疑是由家庭作出,不可听命于他人。」

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 17th 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.

要明确否定这项权利的合法性是痛苦的;要否定,人们感到不安,正如十七世纪的麻省居民否定女巫存在的现实。现时,自由主义阵营视批评联合国为禁忌,感觉是联合国是「我们最后,最好的希望」,我们不应吹毛求瑕,不要让顽固保守主义者玩弄。但是我们不要忘记Robert Louis Stevenson的话:「朋友禁制的真理,是敌人最灵活的武器。」如果我们深爱真理,我就必须公开否定人权宣言的合法性,虽然这是联合国所推广。我国应当联同Kingsley Davis ,试图改变「计划生育-世界人口组织 」追随同一悲剧性理想的错误。

Conscience Is Self-Eliminating  良知是自我消除
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.

认为长期控制人类生育是诉诸良知,这种想法是错误的。Charles Galton Darwin在他祖父的伟大著作百年纪念发言时,就指出这点。其达尔文式的论点简单直接。

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 difference will be accentuated, generation by generation.

人各不同。面对限制生育的呼吁,无疑有些人的反应比较积极。比起那些易受良知影响的人,那些多子女的占下一代的比例较大。这些差别会一代传一代的重复。

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如是说:「可能要经历几百世代才发展出这种偏重繁殖的本能;如确实如此,大自然会报复的。避孕人品种会灭绝,被生殖人品种取代。」

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.

这论点是假设生儿育女的良知或欲望(无所谓是那一种)是遗传的——所谓遗传是以最一般性的正式意思而言。用J. Lotka的定义来说:无论这态度是经生殖细胞或是体外传播,结果都是一样。(如果否定后者的可能性,也否定前者,那么教育有什么意义?」以上是在人口问题的背景提出这个论点,但这也适用于社会呼吁滥用公地的个人,为了大众利益而抑制自己的任何情况—利用他的良知。利用这样的呼吁,是设立一个最终消除人类良知的选择性机制。

Pathogenic Effects of Conscience  良知的致病效果
The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be enough to condemn it; but 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: (i) (intended communication) "If you don't do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a responsible citizen"; (ii) (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."

呼吁良知的长期弊端已足以宣告废弃这作法;这亦有短期缺失。当我们要求滥用公地的人们,「因良知之名」而停止,可以对他说什么呢?他会听到什么?—不止是当时,也是夜深人静,半睡半醒时,他记得我们的说话,也记我们的非言语沟通暗示?有意无意之间,他迟早体会到他接收到两种讯息,而彼此是矛盾的:(1)(存心的讯息)「如果你不遵纪,我们会公开谴责你没有作为负责任的公民」;(2)(无意的讯息)「如果你听话而行,我们会暗中责怪你头脑简单,骂几句就站在一旁,容许我们这些人继续滥用公地。」

Everyman 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."

每个人都陷于Bateson称之为「进退两难的处境」。他和同僚有一个言之成理的说法,认为进退两难是精神分裂症的重要成因。 进退两难,不一定是这样有害,但人若陷于其中,会危及精神健康。尼采如是说:「良心不安,是一种疾病。」

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.

唤起他人的良知,对试图超越法定限制,伸展控制的人来说,是具诱惑的。最高领导人屈从于这种诱惑。在过去一代人,是否有总统从不号召工会自愿节制他们对较高工资的要求,或是要求钢铁公司遵守定价的自动指引?记忆所及,没有。每一次的用词遣字都着意在令不合作者有犯罪感。

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.

几百年来,一直都假定犯罪感是文明生命中有价值,甚至是不可缺少的成份。在这个后弗罗伊德的世界,我们有怀疑。

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从现代观点来看:「犯罪感从来没有带来好事,无论是智能,政策或热情。犯罪者只关注自己,不会留意犯错的事物,甚至不会留意本身的利益(这可能有意思),只留意本身的焦虑。」

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.

我们不需要是专业心理学家才看出焦虑的后果。我们在西方社会中,正从两百年的欲望黑暗年代走出来;这年代部份是由禁制性法律所维系,但可能更为见效的是教育的产生焦虑机制。Alex Comfort在The Anxiety Makers 中描述得很好;这并不是赏心悦目的。

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 responsibility in this context? Is it not merely a synonym for 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.

因为取证困难,我们甚至可能承认焦虑的后果,可能有时从某些观点来看,是值得的。我们要提一个较大的问题,就是作为政策,我们应否鼓励使用一项倾向(如果不是动机)于心理病态的技术。这些日子中,我们时常听到提及负责任—父母心;这两个相连的词语也包括在一些专注于控制生育的组织。有人提出庞大的宣传,向全国(或是全世界)的生育者灌输责任感。但什么是良知的意义?当我们引用「责任」而没有相当的制裁,我们是否在吓唬公地的人们作出有违本身利益的行动?「责任」是实体代用品的言语伪装,试图不付出而取得一些回报。

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.

如果我们要用上「责任」,最好是用上Charles Frankel的意思 。这位哲学家说:「责任是有限社会安排的产物。」留意Frankel提出社会安排——不是宣传。

Mutual Coercion Mutually Agreed Upon 彼此同意的彼此强制
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.

产生责任的社会安排,是建立强制安排,或是类似的安排。考虑银行劫案。抢劫银行的歹徒是把银行当作是公地。可以如何防止?当然不是用语言来唤起他的责任感来试图管制他的行为,只是依随Frankel的指导——用宣传来坚持银行不是公地;我们寻求有限度的社会安排,确保银行不会成为公地。这样一来我们侵犯了潜在劫匪的自由,我们不会否认或后悔。

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.

抢劫银行的道德观很容易明白,因为我们接受要完全禁止这种活动。我们情愿说「汝不得抢劫银行」,没有例外。但节制也可以由强制建立。税务是一项好的强制措施。要节制市中心的购物者使用车位,我们用停车表管制短期停车,交通罚款处理长时间停车。我们无需禁止市民泊车,他要停多久就多久;我们只需让他泊车越久,费用就更高。我们不是提出禁制,而是仔细考虑的偏重方案。广告人可能称之为「说服」,我喜用直率的「强制」。

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.

对大多数自由主义者来说,「强制」是脏话,但无需永远是这样的。正如其它脏话,暴露于光线之下,一次又一次不带道歉,不感局促说出来,都会清洗肮脏感。对许多人来说,强制的含意是遥远,不负责任的官僚的随意决定;这不是本来意义的必然部份。我推荐的唯一强制是彼此强制,由大多数受影响的人们彼此同意。

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.

彼此同意强制,并不是说我们需要享受强制,或是假装享受。谁人会享受纳税?我们全都为纳税发牢骚。但我们接受强制性税务,因为认识到自愿性纳税只会是没有良知的人得益。我们开创和(抱怨)支持纳税和其它强制性措施来逃避公地的恐怖。

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.

公地以外的另外方案无需是十全十美,只要是较好的。房产和其它实质物品的另外方案是创立产权和法定承继权。这制度是否完全公正?作为基因曾受训的生物学者,我持否定见解。对我来说,如果个人承继要有差别的话,法定拥有权应该和生物性承继完全关连—那些生物性方面是产业和权力更适合的监护人,应当在法律方面承继更多。「龙生龙,凤生凤」的说法,隐含于我们的法定承继法律,但经常被基因重组所嘲弄。笨蛋可以承继百万家财,和信托基金可以完整保存全部财产。我们必须承认我们的私有产权法律制度,连同承继权,是不公正的—但我们接受,因为我们不相信到现时为止,有人发明更好的制度。公地的另外方案是不敢想象的恐怖。不公正比全面毁灭来得好。

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), worshippers 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: (i) that the status quo is perfect; or (ii) 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.

改革与保持现况的战争,奇特之处之一是被双重标准无意识地管制。当有改革措施提出时,往往因为反对者找到其中瑕疵而落败。正如Kingsley Davis指出 :现况的崇拜者有时暗示没有完全同意的协议,改革是不可能的;这样的暗示违反史实。我尽可能去了解,自动拒绝改革建议是基于两项不自觉的假定:(1)现况是十全十美;或(2)我们面对的选择是改革,或是不采用行动;如果改革建议不是十全十美,我们大概应当不采用行动,等待十全十美的建议。

But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of years is also action. It also produce evils. Once we are aware that 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.

但是我们不可以全然不动。几千年来,我们所做的就是采取行动。这也会产生邪恶。一旦我们和道行动就是现况,我们就可以比较可发现的利害,和改革建议的利害比较,尽我们所能因为我们没有经验而打折扣。基于这样的比较,我们可以排除认为只能接受完美制度这项不通的假定,作出理性的决定。

Recognition of Necessity 承认必然力
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. 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.

或许对人们的人口问题最简单的摘要是这样:如果要说道理的话,公地只可以在低人口密度的条件下成立。随着人类人口增加,公地的观点必须逐一放弃。我们先放弃在公地采集食物,把农地圈围起来,草原,猎区和渔区列为禁区。这些限制不是在全世界都有全部执行。


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.

稍后,我们所见公地作为废物处置地亦要放弃。西方世界普遍接受限制家庭污水排放;我们仍然苦心经营从公地排除汽车、工厂、杀虫剂、施肥、和核电装置的污染。

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 is paying out billions of dollars to create supersonic transport which will disturb 50,000 people for every one person who is 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?

我们对寻乐的公地弊端的认识还在萌芽阶段。对于公众媒介散播音浪,几乎没有限制。购物大众在没有许可的情况下,被无意义的音乐猛烈袭击。我们的政府付出亿万美元创造超音速运输;把一位仁兄快速从此岸送到彼岸,省下三小时,就有五十万人受到骚扰。广告商弄脏了电台和电视的大气电波,污染游人的视觉。立法禁止寻乐公地,我们还有很长的路。这是否因为我们的清教徒传统视寻乐为罪恶,视痛苦(即是广告污染)为美德?

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."

每次公地被圈围,都侵犯了一些人的个人自由。大家都接受往日做成的侵犯,因为现代人不会投诉有损失。我们激烈反对的是新近提出的侵犯;「权利」和「自由」充斥。但「自由」是什么意思?当人们彼此同意立法禁止抢劫,人类享有更多自由,不是更少。受困于公地逻辑的人们,享用自由只会带来全面毁灭;一旦人们看清楚彼此强制的必然性,他们变得有自由去追寻其它目标。我相信是黑格尔说过:「自由是必然性的了解。」

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.

我们必须承认必然性最重要一点,是放弃生育的公地。没有技术性的解决办法,可以从人口过多的忧愁中拯救我们。生育自由会毁灭全体。为了避免困难的决定,现时我们大多数会受诱惑倾向宣传良知和负责任的父母心。必须抗拒这种诱惑,因为呼吁独立运作的良知,长期而言是选择全部良知消失,短期而言增加焦虑。

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.

要保存和孕育其它和更宝贵的自由,唯一的办法是放弃生育自由,还要快快放弃。「自由是必然性的了解」—教育的作用是向大家披露放弃生育自由的必然性。只有这样,我们才可以终结这方面的公地悲剧。



References
1. J. B. Wiesner and H. F. York, Sci. Amer. 211 (No. 4). 27 (1964).
2. G. Hardin, J. Hered. 50, 68 (1959); S. von Hoernor, Science 137, 18 (1962).
3. J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1947), p. 11.
4. J. H. Fremlin. New Sci., No. 415 (1964), p. 285.
5. A. Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Modern Library, New York, 1937), p. 423.
6. W. F. Lloyd, Two Lectures on the Checks to Population (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, England, 1833), reprinted (in part) in Population, Evolution, and Birth Control, G. Hardin. Ed. (Freeman, San Francisco, 1964), p. 37.
7. A. N. Whitehead, Science and the Modern World (Mentor, New York, 1948), p. 17.
8. G. Hardin, Ed. Population, Evolution. and Birth Control (Freeman, San Francisco, 1964). p. 56.
9. S. McVay, Sci. Amer. 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, 1954).
12. H. Girvetz, From Wealth to Welfare (Stanford Univ. Press. Stanford, Calif., 1950).
13. G. Hardin, Perspec. Biol. Med. 6, 366 (1963).
14. U. Thant, Int. Planned Parenthood News, No.168 (February 1968), p. 3.
15. K. Davis, Science 158, 730 (1967).
16. S. Tax, Ed., Evolution after Darwin (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1960), vol. 2, p. 469.
17. G. Bateson, D. D. Jackson, J. Haley, J. Weakland, Behav. Sci. 1. 251 (1956).
18. P. Goodman, New York Rev. 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, New York, 1955), p. 203.
21. J. D. Roslansky, Genetics and the Future of Man (Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1966). p. 177.

 

打印】 【关闭
 文章评论问答
 我有话说
用户:
互助学习,共同进步 [ 注册会员 ]
内容:
  栏目推荐文章
职场英语网
联系我们 | 设为首页 | 加入收藏
版权所有 © 2006 职场英语网 京ICP备06061387号