Josh's Tragedy of the Commons Simulation

Group Members	Year 1	Year 2	Total
Josh	8	1	9
Matt	3	1	4
Ryan	3	1	4
Hannah	1	1	2
Total # of Fish for this year	15	4	19
Total Income	$150	$40	$190

In our group, it took two tries to get the ideal amount of fish in everyone’s pile, because on the first try, we didn’t have an established system of doing things, and we didn’t tell anybody what the amount of fish we would be taking was. Therefore, it was easy for people to take as much as they wanted without thinking about the others, or the repopulation of the environment. Since I was the person who did take more than expected, I can say that I wasn’t really thinking about the best interests of the community at that point in time. I was more focused on the ultimate goal of self-sustainment. However, this lead to an early demise of the fish pond, with the fish dying out before they could be replenished because people were too eager to take them all.

Nobody sacrificed their fish, because nobody knew that they needed to do that. Sometimes, society rewards these kinds of people, and gives them a certain sense of respect for putting other’s needs before theirs. Usually, though, they may get attention and respect, but in the long run they are still poor, and require more help than the normal person who doesn’t care. In terms of morality only, they did the right thing.

More often than not, this is the case with certain people in real life; they become so focused on this goal that, perhaps only for a few minutes, they get carried away and put their desires before their needs. Ultimately, this means that they themselves will prosper, but not without leaving many others in their wake, starving and unfortunate.

Group Members	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Total
Josh	1	3	4	6		14
Matt	1	1	2	4		8
Ryan	1	2	2	2		7
Hannah	1	1	1	4		7
Total # of Fish for this year	4	7	9	16		36
Total Income	$40	$70	$90	$160		$36

In Round 2, we had time to actually plan out what our actions were going to accomplish and develop a strategy with a group. We discussed a plan of action where we each take the minimal amount of fish for each harvest, so that our stock can be replenished easier and we will get more each time. Gradually, as the rounds went by, we would take more and more outside of the minimum, and allow the stock to gradually become larger and larger. 

The plan was successful, with everyone taking as much as was needed (perhaps a little bit more). In this game, I was aware of the other teammates, and they were aware of me, so it made the transfer of resources between us easier and more trustworthy.

In a real life situation, it would not usually be possible to have the number of fish you gain maximized while keeping the count of resources in the pond maximized as well. Taking the maximum amount usually leads to a greater loss of resources in the pond, so if everyone took as much as they could, the community would not thrive. 

Conservation is the name of the game at this point! This way, you can improve in quality instead of quantity, and get more bangs for your buck. Speaking of bucks, we use money as payment to sell our fish and achieve some profit, because with fish all you can really do is keep it in storage and eat them later. With selling them on the market, you can use the profit you get from selling the maximum amount of fish to buy things that can help your business, like better equipment and more space for storage.

In the natural world, sharing really is caring. If we don’t divide our resources between each person, say in a school cafeteria, then some get away with more than they needed and others suffer for it because they might have wanted the same amount, but they would not be able to receive it. With equal distribution, these problems are solved, because everyone gets what they need and nothing more, nothing less. 

The problem, of course, is monitoring this system, one which is mostly established via the honor system. That is all up to the people in the community, and how much their upbringing requires them to be more selfish (or selfless) than others around them.

Some examples of natural communities that might suffer from this problem include a pond, a desert, agricultural areas, or any settlement that depends on natural resources to survive. These are known as the global commons, domains in which common-pool resources are found. These resources include water, food, shelter, and others.

The term “tragedy of the commons” refers to the individuals who use their own personal gain as an excuse to take more than necessary and leave everyone else with less. To use these resources wisely, people need to learn to be less selfish and consider the needs of the community and its benefits to living a healthier and more hospitable lifestyle. It is tricky though, because people can’t just acquire the rights to something like this; they must be distributed equally and freely among the members of the community. 

Only the established trust of the honor system can truly ensure that the members of a global commons can establish an equal system and pattern for taking the amount of resources not selfishly hording for themselves, but working together to make a better world. It simply remains to be seen whether or not this system can hold for long.