Capitalism and Communism can both be argued for in regards to sustaining the environment; however, Capitalism is the best route to take.
In his book, "The Principles of Sustainability," Dresner outlines the idea of "the tragedy of the commons" in which he describes herders that share one pasture. Because the herders share the pasture equally, there is no incentive for the herders to maintain the land, because there is a constant want for more produce. Each herder is driven by the competition to produce more so they overgraze the land (Dresner 25).
After thinking about this factor, why is communism still discussed when thinking about environment sustainability?
This is because people still believe that Capitalism has major flaws. The focus of Capitalism is on the individual and his or her own progression in life and the wealth of our nation is distributed unevenly. But my question is, would it be fair if the wealth was in fact distribute evenly? I believe that if we did act under a Communism system, people would have no incentive to work harder, and they would only work at the level they are required to. If you are given everything that you need, then where is the incentive to work for it?
This is where the topic of sustaining the environment comes in!
For environmental sustainability to work, people have to want it. Yes, that means everyone works together for the cause. If people own their own land, they have the incentive to keep it up to better themselves. While, the herders who shared the land had no incentive to keep their pastures from being overgrazed.
