As a member of the American Diabetes Association, I attended the ADA annual meeting several years ago and heard an inspiring lecture by Prof. Gene Barrett (Univerrsity of Virginia). Dr. Barrett delivered that year's President's Address titled: "The Sheep, the Ostrich, the Ant, Diabetes, and the Tragedy of the Common". {You can read the published article from this address here.}
As Dr. Barrett explained, the "tragedy of the Common" can be described as follows:
"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 towards which all men rush - each pursuing his own interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the Commons"
Dr. Barrett emphasized that in addition to technological solutions to our world's epidemic of obesity of type 2 diabetes, we should consider carefully sociological solutions: education, motivation and legislation. I will be writing more about this later, but wanted to share with ScienceBlog readers a compelling "15 second" illustration of the fundamental problem.
Think of the regal lion, king of the Sahara, stalking their prey. The lion's speed and agility are the result of a lifetime of hunting for food. But things have changed recently. Instead of needing to hunt for every scrap of food, the food is delivered to him, while he stretches out for a nap, supine and satisfied, even before feasting. Sound familiar?
- Log in to post comments
I don't get it. The tragedy of the commons requires that there be a shared resource that cannot be fully utilized via an equal distribution among all stakeholders. How does that map onto something having to do with type 2 diabetes?
Does this help? According to Dr. Barrett:
âThe Health Care Finance Commonâ
- Increasing sophistication and costs for diagnostic and therapeutics
- An increase in the aged population â the âboomer bubbleâ
- An increase in the prevalence of chronic diseases
- The predicted bankruptcy of the Medicare system now at 2019 (est. 2004)
The metaphor/analogy is still awkward, I thought so too.