Have your fish and eat it too

The ’winner’ takes it all

A couple of weeks ago we played a game in class, based on the well-known ‘tragedy of the commons’. In short, the game was played like this; there is a sea with 50 fish in it. Left alone the fish will double each year, but there are several teams which can catch fish. The teams can decide for themselves how many fish to catch each year, but as soon as the total number of fish caught equals the total number of fish available the catch stops and the game is – literally – over. You do not need rocket science to see that if half the fish are caught they will be replenished in the next year and fishing will be sustainable. In this game it is easy; if you need sustainable fishery at a higher volume, all you need to do is catch less than half the available fish. If only real life were that simple…

Now, as the maths were very simple, did it lead to sustainable fishery? No, it did not. Apart from the clash between personal interest and public good which is the basis of the tragedy of the commons, this was also caused by the rules of the game, which defined the aim of the game as ‘to have the largest profit at the end of the game by catching as many fish as possible’ (quoted from the lecture slide). This means there is no dilemma, the aim is to catch as many fish as possible, or at least more than the other teams. If this game is played next year I suggest a new name for it; Lemmings. It is the surest and fastest way to extinction. The ‘winning team’ is not winning; the team is out of fish just a little bit later than the other teams. They all lose.

Playing the game like this shows that we are all part of the problem, but the result is predictable and nothing changes. Now we are Industrial Ecology students, supposed to become actors of change (see

http://ie.leidendelft.nl/newsarchive/ ). It is important to see how we are part of the problem, but our aim should be to become part of the solution. The game as described above does not reflect this.

Now it is much easier to suggest that the game needs a change than to actually define how it should be played. I suggest the following, which I believe reflects reality as well as the original game; give each team a secret goal for the game, in the same way it is done in RISK. In this game each team is given the goal to have the fish numbers sustained at 50, but they do not know the goals the others have. If the teams manage to achieve this (say, for five consecutive rounds) they all win. If not, they all lose.

Will this work? To be honest I have no idea, but I would like to know. Even if this alternative manner of playing ends with an empty sea it can be a starting point for a discussion why it did not work. If it ends with all teams winning it can be a starting point for a discussion how to make it work in the real world.