One of the big topics and reasons given is the "problem of the commons". A ressource that is available to many will lead to the community's downfall since every

One of the big topics and reasons given is the "problem of the commons". A ressource that is available to many will lead to the community's downfall since everybody takes as much as he can instead of as much as he needs, which leads to exploiting the ressource to its limits and beyond. I would argue that the world is not THAT pessimistic. The thing is that most people are totally fine with "just a little more" than what they need. They don't want the max, they want a little more than the min. Only a few people will try to exploit the commons to their max. But then why is it that the "problem of the commons" seems so reasonable? Why do we experience this self destructive path so often if only a few will over-exploit it? I believe this is the case because A) the few over-exploiters will also fight each other which leads to (self-)destructive results, and B) stopping over-exploiters requires open communication (=everybody would need to admit his little exploits) and cooperation (=trusting each other). As a result I believe that forcing open information and forcing cooperation by rules (e.g. by separation of power, by having some people getting paid to reveal the exploits of others) would save the whole system from over-exploiters and I believe there are areas were we already achieved that to a meaningful degrees (e.g. in democracies in comparison to dictatorships).