The author raises some points which would've been interesting to dig in more deeply, but then mainly digresses to an ad hominem argument against the author of t

The author raises some points which would've been interesting to dig in more deeply, but then mainly digresses to an ad hominem argument against the author of the original tragedy of the commons essay. Also I don't understand how he can just equate Hardin's personal views with the "intellectual roots" of the tragedy of the commons concept. Surely there's not much room for racist thoughts in a metaphor based on 19th grazing laws "exclusive to a defined set of indidivuals"?[0] Please don't take this to mean I want to defend Hardin here. But just saying "the guy who wrote this was a racist" and "it's based on some really old essay" does not convince me that the argument itself is flawed. I wish I'd gotten some nerdy know-it-all material to throw at someone the next time they bring up the tragedy of the commons :/ [0]user wahern (in the comment section here) re-read the original paper and confirms this suspicion of mine