4 ms·

An observation remains true independent of the moral virtueous or villaneous the obsever is. This article is just an ad hominem.

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
This article really does seem to exemplify what's wrong with modern journalism. It pretends to be attacking the idea, but spends a large portion of the article attacking the man behind it instead.
- mijamo 8y ago
  I disagree. The article acknowledged that point and criticized the idea itself. It still talked about the man first because this is essential to understand the context and the ideology behind the idea. The tragedy of the commons leads very quickly to some elitism and hatred of the masses and the other, and that is easy to understand once you know the origin of the concept. On the other hand those comments are pretty typical for HN, where people like to criticize journalists and think they would do so much better about basically everything.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    >It still talked about the man first because this is essential to understand the context and the ideology behind the idea. The idea however has been around for ages. Wikipedia points out a source from 1833 [1], but the idea that people act in their own best interest (greed) has been known for thousands of years. Hence why Christianity considers it a sin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
antientropic 8y ago
I think your comment misrepresents the article. A quote: "That Hardin’s tragedy was advanced as part of a white nationalist project should not automatically condemn its merits. But the facts are not on Hardin’s side. [...] [E]arly pastures were well regulated by local institutions. They were not free-for-all grazing sites where people took and took at the expense of everyone else."
- skybrian 8y ago
  This makes it misleading as history. But the concept might apply in other situations. Should we instead be talking about the tragedy of overfishing?

ApolloFortyNine 8y ago

This article really does seem to exemplify what's wrong with modern journalism. It pretends to be attacking the idea, but spends a large portion of the article attacking the man behind it instead.

mijamo 8y ago
I disagree. The article acknowledged that point and criticized the idea itself. It still talked about the man first because this is essential to understand the context and the ideology behind the idea. The tragedy of the commons leads very quickly to some elitism and hatred of the masses and the other, and that is easy to understand once you know the origin of the concept. On the other hand those comments are pretty typical for HN, where people like to criticize journalists and think they would do so much better about basically everything.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  >It still talked about the man first because this is essential to understand the context and the ideology behind the idea. The idea however has been around for ages. Wikipedia points out a source from 1833 [1], but the idea that people act in their own best interest (greed) has been known for thousands of years. Hence why Christianity considers it a sin. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

antientropic 8y ago

I think your comment misrepresents the article. A quote: "That Hardin’s tragedy was advanced as part of a white nationalist project should not automatically condemn its merits. But the facts are not on Hardin’s side. [...] [E]arly pastures were well regulated by local institutions. They were not free-for-all grazing sites where people took and took at the expense of everyone else."

skybrian 8y ago
This makes it misleading as history. But the concept might apply in other situations. Should we instead be talking about the tragedy of overfishing?