4 ms·

> This is why, in general, ideas that involve lots of actors changing their behavior contrary to incentives, instead of changing the incentives, are fundamental

by danans 7y ago

> This is why, in general, ideas that involve lots of actors changing their behavior contrary to incentives, instead of changing the incentives, are fundamentally flawed. Indeed, this is what drives the Tragedy of the Commons - everyone acting according to their individual incentives, maximizing their individual benefit, but while exploiting an unregulated limited common resource, and externalizing the cost of doing so upon the commons. There are two solutions paths which are not mutually exclusive: put a higher price on the resource use or externality, and find a more efficient way to achieve meet needs. In many cases, the current incentives and resulting approaches keep us stuck in local maxima. An example is commuting in single occupancy personal vehicles in urban areas in the US. When you consider the layout of our cities and the limited mass transit availability, it very often makes more individual sense to drive when you consider factors like transporting children to school/activities, grocery shopping, appointments, etc. Sometimes the costs are actually to the individual rather than the commons, or are delayed in impact to the commons. In the previous example hours spent sitting in a vehicle instead of walking deprives individuals of opportunities to burn calories to control their weight, resulting in a variety of health issues. The problem is that there are a powerful set of interests who are interested in maintaining the current approaches and incentives at all cost. Again, in the transportation example above, these would include the fossil fuel extraction and highway expansion industries.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
> There are two solutions paths which are not mutually exclusive: put a higher price on the resource use or externality, and find a more efficient way to achieve meet needs. I think the second one isn't really a solution. If you find a more efficient way to achieve the needs, the needs will expand to compensate. Even if everyone executes restraint, an entrepreneur will show up and start selling the remaining resources to people who don't have access to those resources. As far as I know, the only way to solve tragedies of the commons is for everyone to agree on a set of rules, and punishments that disincentivise breaking these rules. Which, in real life, is achievable only through centralizing the power that sets the rules and executes punishment - ongoing coordination is an unstable state.
- AndrewKemendo 7y ago
  If you study Anarchist philosophy "mutually agreeing on a set of rules etc..." is effectively the syndicalist answer to this problem. However as you point out, history seems to show that this is incredibly unstable and is easily dominated by someone breaking the rule of non-violence. The radical monarchist-libertarians answer is to eliminate the commons, such that everything has an explicit pricing mechanism. No less problematic, or unstable. I think in the end, there is something about humanity that does not allow for stable equilibrium over extended periods (100s of years). Not sure what.
  - throwno 7y ago
    The problem with consensus based rules is that it takes way too long to do anything. Around the turn of the century, when anarchism was still opposed to capitalism, rather than just people swinging bike locks in the name of identity politics, any kind of anarchist style organizing basically amounted to spending the whole day sitting in a giant meeting, and then leaving with nothing important decided on.
    - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
      Not sure which century you're referencing - 2000s? I concur though. The Occupy Wall Street meetings I had the luck of attending at Zuccotti Park reflected as much and nearly all of the other anarcho-syndicalist meetings I've seen do work at the snails pace of consensus. The adherents would argue that this speed is a feature not a bug. I would generally agree with the argument that slowing down decision making is a good thing. Not sure it's a survivable strategy as a group however.
kortilla 7y ago
> Again, in the transportation example above, these would include the fossil fuel extraction and highway expansion industries. Those are only side effects. The main set of interests keeping things like this is the American consumers. The majority like way more space in their homes and property than their European counterparts. The real issue is that public transport doesn’t actually work when the middle class is living in 3-5 bedroom homes with 1/4 acre lots. There is no country with good public transit where a middle class income can easily support that size home. The hard truth is that it’s going to be a trade-off.
- danans 7y ago
  > The main set of interests keeping things like this is the American consumers I concur to a degree, but American consumers have also been so captive to the narrative of large houses that they are mostly unaware of other ways of living. Their only image of denser living is slums and tenements, or Park Avenue penthouses, not middle class townhouses. However, Americans have increasingly travelled to places that have higher density and transit and seen that those can offer a high quality of life. Many then seek a different balance of space to transit by moving to areas where they can make a different trade-off than the standard American model, hence the recent urbanization of suburbs and growth of previously sparse cities like Austin and Salt Lake City.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    > Their only image of denser living is slums and tenements, or Park Avenue penthouses, not middle class townhouses. Maybe that was true before the internet became widespread, but it’s not the case anymore. The American Midwest is aware of the walkable streets of Rome, Paris, and Tokyo. It’s still a big sacrifice to those used to yards, sparse commerce, and the scheduling freedom that comes with vehicles. > hence the recent urbanization of suburbs and growth of previously sparse cities like Austin and Salt Lake City. Yep, and I personally wish there were walkable options like in Europe. As someone who has lived in Austin for the past 7 years, getting around without a car is a joke and you’re going to take a big quality of life hit if you limit to yourself to one walkable area. Its density certainly is increasing (see east side), but it’s just turning into the Bay Area with worse highways.

by danans 7y ago

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> There are two solutions paths which are not mutually exclusive: put a higher price on the resource use or externality, and find a more efficient way to achieve meet needs. I think the second one isn't really a solution. If you find a more efficient way to achieve the needs, the needs will expand to compensate. Even if everyone executes restraint, an entrepreneur will show up and start selling the remaining resources to people who don't have access to those resources. As far as I know, the only way to solve tragedies of the commons is for everyone to agree on a set of rules, and punishments that disincentivise breaking these rules. Which, in real life, is achievable only through centralizing the power that sets the rules and executes punishment - ongoing coordination is an unstable state.

AndrewKemendo 7y ago
If you study Anarchist philosophy "mutually agreeing on a set of rules etc..." is effectively the syndicalist answer to this problem. However as you point out, history seems to show that this is incredibly unstable and is easily dominated by someone breaking the rule of non-violence. The radical monarchist-libertarians answer is to eliminate the commons, such that everything has an explicit pricing mechanism. No less problematic, or unstable. I think in the end, there is something about humanity that does not allow for stable equilibrium over extended periods (100s of years). Not sure what.
- throwno 7y ago
  The problem with consensus based rules is that it takes way too long to do anything. Around the turn of the century, when anarchism was still opposed to capitalism, rather than just people swinging bike locks in the name of identity politics, any kind of anarchist style organizing basically amounted to spending the whole day sitting in a giant meeting, and then leaving with nothing important decided on.
  - AndrewKemendo 7y ago
    Not sure which century you're referencing - 2000s? I concur though. The Occupy Wall Street meetings I had the luck of attending at Zuccotti Park reflected as much and nearly all of the other anarcho-syndicalist meetings I've seen do work at the snails pace of consensus. The adherents would argue that this speed is a feature not a bug. I would generally agree with the argument that slowing down decision making is a good thing. Not sure it's a survivable strategy as a group however.

kortilla 7y ago

> Again, in the transportation example above, these would include the fossil fuel extraction and highway expansion industries. Those are only side effects. The main set of interests keeping things like this is the American consumers. The majority like way more space in their homes and property than their European counterparts. The real issue is that public transport doesn’t actually work when the middle class is living in 3-5 bedroom homes with 1/4 acre lots. There is no country with good public transit where a middle class income can easily support that size home. The hard truth is that it’s going to be a trade-off.

danans 7y ago
> The main set of interests keeping things like this is the American consumers I concur to a degree, but American consumers have also been so captive to the narrative of large houses that they are mostly unaware of other ways of living. Their only image of denser living is slums and tenements, or Park Avenue penthouses, not middle class townhouses. However, Americans have increasingly travelled to places that have higher density and transit and seen that those can offer a high quality of life. Many then seek a different balance of space to transit by moving to areas where they can make a different trade-off than the standard American model, hence the recent urbanization of suburbs and growth of previously sparse cities like Austin and Salt Lake City.
- kortilla 7y ago
  > Their only image of denser living is slums and tenements, or Park Avenue penthouses, not middle class townhouses. Maybe that was true before the internet became widespread, but it’s not the case anymore. The American Midwest is aware of the walkable streets of Rome, Paris, and Tokyo. It’s still a big sacrifice to those used to yards, sparse commerce, and the scheduling freedom that comes with vehicles. > hence the recent urbanization of suburbs and growth of previously sparse cities like Austin and Salt Lake City. Yep, and I personally wish there were walkable options like in Europe. As someone who has lived in Austin for the past 7 years, getting around without a car is a joke and you’re going to take a big quality of life hit if you limit to yourself to one walkable area. Its density certainly is increasing (see east side), but it’s just turning into the Bay Area with worse highways.