4 ms·

The idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is an ahistorical myth, promulgated quite recently by a racist, eugenicist, nationalist fearmonger: https://blogs.scie

The idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is an ahistorical myth, promulgated quite recently by a racist, eugenicist, nationalist fearmonger: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... History offers many examples of human communities successfully managing their common resources, over generations.

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
Those communities are usually around Dunbar's number, 100-300 people, or organized around such. It's easier if you know the people you live with.
tomrod 4y ago
This article is both an illuminating critique of the author but also an ad hominem to the argument. Terrible people can be absolutely correct. In this case, the tragedy of the commons both exists and affects many things (like international fishing). It is true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons. That is why its important to both understand it and to build community norms that encourage respect for common resources. Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists? If it does, do the original author's other beliefs matter when discussing it?
- Xelynega 4y ago
  > It's true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons It looks like you're agreeing that counterexamples to "tradgedy of the commons" being a default state exist in history yet your conclusion is "tragedy of the commons is the default if a better option isn't employed". Why can't it be true(based off your same evidence) that tragedy of the commons is an unnatural state, and respect for common resources is the default?
- marssaxman 4y ago
  > Terrible people can be absolutely correct. The author of this article agrees with you, and says so; I was more interested in the latter half of the article, where he explains why "the facts are not on Hardin's side". > Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists? The privatization of the commons seems to me the much greater tragedy, leading to large-scale exploitation and irresponsible environmental degradation. From what I see, distributed networks of human-scale communities tend to manage shared resources in a sustainable way; to fuck things up on a grand scale, you need centralized power and a managerial distance from consequences.
mistersquid 4y ago
Along with a sibling, I agree that the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons" can be useful while its original author is a deeply flawed human being whose other arguments and extrapolations are insupportable and morally reprehensible. Still, I'm grateful for your linking to this excellent critique of the source article which, among other things, provides a handy label for an ethically and morally dubious extrapolation the critique labels "lifeboat ethics" which I often seen deployed by the wealthy against the impoverished. > an idea [Hardin] called “lifeboat ethics” [0]: since global resources are finite, Hardin believed the rich should throw poor people overboard to keep their boat above water. [1] [0] https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Hardin.pdf https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Hardin.pdf (link in OP) [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... (OP)

TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago

Those communities are usually around Dunbar's number, 100-300 people, or organized around such. It's easier if you know the people you live with.

tomrod 4y ago

This article is both an illuminating critique of the author but also an ad hominem to the argument. Terrible people can be absolutely correct. In this case, the tragedy of the commons both exists and affects many things (like international fishing). It is true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons. That is why its important to both understand it and to build community norms that encourage respect for common resources. Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists? If it does, do the original author's other beliefs matter when discussing it?

Xelynega 4y ago
> It's true that history shows examples of communities managing their common resources over generations. This need not be the default; when it isn't you get the tragedy of the commons It looks like you're agreeing that counterexamples to "tradgedy of the commons" being a default state exist in history yet your conclusion is "tragedy of the commons is the default if a better option isn't employed". Why can't it be true(based off your same evidence) that tragedy of the commons is an unnatural state, and respect for common resources is the default?
marssaxman 4y ago
> Terrible people can be absolutely correct. The author of this article agrees with you, and says so; I was more interested in the latter half of the article, where he explains why "the facts are not on Hardin's side". > Would I be correct in my read of your take that you don't believe the tragedy of the commons exists? The privatization of the commons seems to me the much greater tragedy, leading to large-scale exploitation and irresponsible environmental degradation. From what I see, distributed networks of human-scale communities tend to manage shared resources in a sustainable way; to fuck things up on a grand scale, you need centralized power and a managerial distance from consequences.

mistersquid 4y ago

Along with a sibling, I agree that the concept of "Tragedy of the Commons" can be useful while its original author is a deeply flawed human being whose other arguments and extrapolations are insupportable and morally reprehensible. Still, I'm grateful for your linking to this excellent critique of the source article which, among other things, provides a handy label for an ethically and morally dubious extrapolation the critique labels "lifeboat ethics" which I often seen deployed by the wealthy against the impoverished. > an idea [Hardin] called “lifeboat ethics” [0]: since global resources are finite, Hardin believed the rich should throw poor people overboard to keep their boat above water. [1] [0] https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Hardin.pdf https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Hardin.pdf (link in OP) [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-t... (OP)