3 ms·

It's not the "tragedy of the commons," it's capitalism. They're opposite things. The "commons" were fenced in and taken from the public by private entities. In

It's not the "tragedy of the commons," it's capitalism. They're opposite things. The "commons" were fenced in and taken from the public by private entities. In the same spirit, a healthy environment and stable climate system are being taken from all of us by private corporations. I would argue, in fact, that if the public had control over these resources, we would govern ourselves in a far different manner that would not lead towards such a bleak future simply because we are motivated by short-term profits. Elinor Ostrom has written an excellent book called "Governing the Commons," and she was awarded a Nobel Prize in Economics for her work. I recommend it.

Aunche 3y ago
Ah yes. The famous capitalists who caused famine in Easter Island and told Chinese people to decimate the forests of China to fuel the smelting of small quantities of pig-iron. Ostrom didn't debunk the tragedy of the commons. She merely suggests a framework that would avoid it, which has never been tested at the scale of 7 billion people trying to solve global warming.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  The history of Easter Island is debateable: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-easter-islands-historic-collapse/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-easter... And yeah, sure I'm not here to defend Mao's policies. But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up? What's your vision of a better society?
  - Aunche 3y ago
    > The history of Easter Island is debateable That doesn't really change that there used to be a lot of forest and larger animals that could have supported a more fulfilling diet that were extinct by the time the Europeans arrived. If society as we know it collapses due to climate change, the people who do survive would also "practice resiliency, cooperation, and perhaps even a degree of environmental stewardship." > But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources Mao didn't exactly have the resources to enforce a 1984 style or even North Korean style authoritarianism. The authoritarianism was very much enforced by a collective of people. People genuinely wanted to support Mao, which is why they hid how terrible his policies were from him and continued their support for him afterwards. > What's your vision of a better society? I think overly reductionist ideas like "capitalism bad" and "Mao authoritarian" end up causing problems like the Great Leap Forward did. Any solution to any societal problem requires a deep understanding across multiple domains, which to be fair is what Ostrom suggests. To be clear, I don't think that it's really anyone's fault, but rather most people don't actually care about the issues to put the work into studying or taking action to them in any meaningful capacity.
corethree 3y ago
Corporations don't make money unless the people purchase their products. In fact who is actually causing emissions? They sell products and it's the end users who burn the product. Every gallon of oil you use is equivalent to a democratic vote for oil ... we all can choose to vote in the other direction right now... but we don't.
- UtopiaPunk 3y ago
  I mean, I do, but that doesn't actually matter. I ride my bicycle and take the bus, but there are places I can't visit on a bike or a bus because, through a series of intentional policy decisions that primarily benefit capitalists, towns are designed with long stretches of road that accomodate cars over all other forms of transportation. Car manufacturers and oil companies have made a lot of money off of arranging society this way. Not Just Bikes has a good video on the propaganda car companies were pushing in the 50s here, which played a large part in creating the unprecented design of suburban America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&t=1060s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&t=1060s

Aunche 3y ago

Ah yes. The famous capitalists who caused famine in Easter Island and told Chinese people to decimate the forests of China to fuel the smelting of small quantities of pig-iron. Ostrom didn't debunk the tragedy of the commons. She merely suggests a framework that would avoid it, which has never been tested at the scale of 7 billion people trying to solve global warming.

UtopiaPunk 3y ago
The history of Easter Island is debateable: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-easter-islands-historic-collapse/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rethinking-easter... And yeah, sure I'm not here to defend Mao's policies. But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources, so I'm not sure why you're even bringing it up? What's your vision of a better society?
- Aunche 3y ago
  > The history of Easter Island is debateable That doesn't really change that there used to be a lot of forest and larger animals that could have supported a more fulfilling diet that were extinct by the time the Europeans arrived. If society as we know it collapses due to climate change, the people who do survive would also "practice resiliency, cooperation, and perhaps even a degree of environmental stewardship." > But an authoritarian state is not at all related to a collective of people managing resources Mao didn't exactly have the resources to enforce a 1984 style or even North Korean style authoritarianism. The authoritarianism was very much enforced by a collective of people. People genuinely wanted to support Mao, which is why they hid how terrible his policies were from him and continued their support for him afterwards. > What's your vision of a better society? I think overly reductionist ideas like "capitalism bad" and "Mao authoritarian" end up causing problems like the Great Leap Forward did. Any solution to any societal problem requires a deep understanding across multiple domains, which to be fair is what Ostrom suggests. To be clear, I don't think that it's really anyone's fault, but rather most people don't actually care about the issues to put the work into studying or taking action to them in any meaningful capacity.

corethree 3y ago

Corporations don't make money unless the people purchase their products. In fact who is actually causing emissions? They sell products and it's the end users who burn the product. Every gallon of oil you use is equivalent to a democratic vote for oil ... we all can choose to vote in the other direction right now... but we don't.

UtopiaPunk 3y ago
I mean, I do, but that doesn't actually matter. I ride my bicycle and take the bus, but there are places I can't visit on a bike or a bus because, through a series of intentional policy decisions that primarily benefit capitalists, towns are designed with long stretches of road that accomodate cars over all other forms of transportation. Car manufacturers and oil companies have made a lot of money off of arranging society this way. Not Just Bikes has a good video on the propaganda car companies were pushing in the 50s here, which played a large part in creating the unprecented design of suburban America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&t=1060s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n94-_yE4IeU&t=1060s